At some point I really thought about it and realized there’s no evidence for a god or gods.
August Pamplona
United States
Summary: No evidence for God or gods.
A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy.
***
If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value?
***
If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic?
***
Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Probably the best reason to be an atheist.
ReplyDeleteshort and sweet, no reasoning, an atheist favorite..........
ReplyDeleteAnd no evidence of having "sat down and really thought about it."
ReplyDeleteYes. One reason: one Category Error.
ReplyDeleteDeists believe this is a category mistake. Theists believe God can affect the natural world. Neither have shown there is anything other than the natural world.
ReplyDeleteI've never, ever, understood this argument. It comes off as extremely juvenile (don't mean that in a hateful way), as if it were true, atheists wouldn't be spilling mountains of ink and electrodes arguing against theists assertions.
ReplyDeleteObviously, evidence exists, both for and against OJ Simpson's guilt or innocence. How it is interpreted and evaluated by both the prosecution and defense, is what it comes down to.
Morgan, you seem to be saying "They are protesting so strongly that we are wrong, so we must be right." I'm sure Stan can point out the formal name for this fallacy.
ReplyDeleteIf you have evidence for the existence of a god, I'd love to be convinced.
Do we agree that if there is no evidence something exist, it is more reasonable to presume that something does not exist?
Because that's what the argument is. No evidence, no reason to believe.
Theists use their faith to justify their behaviour. Much of this behaviour negatively impacts upon others in society. This is why mountains of ink is spilled.
Jotunn,
ReplyDelete”Do we agree that if there is no evidence something exist, it is more reasonable to presume that something does not exist?
Because that's what the argument is. No evidence, no reason to believe.
Let’s fill in the missing words:
1. Do we agree that if there is no [material] evidence something exist(s) [materially], it is more reasonable to presume that something does not exist [materially].
2. No [material] evidence, no reason to believe it exists [materially].
Sure, I can agree to that. But there is no proposition being made which claims that the non-material exists materially (unless it chooses to).
Your presuppositions for existence and evidence to be purely material need to be explicitly specified so that they can be factored into the argument properly.
If that doesn't reflect your intentions for the argument, then go ahead and rewrite it.
No, that is the correct interpretation.
ReplyDeleteIt is my opinion that if something does not exist materially, it does not exist. Please do not confuse this with ideas or concepts. Math, logic, etc exist as concepts. So do(es) god(s).
But there is no proposition being made which claims that the non-material exists materially (unless it chooses to).
Okay, YOU might not be making that proposition, but please recognize you differ dramatically from the vast majority of theists. It is a very common theistic belief that god interacts constantly with the material. Indeed, under Aquainas, god is the supporting essence of existence itself, the very foundation of being. And thus very much interacts with the material. Albeit in a way that is indistinguishable from natural processes...
I'm sorry, but on some level this sounds very silly to me. There is no material evidence for the existence of fae creatures who dwell beyond the umbral veil separating the realms of mortals from the realms of magic. (Unless they choose to interact of course.)
Do we then logically conclude that these fae creatures exist? That they kick started our universe and occasionally drop in to steal laundry socks and hide our keys?
Jotunn said,
ReplyDeleteIt is my opinion that if something does not exist materially, it does not exist.”
Upon what evidence do you base your opinion?
” Please do not confuse this with ideas or concepts. Math, logic, etc exist as concepts. So do(es) god(s).
Are you implying that math, logic, etc are not material? What then, are concepts composed of?
”But there is no proposition being made which claims that the non-material exists materially (unless it chooses to).
Okay, YOU might not be making that proposition, but please recognize you differ dramatically from the vast majority of theists. It is a very common theistic belief that god interacts constantly with the material. Indeed, under Aquainas, god is the supporting essence of existence itself, the very foundation of being. And thus very much interacts with the material. Albeit in a way that is indistinguishable from natural processes... “
Ecclesiastic opinion is not the same as basic deduction of elementary Theism.
”I'm sorry, but on some level this sounds very silly to me. There is no material evidence for the existence of fae creatures who dwell beyond the umbral veil separating the realms of mortals from the realms of magic. (Unless they choose to interact of course.)”
And there is no deduction from material existence which posits fae creatures. But there is a logical posit for a non-physical agent with the ability to create a material universe. So the analogy doesn’t apply for logical reasons.
”Do we then logically conclude that these fae creatures exist? That they kick started our universe and occasionally drop in to steal laundry socks and hide our keys?”
Again, constructing a fantasy to knock down does not prove that another hypothesis is false. To prove an hypothesis false, the actual hypothesis must be dealt with directly.
Upon what evidence do you base your opinion?
ReplyDeleteNothing which is not material has been shown to exist. Shall I list all the immaterial things I don't believe in? The list is literally infinite.
Are you implying that math, logic, etc are not material? What then, are concepts composed of?
A concept is organized thought. A thought is the result of organized matter.
Ecclesiastic opinion is not the same as basic deduction of elementary Theism.
Again, please recognize that you just waved away every religion in the world.
And there is no deduction from material existence which posits fae creatures.
Then where did my socks go? I have posited this deduction from the material evidence. So the analogy is completely relevant. If you are going to prove it false, you must deal with it directly. Not wave it away as a "fantasy".
Jotunn said,
ReplyDelete”Nothing which is not material has been shown to exist.”
But statement needs completion: you must surely mean that
“Nothing which is not material has been shown to exist… materially”.
The reasoning is prejudiced by the presupposition of Philosophical Materialism. This is demonstrated here:
No [non-material existence] has been found in [material existence].
Clearly a Category Error. But one which few, if any, AtheoMaterialists choose to lose. Or even acknowledge.
”A thought is the result of organized matter.”
Why do you believe this? Why should matter organize itself in order to produce “thought”? What principles of physics or chemistry are in play?
” ‘Ecclesiastic opinion is not the same as basic deduction of elementary Theism.’
Again, please recognize that you just waved away every religion in the world.”
To the contrary, the principles given here underlie most if not all Theistic propositions: they are the necessary and sufficient principles regarding the existence of a deity. Religions are human organizations which interpret and add to those principles, and those principles become buried axioms within those organizations. There is no rational reason to accept human ecclesiasticism without first analyzing it for coherence and assessing probability; the two basic Theist propositions have the same restrictions.
” ‘And there is no deduction from material existence which posits fae creatures.’
Then where did my socks go? I have posited this deduction from the material evidence. So the analogy is completely relevant. If you are going to prove it false, you must deal with it directly. Not wave it away as a "fantasy".
Let’s compare propostions:
Proposition A:
IF [socks disappear], THEN [a non-material agent called fae caused them to disappear];
Observations:
1. “No cause” is not presumed to be an option.
2. Disappearance does not necessarily require external interference, either logically or physically.
3. The cause is not necessarily either material or non-material.
Conclusion: The deduction of fae agents is not shown logically or physically necessary for the truth of the premise. The probability, p = 0. Therefore it is non sequitur.
Proposition B:
If [a material universe was brought into existence], THEN [it had a non-material cause with agency and ability to do that].
Observations:
1. “No cause” is not presumed to be an option.
2. Any cause necessarily preceded material existence, hence it would necessarily be non-material.
3. The predicate, “…was brought into existence”, is an action necessarily requiring ability.
4. The existence of agency in the creation suggests the necessity for agency in the cause.
Conclusion: The three characteristics of a proposed cause are shown necessary for the truth of the premise, with probability, p > 0.
“Nothing which is not material has been shown to exist… materially”.
ReplyDeleteThat's not necessarily true. You pointed to concepts as examples of the immaterial, and I can point to tangible, material examples of mathematics and logic. You cannot do the same for your deity. So I reject your excuse of Category Error as a case of Special Pleading.
”A thought is the result of organized matter.”
Why do you believe this?
Neurobiology, physics, chemistry. Ask a specialist in that field if you want a detailed answer.
To the contrary, the principles given here underlie most if not all Theistic propositions
They might actually start with a similar basic assumption, but then immediately cloak that assumption in ecclesiasticism.
There is no rational reason to accept human ecclesiasticism without first analyzing it for coherence and assessing probability
Riight. Which the WIAAA stories have done, and found it improbable and incoherent. And thus rejected what you describe as ecclesiasticism/religion. In most circles, this makes you an atheist.
I maintain they are valid in their reasoning as your proposition of "basic theism" seems practically equivalent to no theism. Perhaps deism.
So again, all we seem left with is this vague notion of a First Cause. Who may or may not choose to interact. And such interactions may or may not be indistinguishable from natural processes. Sorry to say but such a proposition seems with merit in that it explains nothing.
Proposition A:
ReplyDeleteIF [socks disappear], THEN [a non-material agent called fae caused them to disappear];
Observations:
1. “No cause” is not presumed to be an option.
2. Disappearance does not necessarily require external interference, either logically or physically.
3. The cause is not necessarily either material or non-material.
Conclusion: The deduction of fae agents is not shown logically or physically necessary for the truth of the premise. The probability, p = 0. Therefore it is non sequitur.
1. Accepted.
2. Rejected. How could something be there, and then not, without interference. If creation requires interference, disappearance surely does.
3. Because the socks have "disappeared" (ceased to be material), the cause must be immaterial by necessity.
4. Because the act of disappearance requires agency, the immaterial cause must be intelligent.
Conclusion. Fae agency is logically a probable (p>0) cause of socks vanishing from existence.
This is fun!
Proposition B:
If [a material universe was brought into existence], THEN [it had a non-material cause with agency and ability to do that].
Observations:
1. “No cause” is not presumed to be an option.
2. Any cause necessarily preceded material existence, hence it would necessarily be non-material.
3. The predicate, “…was brought into existence”, is an action necessarily requiring ability.
4. The existence of agency in the creation suggests the necessity for agency in the cause.
Conclusion: The three characteristics of a proposed cause are shown necessary for the truth of the premise, with probability, p > 0.
1. Agreed.
2. Questionable. The cause could occur simultaneous with the result. Since we are discussing the originating cause to everything, the question must be raised as to what caused the first cause. A very shakey premise at the least.
3. Rejected. Ability presupposes agency which has not been established.
4. Rejected. No established logical link between existing agency requiring preexisting agency.
Conclusion: Premise 2 is highly disputable. Premise 3 presupposes agency. Premise 4 fails to logically establish agency. Also, P > 0 is not a tremendous endorsement. 0 is a REALLY low number.