Ever felt insignificant?

[MrGongGong]

I find that position the most extraordinary of all... taking an 'apathetic' stance as whether there is a Deity or not? Surely that is the very antithesis of the normal human urge to learn and explore all possibilities as to the meaning (if any) of life and the universe ?

So (i'm assuming you have "normal human urges" sssssh at the back mr 51)
ALL possibilities need to be explored ........................................

[scottycelt]

I write, therefore I don't exist. (Des Carts)

We know you write, but at least you don't have to prove to us you don't exist, S_A ...

[Pabmusic]

...Nobody knows for sure yet whether or not there is any form of life on Mars (at least on this matter we do have an excellent chance of eventually finding out!).

Some may claim there definitely is, so the sceptic (quite naturally) will seek some convincing evidence for the claim.

Others may assert exactly the opposite, that they think there is definitely no form of life on Mars even though nobody yet really knows for sure.

So we just accept the second at face-value without requesting any evidence or proof, and, even if the claimant is (quite naturally) asked by the unconvinced to provide some evidence or proof in turn, he/she reverts to prattling on about irrelevancies like teapots and green-eyed spaghetti monsters?

That doesn't seem to me a particularly logical or scientific approach regarding the burden of evidence/proof on any claim of certainty whether it be of a positive or negative nature ?

Let's have another crack at this. I'm starting with your comment that it doesn't seem 'logical' not to prove a negative claim. Here is the position in Logic:

The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists, rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a logical fallacy to claim that X exists unless you can prove that there is no X - in other words, to accept X's existence as the default position until it is disproved - since disproof of the one is not proof of the other.

But why should the burden be on the person who makes the positive claim? Experience tells us that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true. It is not a good idea to proceed upon false beliefs, and most people will want some evidence and reasoning to support any claim being asserted to be true. So the burden is on those who make claims of X's existence to offer sufficient reason and evidence in support of those claims.

But someone making a claim of non-existence cannot ever logically prove it. To know that X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things, and to attain this level of knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the universe. Therefore, to establish the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities - omniscience and omniprescence - that don't exist in our human experience.

That's logic. As far as science goes, it has always been the case that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, and science works on that basis - the bleach will kill only 99% of household germs not because it won't kill 100%, but because it can't be proved that there will never be a single germ left. You can do that sort of thing only in mathematics (though not with proof of germs).

There we are. And I didn't mention a deity once. ...?... Doh!...

[scottycelt]

Let's have another crack at this. I'm starting with your comment that it doesn't seem 'logical' not to prove a negative claim. Here is the position in Logic:

The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists, rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a logical fallacy to claim that X exists unless you can prove that there is no X - in other words, to accept X's existence as the default position until it is disproved - since disproof of the one is not proof of the other.

But why should the burden be on the person who makes the positive claim? Experience tells us that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true. It is not a good idea to proceed upon false beliefs, and most people will want some evidence and reasoning to support any claim being asserted to be true. So the burden is on those who make claims of X's existence to offer sufficient reason and evidence in support of those claims.

But someone making a claim of non-existence cannot ever logically prove it. To know that X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things, and to attain this level of knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the universe. Therefore, to establish the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities - omniscience and omniprescence - that don't exist in our human experience.

That's logic. As far as science goes, it has always been the case that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, and science works on that basis - the bleach will kill only 99% of household germs not because it won't kill 100%, but because it can't be proved that there will never be a single germ left. You can do that sort of thing only in mathematics (though not with proof of germs).

There we are. And I didn't mention a deity once. ...?... Doh!...

If you had grasped the point in the first place you wouldn't need to do all this cracking-up!

We start from different understandings and meaning of the word 'belief' and unless one of us changes tack on the meaning of the word we are never going to agree!

You and others contend that to say something does not exist is a 'non-belief'. I and others consider it is a 'belief' like any other. Even amsey's Apatheists seem to go along with the second definition.

Now, of course we can't all spend and waste our time trying to prove the non-existence of unicorns or whatever, so we must start from the position of having some evidence of the possibility/probability for any existence. I am unaware of any philosopher or scientist who has contended there is evidence enough for the existence of unicorns and spaghetti monsters ... that is simply defensive nonsense. The link to the debate that Pionarak provided contained that very point. If we accept there is significant evidence for any existence we don't then conclude that there can't be any existence because we are unable to 'prove' it. On the subject of God, there are/were many scientists and philosophers who are Believers purely on the grounds of what they consider rational thought and ultimate conclusion. Atheists of course disagree with these conclusions, and they always loudly claim to be the 'rationalists'.

We now return to the word 'belief'. To say dogmatically that something does not exist beyond any doubt is not a 'non-belief' it's a 100% belief! If there is no doubt involved (such as .. 'there is definitely no form of life on Mars') then it's surely incumbent on the claimant to demonstrate why that is the case and not just smile smugly at others and say he is not required to provide any evidence or proof for his dogmatism. In the same way, of course, those who state with certainty that there must be life on Mars would be subject to a similar 'burden of proof'.

I can't see why this is so difficult to understand. To say one is not convinced of the existence of God is fair enough and does not require any further evidence or proof. As far as i can see, no one is arguing that they must provide any. The non-believer has weighed up the evidence and come to that conclusion. However, to claim that the non-existence is definite and absolutely certain is quite another matter!

Until you accept that the latter dogmatism must be subject to exactly the same scrutiny and 'burden of proof' as any other we shall never get anywhere, and you'll only crack-up even more, as I certainly ain't movin' on this central point.

[amateur51]

I confess I had to check that one out in Wiki, amsey ...

I find that position the most extraordinary of all... taking an 'apathetic' stance as whether there is a Deity or not? Surely that is the very antithesis of the normal human urge to learn and explore all possibilities as to the meaning (if any) of life and the universe ?

I was puzzled and perplexed and ultimately unconvinced by my first encounters with 'Heaven' and 'God' and the 'Devil' and 'Hell' aged about four and I have barely given them a second thought in terms of any sort of reality. It's a story and that's all.

Just as when my mother told me that thunder was just 'God re-arranging his furniture'

Charles Darwin and all the cosmologists do for me very nicely thanks

[Pabmusic]

If you had grasped the point in the first place you wouldn't need to do all this cracking-up!

We start from different understandings and meaning of the word 'belief' and unless one of us changes tack on the meaning of the word we are never going to agree!...

Don't worry - I cracked up years ago!

I actually agree with you - to say dogmatically that there is no life on Mars is a matter of belief, because it cannot ever be proved (that was what my last post was about). The opposite can be proved, of course - 'there is life on Mars' - so the requirement of proof goes just one way. The burden of proof is upon the person asserting existence. Non-existence cannot be proved.

Having said that, I know of no atheists who dogmatically deny the existence of gods (that is to say that they assert it just as a matter of principle). They almost always acknowledge that they can't prove gods don't exist; they just see no evidence for it (actually, they say rather more than that, such as the 'evidence' usually trotted out isn't evidence anyway - but that's the gist). That's why there are so many quotes concerning teapots, leprechauns, tooth fairies and the like. When I posted the 7-point scale in no. 38, I said it wasn't easy to find examples of 7 ('Certain in a dogmatic way about the non-existence of a god'). It really isn't. Non-belief is not usually a matter of dogma, but rather of simple lack of belief. At the other end of the scale, there really are people who claim to 'know' the existence of supernatural things. Some of them fly planes into skyscrapers, bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors because they 'know' they will be rewarded in the afterlife.

I suppose there might be dogmatic atheists (Bhuddists? Some Unitarians?) but they're certainly not known to me.

[scottycelt]

Don't worry - I cracked up years ago!

I actually agree with you - to say dogmatically that there is no life on Mars is a matter of belief, because it cannot ever be proved (that was what my last post was about). The opposite can be proved, of course - 'there is life on Mars' - so the requirement of proof goes just one way. The burden of proof is upon the person asserting existence. Non-existence cannot be proved.

Having said that, I know of no atheists who dogmatically deny the existence of gods (that is to say that they assert it just as a matter of principle). They almost always acknowledge that they can't prove gods don't exist; they just see no evidence for it (actually, they say rather more than that, such as the 'evidence' usually trotted out isn't evidence anyway - but that's the gist). That's why there are so many quotes concerning teapots, leprechauns, tooth fairies and the like. When I posted the 7-point scale in no. 38, I said it wasn't easy to find examples of 7 ('Certain in a dogmatic way about the non-existence of a god'). It really isn't. Non-belief is not usually a matter of dogma, but rather of simple lack of belief. At the other end of the scale, there really are people who claim to 'know' the existence of supernatural things. Some of them fly planes into skyscrapers, bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors because they 'know' they will be rewarded in the afterlife.

I suppose there might be dogmatic atheists (Bhuddists? Some Unitarians?) but they're certainly not known to me.

Oh come on, Pab, this forum sometimes appears jam-packed to overflowing with 'dogmatic atheists' ...

Of course you get a small minority of murdering religious extremists just like you get a small minority of murdering atheist extremists. Let's just leave it at that before the real issue gets sidetracked. It is a quite separate matter from whether God actually exists or not!

You are correct when you say that 'non-belief' is not a matter of dogma, but only when it applies to the agnostic in this case. That is true 'non-belief' ... he/she doesn't 'believe' one way or the other. That's fine, no problem with that whatsoever!

The true atheist, however, certainly does take a 'belief' stance by stating his/her belief that there is no God, just like the religious counterpart who claims the opposite. If there is no chance and even expectation of proving a claim what on earth is it value to general human learning and progress by making the worthless and wholly unsubstantiated claim in the first place?

Your argument seems to be that true atheists are a bit thin on the ground, and in reality hardly exist at all, and we are really talking about various degrees of agnosticism.

If that is the case I'm delighted to record we are now in a previously unlikely agreement over any 'burden of proof', but anyone who says that 'God does not exist' is most definitely an atheist, and not an agnostic, and in a quite different category regarding evidence and proof, imv.

That has always been and continues to be my sole point.

[Pabmusic]

...If there is no chance and even expectation of proving a claim what on earth is it value to general human learning and progress by making the worthless and wholly unsubstantiated claim in the first place?

Your argument seems to be that true atheists are a bit thin on the ground, and in reality hardly exist at all, and we are really talking about various degrees of agnosticism...

[I agree that we shouldn't go too far down the road of 'murdering zealots', so I'll say just that, no doubt there are atheist murderers. But I very much doubt that any of them do it out of 'dogmatic atheist beliefs'. That is, very sadly, not true of religious zealots.]

Your first point seems to be that there's no point in denying the existence of gods, because no one can prove they don't exist. Mine is to agree that I can't prove they don't exist, but that there is no evidence (testable, verifiable evidence) that they do, as well as much to suggest they do not. The fact that I can't disprove the existence of unicorns does not mean that there is an even chance that they do exist, let alone a likelihood. It is so unlikely that unicorns exist that I am quite safe in saying I don't believe in them. However, I will be delighted if one is ever found - it will be a wonderful thing - but I don't believe it will happen.

This really answers the other point, too, about different degrees of agnosticism. I know some people prefer the word 'agnostic' to 'atheist', but at the far end of the scale there's not much difference. You can't prove unicorns don't exist, but it's so very unlikely indeed that you could call yourself 'a-unicornist' rather than agnostic towards unicorns without too much criticism.

[Dave2002]

1. We still don't know whether there are any orbiting teapots.
2. There may have been orbiting teapots, but they no longer exist.
3. There may be orbiting teapots in the future.
4. The act of looking for orbiting teapots may cause them to disappear

1-3 suggest we might not be able to use non temporal logics in discussion.

4. hints at Heisenberg.

Then we also have these, about language, Kings of France, and Unicorns -

http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/analytic/russellstrawson.html

http://spruce.flint.umich.edu/~simoncu/325/strawson.pdf

[scottycelt]

[I agree that we shouldn't go too far down the road of 'murdering zealots', so I'll say just that, no doubt there are atheist murderers. But I very much doubt that any of them do it out of 'dogmatic atheist beliefs'. That is, very sadly, not true of religious zealots.]

Your first point seems to be that there's no point in denying the existence of gods, because no one can prove they don't exist. Mine is to agree that I can't prove they don't exist, but that there is no evidence (testable, verifiable evidence) that they do, as well as much to suggest they do not. The fact that I can't disprove the existence of unicorns does not mean that there is an even chance that they do exist, let alone a likelihood. It is so unlikely that unicorns exist that I am quite safe in saying I don't believe in them. However, I will be delighted if one is ever found - it will be a wonderful thing - but I don't believe it will happen.

This really answers the other point, too, about different degrees of agnosticism. I know some people prefer the word 'agnostic' to 'atheist', but at the far end of the scale there's not much difference. You can't prove unicorns don't exist, but it's so very unlikely indeed that you could call yourself 'a-unicornist' rather than agnostic towards unicorns without too much criticism.

Sadly, we now appear to be back to discussing unicorns ...

The difference is about likelihood and relevance. There is an order in the universe so that suggests the possible (even likelihood to many) of an original 'intelligent' cause or Creator. There is nothing to suggest the likelihood and relevance or also any evidence for unicorns (and flying teapots and green-eyed spaghetti monsters) and if atheists keep going on about such absurdities in a blatant attempt to avoid the issue, one is sorely tempted to fear they may well end up believing in these peculiar fantasies themselves.

As Chesterton neatly put it ... 'When a man ceases to believe in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he ends up believing in anything ... '

A bit harsh, maybe, but with more than just a grain of truth ... ?

[MrGongGong]

There is an order in the universe so that suggests the possible (even likelihood to many) of an original 'intelligent' cause or Creator.

errr no there isn't
Humans see patterns where none exist
and for the second time today


Cage was right ..............

Music of Changes is an incredibly beautiful work

[Dave2002]

Sadly, we now appear to be back to discussing unicorns ...


As Chesterton neatly put it ... 'When a man ceases to believe in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he ends up believing in anything ... '

A bit harsh, maybe, but with more than just a grain of truth ... ?

Just because Chesterton said/wrote it doesn't make it true.

[vinteuil]

If you believe in god / believe that god exists - such a belief is important to you, and there flows from this a tendency to need to see matters in terms of such belief, and hence to classify people as believers / theists / deists / agnostics / atheists etc.

However - if you don't happen to have any such belief, all of this is quite irrelevant, and there is a natural disinclination to accept the labels - 'deist', 'agnostic', 'atheist' - that the believer wishes to impose upon one.

For someone who has no particular belief in god, the lack of such belief is EXACTLY THE SAME as the lack of any belief in orbiting teapots or spaghetti monsters. The question simply doesn't arise.

It is as relevant for scottycelt to wish to demonstrate that those who 'have no belief' in a god are really only 'agnostics' (because they cannot 'prove' the non-existence of a non-existent thing) as it is for me to demand clarification of scottycelt's belief or otherwise in orbiting teapots and spaghetti monsters. From scottycelt's previous postings I have to assume he is an agnostic as to the existence of orbiting teapots and spaghetti monsters.

[Simon]

I was puzzled and perplexed and ultimately unconvinced by my first encounters with 'Heaven' and 'God' and the 'Devil' and 'Hell' aged about four and I have barely given them a second thought...

We can tell that, from the Reception level "arguments" that we get from you!

[vinteuil]

As Chesterton neatly put it ... 'When a man ceases to believe in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he ends up believing in anything ... '

I don't think anyone has yet traced this banality back to GK Chesterton.