Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Glowcat]

How is not believing something "making a claim"? You're either a theist or an atheist, there is no position in the middle. You either believe a claim or you don't.

There are two possibilities you currently see: "There is no god" and "There is a god". Both of them are claims. The middle position you seek is "I am uncertain about the existance of gods." Which is not a claim, but a lack of one. In my case it acts as the negative claim for practical purposes, simply for being, more practical as far as I understand.

This bolded part does not quite accurately represent the various possibilities related to the question of divine existence and errs a bit in its classification of the commitment behind certain middle positions. There is often a claim that Atheists* make. The claim most Atheists make is that Theists have not demonstrated the existence of something which meets the common definitions of a deity. While there is an element of uncertainty within that, it is inaccurate to cast the propositions of existence versus non-existence in a manner that suggests roughly equal probabilities. It is also a positive assertion which can be measured and judged (i.e. have theists provided evidence or not?). /nitpickery

* particularly those who self-identify as Atheists, but might more accurately be called Agnostic Atheists.

EDIT:

There is always the possibility of god messing with our perceptions to make us not believe in it. But that is kinda a problem with empirical science that cannot be fixed. Probabilities and stuff get weird when your perceptions might be greatly altered.

And that is why I am philosophically agnostic. For practical purposes we are already screwed if we were altered like that, so we gotta go with the axiom that our perceptions are correct.

This can also be gotten around by not making an absolute truth claim about everything. Rather, the only claim Empiricism needs to make is that from our perspective there to be a shared reality which we can observe and following its patterns has worked best for predicting its future. Whether this is the only reality thus becomes irrelevant, as it is the only one which can be shown to have an effect on us.

[Cthulhu]

Rant time! I'm on the offensive here, so feel free to stand up and defend yourself here if I'm attacking your position.



Burden of Proof


Many times I hear people saying "don't ask me to prove you wrong." Which is a fair thing to say... but it's not always in response to people actually asking to be proven wrong.

I'm agnostic. I make no claim. I put no weight behind any of my arguments; they're all idle musings, random hypotheses. The most you'll get out of me is gut feeling, and "this is how I'd like it to be." But if pressured, I will NOT put any real support behind any specific assertion.

More than once I've been responded to with people trying to shove burden of proof on me (not here, thankfully). Trying to get me to provide evidence when the very heart of my position is that there IS no evidence*. These people are silly, thinking they don't have to defend their arguments. Hypocrites doing exactly what they accuse others of doing: circular logic claiming self evidence.

So let's get something straight: Burden of proof lies on those making a claim. Those saying "this is how it is." It doesn't matter WHAT the claim is, just so long as the claim is presented as a statement of fact. Atheism, theism, anything about the nature of the afterlife or supernatural, all of it. If you make a claim about it, just as if you claim knowledge or fact about anything, then you provide evidence**. Not anyone else. I don't care if your position is under the label "true" or "false," "right" or "wrong." It is not self evident***.

I do not believe that "God" describes a thing that exists.  That is not making a positive claim.  That is the absence of a positive claim.  I agree that there is no evidence for or against God's existence, and given that, I assume the null hypothesis.

Count me down as another who doesn't like agnosticism when it comes to things like this.  For one, I have a hard time believing people who claim to not have an opinion here.  When you say "I put no weight behind my arguments, they're just idle musings and I won't support any assertions" I hear "I want to play poker with no chips on the table."  If you want to debate, own your arguments, don't JAQ off.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I would furthermore state that the prevalence of the idea that "Atheists and theists are both wrong because they think they know something, only agnostics aren't stepping over the line because we aren't claiming anything" is a variant on the golden mean fallacy.

[MrWiggles]

The default position, EG rejection, isn't an assertion.

[Glowcat]

The default position, EG rejection, isn't an assertion.

I'm not sure if I can get behind that if the rejecting party has encountered evidence. Otherwise how would one tackle questions where one side denies evidence without making the effort to prove the evidence is insufficient or the other person is drawing incorrect conclusions from the evidence? To reject and remain rational requires at least some effort on the part of the person rejecting existing evidence, and thus I believe it would be up to them to show why the evidence does not lead to the other person's conclusion.

[MrWiggles]

The default position, EG rejection, isn't an assertion.

I'm not sure if I can get behind that if the rejecting party has encountered evidence. Otherwise how would one tackle questions where one side denies evidence without making the effort to prove the evidence is insufficient or the other person is drawing incorrect conclusions from the evidence? To reject and remain rational requires at least some effort on the part of the person rejecting existing evidence, and thus I believe it would be up to them to show why the evidence does not lead to the other person's conclusion.

Denying evidence isn't taking the default position.
Default Position only comes into play when there is lack of evidence.

If any thiest has ever match their burden of proof then there wouldnt be multiple religions.

[penguinofhonor]

This is always my question to agnostics: why does god get a special evidence pedestal where you have to have disproving evidence to not believe it?

There's just as much evidence for or against fairies, magic, and all sorts of other things, but agnostics are never agnostic about those. Maybe the wizards are just really good at using their magic to hide from us. You never know!

I mean, I guess what kaijyuu is saying here

Invariably someone's going to counter this with a teapot. So I'll respond to it right now. There are some questions where the answer makes no practical difference. No matter your conclusion, your perception of the world is unchanged and you'll do nothing different. That's fine. However, while "may as well be false/true" is practically identical to "is false/true," it is not actually the same. It is a fallacy to jump from lack of knowledge -> knowledge. You can come to whatever conclusion you want, and thus claim belief, but you can never claim knowledge through this.

is that the existence of god is important enough to warrant the doubt? But I'd say the existence of magic would be pretty important too.

I'm pretty sure the importance of god's existence is purely the result of living in a religious society. If there were no religious people, someone going "hm, there might be a god" would seem pretty silly. But a lot of people view agnostics as atheists who aren't jerks, or stuff like that, so I can see the pressures of still wanting to leave the possibility. And then there's people who were raised religiously who don't want to give up religion, which (from what I've heard) seems understandable since a lot of people feel really sad when they stop believing.

I might be wrong, and I'll admit that personal philosophy is definitely more complicated than that, but I think it's still a significant part.

[Vattic]

penguinofhonor: I know a fair few people who believe in magic and fairies but I get your point.

[MrWiggles]

People believe in silly things all the time. Accuracy doesnt come with popularity.

[Prometheusmfd]

This is always my question to agnostics: why does god get a special evidence pedestal where you have to have disproving evidence to not believe it?

There's just as much evidence for or against fairies, magic, and all sorts of other things, but agnostics are never agnostic about those. Maybe the wizards are just really good at using their magic to hide from us. You never know!

I mean, I guess what kaijyuu is saying here

Invariably someone's going to counter this with a teapot. So I'll respond to it right now. There are some questions where the answer makes no practical difference. No matter your conclusion, your perception of the world is unchanged and you'll do nothing different. That's fine. However, while "may as well be false/true" is practically identical to "is false/true," it is not actually the same. It is a fallacy to jump from lack of knowledge -> knowledge. You can come to whatever conclusion you want, and thus claim belief, but you can never claim knowledge through this.

is that the existence of god is important enough to warrant the doubt? But I'd say the existence of magic would be pretty important too.

I'm pretty sure the importance of god's existence is purely the result of living in a religious society. If there were no religious people, someone going "hm, there might be a god" would seem pretty silly. But a lot of people view agnostics as atheists who aren't jerks, or stuff like that, so I can see the pressures of still wanting to leave the possibility. And then there's people who were raised religiously who don't want to give up religion, which (from what I've heard) seems understandable since a lot of people feel really sad when they stop believing.

I might be wrong, and I'll admit that personal philosophy is definitely more complicated than that, but I think it's still a significant part.

The problem I'm having with your argument is that your are comparing something that would very much be physical (as governed by rules defined in nature) to something metaphysical. You can't prove or disprove something that exists outside of the rules because you have nothing to compare it to. And, granted, our current understanding of physics could be completely wrong, but until something can come along and objectively disprove it, it's what we've got (much like disproving God).

[alway]

The problem I'm having with your argument is that your are comparing something that would very much be physical (as governed by rules defined in nature) to something metaphysical. You can't prove or disprove something that exists outside of the rules because you have nothing to compare it to. And, granted, our current understanding of physics could be completely wrong, but until something can come along and objectively disprove it, it's what we've got (much like disproving God).

For a deistic, non-intervention god, yes. But in which case it doesn't matter any more than if I were to claim The Great Old Ones live in a space-between-spaces, watching the universe with a  malevolent gaze. For an interventionist god, as is the case for most religions, the are usually empirical claims are made which are falsifiable. Faith-healing/prayer healing is one which comes to mind immediately. An empirical claim is made: praying for someone will help them get better. Studies/tests can then be done, and they have. And then these show the claims to be false.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

is it acurate to say that something exists if it exists so far outside *the rules* it becomes by definition unverifiable? if i claimed there is a set of particles or something that do not interact with anything in any way, even defying mathematics itself, could i still claim it to be within the scope of existence at all?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No. Not being able to interact with anything in any way is the property of a nonexistent object.

[Frumple]

What about something that's able, but factually does not interact with anything? Say some particle a sufficiently large distance outside the expanding edge of the universe moving away from it at the speed of light, or some silly shenanigan like that? It would be irrelevant, obviously, but would something that simply is incidentally outside the light cones of everything else, in perpetuity, be nonexistent?

There's actually a thought experiment re: free will regarding something like that, though I forget the exact set up and name. The thing with the possible -- yet not occurring -- intervention... does it still count as free will if, had you made a different decision, Interventionist X would have forced you to do otherwise? You never actually do anything to make Ix step in, etc. Sleepy and can't remember the whole thing. Has a name, involves remote controls or tv remotes or some such.

Parallel being, does it still count as non-existent if, were it somewhere else, it would interact?

[Prometheusmfd]

What about something that's able, but factually does not interact with anything? Say some particle a sufficiently large distance outside the expanding edge of the universe moving away from it at the speed of light, or some silly shenanigan like that? It would be irrelevant, obviously, but would something that simply is incidentally outside the light cones of everything else, in perpetuity, be nonexistent?

There's actually a thought experiment re: free will regarding something like that, though I forget the exact set up and name. The thing with the possible -- yet not occurring -- intervention... does it still count as free will if, had you made a different decision, Interventionist X would have forced you to do otherwise? You never actually do anything to make Ix step in, etc. Sleepy and can't remember the whole thing. Has a name, involves remote controls or tv remotes or some such.

Parallel being, does it still count as non-existent if, were it somewhere else, it would interact?

Except, according to our math that may or may not be correct, but for the sake of argument let's say it is, there is nothing at the edge of the universe because the edge of the universe is the edge of reality. The reason the universe expanding was such an amazing concept is that it's expanding into space that only exists once it's expanded into. Now, if we're going into parallel realities, those might not necessarily have the same rules that our universe abides by, and could in fact explain the existence of God, in that it provides a location in means.
Now, the free will and intervention thing ties into the Judeo-Christian idea (if not original, than popularized) of predestination. It extends from an omnipotent God (something that supposedly can't exist at the same time as free will, due to knowing what happens before it happens. Such an argument falls apart if you bring in different observations of the movement of time, which a being metaphysical could have.).