So it follows that A isn't the perpetrator of the crime so far as we know. This doesn't automatically make the B guilty. It makes the answer unknowable. There is no reason to believe that A is guilty, but also no reason to believe that B is guilty either. What I'm trying to show is that in these circumstances it doesn't mean, if A then B. I don't have an adequate justification to believe either scenario, so it's a lack of belief on a single claim(that A is guilty), not the opposite(B is guilty)
Good video, but I have a hypothetical analogy which might prove useful to explain the atheist perspective. There are really only two answers to the claim that God exists. he either does or he doesn't. Whether it is unknown at this time, it still amounts to these two answers. So, with that in mind, this is my analogy.
Say there is a murder, and it only could have been done by two suspects, A and B. The police claim that A did it, but haven't gathered evidence to support this.
“Interesting, so you would say that it is better to be wrong than to be right but unable to prove that you are right. What evidence can you offer?”, I would concur with his statement. Watch how scientific progress is made by using this simple method. (youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0)
Science is ever changing and ever progressing simple because it modestly works within the scope of human limitations. Religion is the arrogant, spoiled brat of understanding that already “knows” everything.
As far as proof goes, the only real poof that we can ever know for certain is that 2+2=4 and that a triangle has 3 sides (maths); everything else is reasoned using what limited resources we have at our disposal (a god antenna?? not sure). The common atheist does not believe that the current proposition for god is reasonable. Is that making a claim, well I would say more of a statement; a statement that says (semantics aside) “I accept my human limitations in the pursuit of greater knowledge” .
When all is said and done we still need to make that personal choice to accept a creator as our God. It's not a default position and the fact is only determined from the declaration by ones self. While I do believe in respect and admiration, I don't believe in worship in any form. I believe that our struggle for understanding is more noble and admirable than the products of an omnipotent force. Earth in one day, all the cosmos in a second day, seems like not much effort or care at all.
(3)”What could God do” If Jesus came back and began preaching the gospel complete with supernatural powers I could not deny you the truth claim that follows even if it's not to my personal taste. Even then we should be prepared to change our minds if we find we have been duped but I think a God on Earth in the 21st century passes the cut-off line for belief. As I said before I don't see the logic for unknown events to be attributed to a supernatural entity, a return would be a specific event.
(2)“...they tell me something slightly weird, I can file it away as Unknown.” After this encounter I ask the question, “did you believe what the man told you?” Your answer must be “no”, reason “insufficient data”. I could now reverse your proposal about atheists making a claim and say that by denying this man's claim you are making a statement about the real validity of the proposal. In actual fact your only claim is stating that your “fact determining” criteria has not been reached.
“The existence of matter/energy does not require an explanation?” Actually no, it doesn't but we sometimes impatiently, give it one. How many times in human history have we attributed an unexplainable event as having supernatural properties... and been wrong? Millions of times is the answer. Have we not learned our lesson by now? I don't even see the logic in going from “I don't know” to “God did it”. We should have some patience and wait for a real understanding.
(1)“So, if you think god doesn't exist a little bit, that would be a low grade belief”. As long as it has passed a reasonable standard for belief then I'm willing to accept it as true with the proviso that if new evidence comes in we must be willing to change our mind. We are working within the relatively narrow confines of human capability. I also think that a probability scale should have a cut-off line and not define everything as degrees of belief; that's counterproductive and non-committal.
You rightly say at the beginning that there are 3 positions: True, False or Unknown. I would like to argue that the 2 last ones are atheistic positions because they don’t believe that the claim is True.
Disbelief in a claim can either be: (Unknown) I neither believe that it’s true or false, I haven’t seen any evidence either way. Or: (False) I believe that the claim is false, I haven’t seen any evidence for your position and I even think that I have evidence Against your position.
@lilmarome The claim that an atheist would make is not so much that there is no god but that: "there are no evidence for a god, and why believe something that is not supported by evidence?" So I think that the discussion should be about what evidence theists think are valid and what evidence atheists, or even other theists (like for example Ken Miller), have against them.
@lilmarome - Good point, and I agree. But isn't the root idea that "We should only believe in things that have evidence" an unprovable (and false) assumption? For example, was the first century philosopher right to reject the Leucippus' atomistic model of the universe? There was no evidence to support it, and it wasn't quite right. But it was quite a lot closer to the truth than the elemental model of the universe.
@joshmeares If you don't have evidence for your beliefs than you are not justified in your belief. I someone had said that the earth is round when everyone else believed that it is flat and he didn't have anything to support his claim then he was not justified in his belief even if what he said was true. You need good reasons to believe what you believe or else it's dishonest.
@lilmarome - Interesting, so you would say that it is better to be wrong than to be right but unable to prove that you are right. What evidence can you offer? What is your rationale?
I think it is important to note that "evidence", "reasons", and "proof" are three very different things.
@joshmeares No... I wouldn't say that it's better to be wrong that to be right but unable to prove that you are right. You should not believe in any of the claims until there are evidence for one of the claims.
It's dishonest to claim that something is right when you don't have any reasons for believing that it is so, you can't demonstrate or give any reasons for your claim.
A reason for believing that the earth isn't flat would be that the flat earth theory gives faulty calculations.
@lilmarome - I guess it's time for me to concede this point. My argument was initially that "agnostic" is a remarkably useful word for differentiating between people who are in the Unknown category, while "atheist" refers to people with a belief that the claim is False. However, it's not practicable to argue word usage. If atheist is widely taken to mean False or Unknown, then that IS what it means. But I'll take a moment of silence to mourn the loss of precision in the English language :)
@joshmeares But agnostic doesn't say anything about your beliefs. you can be an agnostic theist, someone who believes in god but doesn't know if there really is one. So I think that it's very useless to only say "I'm agnostic", aren't we all agnostic?
(3)If we drop a weight and it falls to the ground (hear a knock) it would be illogical to believe that there is no cause. We can define the cause later but as a starting point we have to agree that there is a cause. I would like to know what is the “knock/fall” of god? What is happening that shows the intervention of a supernatural force on earth. Without a cause to believe we can only not believe.
@Bravowon - (3) Great point! I would say that the New Testament is full of both "knocks" and encouragements to seek out living eyewitnesses of those events. Now, to answer the question what is God doing today ... I pose another question: What could God do today that would be received as miraculous? It has to be done under laboratory conditions (i.e., predictable, repeatable, controllable). So, wouldn't whatever God did be seen as an unexplained natural phenomenon?
(2)Also, on “true, false or unknown”, does that equate to “belief, not belief and I don't know if I believe”.
If belief is subjective then how can you “not know” whether your standard of truth has been reached or not? Is there a tiny gap between conclusive and inconclusive? Is there not just belief and not belief?
@Bravowon - In reply to (2) - does T/F/U equate to ... ? I would rephrase the last one to "insufficient data".
"If belief is subjective, how can you not know" - Easy ... insufficient data. If I meet a stranger and they tell me something slightly weird, I can file it away as Unknown. Just because I don't know the guy doesn't mean he's lying, but since I don't know him, it's hard to believe him. But, I think "unknown" is a conscious imposition on a more basic trust/distrust matrix.
(1)Yes, logically something is either true, false or unknown. If something is unknown then does that mean you believe in it? Does that mean that you have a position on it being true or false? If you didn't hear a knock or there was no knock at the door, would it be logical to give the knock a cause?
What you call a knock (evidence for a god) we call no knock (no evidence of supernatural). Sure, if we heard a knock we would need to quantify it but so far we have not heard a peep.
@Bravowon - In reply to (1), if something is unknown, then it does not mean you believe in it. But something unknown has an equal probability of being true or false. So, if you think god doesn't exist a little bit, that would be a low grade belief.
"So far we have not heard a peep" - The existence of matter/energy does not require an explanation? Of course, we can all explain it different ways (eternal matter, Christian God, Greek pantheism, etc.). But it still requires explanation.
Hope that made sense, it does in my mind but maybe not on paper.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
So it follows that A isn't the perpetrator of the crime so far as we know. This doesn't automatically make the B guilty. It makes the answer unknowable. There is no reason to believe that A is guilty, but also no reason to believe that B is guilty either. What I'm trying to show is that in these circumstances it doesn't mean, if A then B. I don't have an adequate justification to believe either scenario, so it's a lack of belief on a single claim(that A is guilty), not the opposite(B is guilty)
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
Good video, but I have a hypothetical analogy which might prove useful to explain the atheist perspective. There are really only two answers to the claim that God exists. he either does or he doesn't. Whether it is unknown at this time, it still amounts to these two answers. So, with that in mind, this is my analogy.
Say there is a murder, and it only could have been done by two suspects, A and B. The police claim that A did it, but haven't gathered evidence to support this.
MrSchnuffs 11 months ago
“Interesting, so you would say that it is better to be wrong than to be right but unable to prove that you are right. What evidence can you offer?”, I would concur with his statement. Watch how scientific progress is made by using this simple method. (youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0)
Science is ever changing and ever progressing simple because it modestly works within the scope of human limitations. Religion is the arrogant, spoiled brat of understanding that already “knows” everything.
Bravowon 1 year ago
As far as proof goes, the only real poof that we can ever know for certain is that 2+2=4 and that a triangle has 3 sides (maths); everything else is reasoned using what limited resources we have at our disposal (a god antenna?? not sure). The common atheist does not believe that the current proposition for god is reasonable. Is that making a claim, well I would say more of a statement; a statement that says (semantics aside) “I accept my human limitations in the pursuit of greater knowledge” .
Bravowon 1 year ago
When all is said and done we still need to make that personal choice to accept a creator as our God. It's not a default position and the fact is only determined from the declaration by ones self. While I do believe in respect and admiration, I don't believe in worship in any form. I believe that our struggle for understanding is more noble and admirable than the products of an omnipotent force. Earth in one day, all the cosmos in a second day, seems like not much effort or care at all.
Bravowon 1 year ago
(3)”What could God do” If Jesus came back and began preaching the gospel complete with supernatural powers I could not deny you the truth claim that follows even if it's not to my personal taste. Even then we should be prepared to change our minds if we find we have been duped but I think a God on Earth in the 21st century passes the cut-off line for belief. As I said before I don't see the logic for unknown events to be attributed to a supernatural entity, a return would be a specific event.
Bravowon 1 year ago
(2)“...they tell me something slightly weird, I can file it away as Unknown.” After this encounter I ask the question, “did you believe what the man told you?” Your answer must be “no”, reason “insufficient data”. I could now reverse your proposal about atheists making a claim and say that by denying this man's claim you are making a statement about the real validity of the proposal. In actual fact your only claim is stating that your “fact determining” criteria has not been reached.
Bravowon 1 year ago
“The existence of matter/energy does not require an explanation?” Actually no, it doesn't but we sometimes impatiently, give it one. How many times in human history have we attributed an unexplainable event as having supernatural properties... and been wrong? Millions of times is the answer. Have we not learned our lesson by now? I don't even see the logic in going from “I don't know” to “God did it”. We should have some patience and wait for a real understanding.
Bravowon 1 year ago
(1)“So, if you think god doesn't exist a little bit, that would be a low grade belief”. As long as it has passed a reasonable standard for belief then I'm willing to accept it as true with the proviso that if new evidence comes in we must be willing to change our mind. We are working within the relatively narrow confines of human capability. I also think that a probability scale should have a cut-off line and not define everything as degrees of belief; that's counterproductive and non-committal.
Bravowon 1 year ago
You rightly say at the beginning that there are 3 positions: True, False or Unknown. I would like to argue that the 2 last ones are atheistic positions because they don’t believe that the claim is True.
Disbelief in a claim can either be: (Unknown) I neither believe that it’s true or false, I haven’t seen any evidence either way. Or: (False) I believe that the claim is false, I haven’t seen any evidence for your position and I even think that I have evidence Against your position.
lilmarome 1 year ago
@lilmarome The claim that an atheist would make is not so much that there is no god but that: "there are no evidence for a god, and why believe something that is not supported by evidence?" So I think that the discussion should be about what evidence theists think are valid and what evidence atheists, or even other theists (like for example Ken Miller), have against them.
lilmarome 1 year ago
@lilmarome - Good point, and I agree. But isn't the root idea that "We should only believe in things that have evidence" an unprovable (and false) assumption? For example, was the first century philosopher right to reject the Leucippus' atomistic model of the universe? There was no evidence to support it, and it wasn't quite right. But it was quite a lot closer to the truth than the elemental model of the universe.
joshmeares 1 year ago
@joshmeares If you don't have evidence for your beliefs than you are not justified in your belief. I someone had said that the earth is round when everyone else believed that it is flat and he didn't have anything to support his claim then he was not justified in his belief even if what he said was true. You need good reasons to believe what you believe or else it's dishonest.
lilmarome 1 year ago
@lilmarome - Interesting, so you would say that it is better to be wrong than to be right but unable to prove that you are right. What evidence can you offer? What is your rationale?
I think it is important to note that "evidence", "reasons", and "proof" are three very different things.
joshmeares 1 year ago
@joshmeares No... I wouldn't say that it's better to be wrong that to be right but unable to prove that you are right. You should not believe in any of the claims until there are evidence for one of the claims.
It's dishonest to claim that something is right when you don't have any reasons for believing that it is so, you can't demonstrate or give any reasons for your claim.
A reason for believing that the earth isn't flat would be that the flat earth theory gives faulty calculations.
lilmarome 1 year ago
@lilmarome - I guess it's time for me to concede this point. My argument was initially that "agnostic" is a remarkably useful word for differentiating between people who are in the Unknown category, while "atheist" refers to people with a belief that the claim is False. However, it's not practicable to argue word usage. If atheist is widely taken to mean False or Unknown, then that IS what it means. But I'll take a moment of silence to mourn the loss of precision in the English language :)
joshmeares 1 year ago
@joshmeares But agnostic doesn't say anything about your beliefs. you can be an agnostic theist, someone who believes in god but doesn't know if there really is one. So I think that it's very useless to only say "I'm agnostic", aren't we all agnostic?
lilmarome 1 year ago
All sides of the discussion need more people like you.
We all learn more when we're not throwing stones OR dodging stones being thrown :)
robtbo 1 year ago
@robtbo -Thanks :D
joshmeares 1 year ago
(3)If we drop a weight and it falls to the ground (hear a knock) it would be illogical to believe that there is no cause. We can define the cause later but as a starting point we have to agree that there is a cause. I would like to know what is the “knock/fall” of god? What is happening that shows the intervention of a supernatural force on earth. Without a cause to believe we can only not believe.
Bravowon 1 year ago
@Bravowon - (3) Great point! I would say that the New Testament is full of both "knocks" and encouragements to seek out living eyewitnesses of those events. Now, to answer the question what is God doing today ... I pose another question: What could God do today that would be received as miraculous? It has to be done under laboratory conditions (i.e., predictable, repeatable, controllable). So, wouldn't whatever God did be seen as an unexplained natural phenomenon?
joshmeares 1 year ago
(2)Also, on “true, false or unknown”, does that equate to “belief, not belief and I don't know if I believe”.
If belief is subjective then how can you “not know” whether your standard of truth has been reached or not? Is there a tiny gap between conclusive and inconclusive? Is there not just belief and not belief?
Bravowon 1 year ago
@Bravowon - In reply to (2) - does T/F/U equate to ... ? I would rephrase the last one to "insufficient data".
"If belief is subjective, how can you not know" - Easy ... insufficient data. If I meet a stranger and they tell me something slightly weird, I can file it away as Unknown. Just because I don't know the guy doesn't mean he's lying, but since I don't know him, it's hard to believe him. But, I think "unknown" is a conscious imposition on a more basic trust/distrust matrix.
joshmeares 1 year ago
(1)Yes, logically something is either true, false or unknown. If something is unknown then does that mean you believe in it? Does that mean that you have a position on it being true or false? If you didn't hear a knock or there was no knock at the door, would it be logical to give the knock a cause?
What you call a knock (evidence for a god) we call no knock (no evidence of supernatural). Sure, if we heard a knock we would need to quantify it but so far we have not heard a peep.
Bravowon 1 year ago
@Bravowon - In reply to (1), if something is unknown, then it does not mean you believe in it. But something unknown has an equal probability of being true or false. So, if you think god doesn't exist a little bit, that would be a low grade belief.
"So far we have not heard a peep" - The existence of matter/energy does not require an explanation? Of course, we can all explain it different ways (eternal matter, Christian God, Greek pantheism, etc.). But it still requires explanation.
joshmeares 1 year ago