The hiddenness of God

[jeremyp]

Because saying there is no such thing as God is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?

Because saying there is no such thing as God X is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God X definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?

You can substitute anything you like for X in that statement and it works just as well as putting "God" in. You have just argued that we must believe in anything we can imagine provided it in not logically inconsistent.

[torridon]

so you wouldn't consider eternity a good reason to investigate,...

how would you know it is not worth investigating, other than you just deciding it isn't?

Why not leave it to the cosmologists ?  That the cosmos was artificially 'created' by some being operating in some external domain of reality is a claim that comes within the purview of cosmology.  Cosmology brings a level of discipline to enquiry and their findings are more likely to be authoritative.  As amateurs, the likes of me and you, with no equipment and no training would more likely end up finding what we want to believe rather than any sort of objective truth.

[SteveH]

Because saying there is no such thing as God X is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God X definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?

You can substitute anything you like for X in that statement and it works just as well as putting "God" in. You have just argued that we must believe in anything we can imagine provided it in not logically inconsistent.

I think that what Maeght is saying is that the default position for anything is agnosticism. However, in many cases, non-belief is the obvious option in pracrice, eg with orbiting teapots. Russell once wrote that he was an agnostic in theory, but an atheist to all intents and purposes.

[Stranger]

Because saying there is no such thing as God is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?

You're still talking about 'God' as if it's a thing. "God exists" by itself and without further qualification, is a meaningless statement. In fact 'God' represents a whole host of loosely related and often mutually exclusive claims - none of which have (in my experience) any evidential or rational basis. I'm also not aware of anybody claiming that all of them definitely don't exist - just that that is the default starting assumption.

[Maeght]

Because saying there is no such thing as God X is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God X definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?

You can substitute anything you like for X in that statement and it works just as well as putting "God" in. You have just argued that we must believe in anything we can imagine provided it in not logically inconsistent.

I have not said we must believe in anything. No idea where uou got that from. What I am saying is that 'we don't know' is the default position.

[Maeght]

You're still talking about 'God' as if it's a thing. "God exists" by itself and without further qualification, is a meaningless statement. In fact 'God' represents a whole host of loosely related and often mutually exclusive claims - none of which have (in my experience) any evidential or rational basis. I'm also not aware of anybody claiming that all of them definitely don't exist - just that that is the default starting assumption.

I am responding to other people's comments anoutGod's existence. Ofcourse, in that situation, I am going to use the same word they have used.

[Maeght]

I think that what Maeght is saying is that the default position for anything is agnosticism. However, in many cases, non-belief is the obvious option in pracrice, eg with orbiting teapots. Russell once wrote that he was an agnostic in theory, but an atheist to all intents and purposes.

I'm saying the default position is that we don't know - not the same thing as agnosticism. Non belief is a default position too but thst is different to saying the default us that God doesn't exist.

[BeRational]

I'm saying the default position is that we don't know - not the same thing as agnosticism. Non belief is a default position too but thst is different to saying the default us that God doesn't exist.

I agree, we have no idea if a god or gods actually exist.

The default position is to not accept the claim that they do, and therefore not believe.

Not accepting (or believing) the claim, does not mean that you do believe the opposite is true.

I could use my blades of grass on my lawn analogy, but I am sure you get the point.

[ippy]

so you wouldn't consider eternity a good reason to investigate,...

how would you know it is not worth investigating, other than you just deciding it isn't?

I know of the concept of eternity why would I particularly want investigate it? It's not like I'm doing any research into the subject nor am I likely to do so but I'm sure there will be some that want to investigate this subject, although it sounds a bit of a dry one to me.

Regards ippy

[BeRational]

I think that what Maeght is saying is that the default position for anything is agnosticism. However, in many cases, non-belief is the obvious option in pracrice, eg with orbiting teapots. Russell once wrote that he was an agnostic in theory, but an atheist to all intents and purposes.

Atheism and agnosticism are different.

One is about believe, the other about knowledge.

They are not mutually exclusive, as I am an agnostic atheist.

Agnostics are not half way between theist and atheist, as I am sure you know.

[Maeght]

Atheism and agnosticism are different.

One is about believe, the other about knowledge.

They are not mutually exclusive, as I am an agnostic atheist.

Agnostics are not half way between theist and atheist, as I am sure you know.

Indeed.

[ippy]

ipster,

Nope – see Reply 139 for what he was actually up to.

I've had a look, I'm not sure what it is I've missed, but I've had to endure a little of this semantic nit picking just lately and must admit I'm a bit quick on the trigger, shooting from the hip etc, at the mere mention, I'll get over it.

Regards ippy   

[ippy]

Because saying there is no such thing as God is a statement which needs supporting evidence. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot say God definitely doesn't exist. So how is it the default position?

If you pick off a part of the sentence I wrote and just pick out the piece where I said there is no such thing as a god, it does make me look like the familiar, just another religious believer making more of their usual assertions, only this time a non-believer doing the asserting.

Now if you were to be honest about it Maeight, you could have quoted the whole sentence that conveyed exactly the thing I was actually saying, which was: 'The default is, until there is some evidence produced from somewhere that would make it worth looking for this supposed god figure there's no such thing as a god', not an exactly honest thing to do was it? Must be a sin or whatever it is you call these things in your dingy world.

Regards ippy

 

[Maeght]

If you pick off a part of the sentence I wrote and just pick out the piece where I said there is no such thing as a god, it does make me look like the familiar, just another religious believer making more of their usual assertions, only this time a non-believer doing the asserting.

Now if you were to be honest about it Maeight, you could have quoted the whole sentence that conveyed exactly the thing I was actually saying, which was: 'The default is, until there is some evidence produced from somewhere that would make it worth looking for this supposed god figure there's no such thing as a god', not an exactly honest thing to do was it? Must be a sin or whatever it is you call these things in your dingy world.

Regards ippy

 

I wasn't referring directly to your post but to the general point I was discussing.

I am not dishonest and am unhappy you think so. Sorry if you saw it that way.

I am not a believer so have no concept of sin nor do I live in a dingy world I think.

[ippy]

I wasn't referring directly to your post but to the general point I was discussing.

I am not dishonest and am unhappy you think so. Sorry if you saw it that way.

I am not a believer so have no concept of sin nor do I live in a dingy world I think.

I'm O K with all three points.

Regards ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If you pick off a part of the sentence I wrote and just pick out the piece where I said there is no such thing as a god, it does make me look like the familiar, just another religious believer making more of their usual assertions, only this time a non-believer doing the asserting.

Now if you were to be honest about it Maeight, you could have quoted the whole sentence that conveyed exactly the thing I was actually saying, which was: 'The default is, until there is some evidence produced from somewhere that would make it worth looking for this supposed god figure there's no such thing as a god', not an exactly honest thing to do was it? Must be a sin or whatever it is you call these things in your dingy world.

Regards ippy

 

I disagree. I think the default position is “there is no objective evidence for a god” as opposed to “there is no such thing as a god” unless by “thing” you mean a natural thing as opposed to a supernatural thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Blimey people.

1. Absent any cogent reason to do otherwise, I proceed on the basis that there are no gods (or leprechauns). Thus I have a functional truth of "no gods" (and no leprechauns).

2. In strict epistemic terms however it's not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of something (gods, leprechauns etc) because there's no means to eliminate the possibility of an unknown unknown that could falsify that position, and so I cannot say that any of these things categorically do not exist.

3. Prior to either option 1. or 2. though, those who would posit gods (or leprechauns, or for that matter four-sided triangles) have a coherence problem - ie, their claims are incoherent and so are not truth apt in any case. Thus, strictly, the response to the claim "god" should be ignosticism - ie, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" (and nor so far have you) so the question is void a priori".     

[ippy]

I disagree. I think the default position is “there is no objective evidence for a god” as opposed to “there is no such thing as a god” unless by “thing” you mean a natural thing as opposed to a supernatural thing.

We're never going to agree on this one Gabriella, that's fine with me.

I'm not that keen on being quoted out of context, but in this case it's all there for all to see so it's not so bothersome.

Regards ippy

[SusanDoris]

We're never going to agree on this one Gabriella, that's fine with me.

I'm not that keen on being quoted out of context, but in this case it's all there for all to see so it's not so bothersome.

Regards ippy

wouldn't it be nice occasionally to see direct questions responded to with direct answers?!!
Seems to me that there is a touch of woolliness in believers' responses.

[ippy]

wouldn't it be nice occasionally to see direct questions responded to with direct answers?!!
Seems to me that there is a touch of woolliness in believers' responses.

That's an easy one Doris, they clutch at straws, that's all they have and nothing else that involves viable evidence.

Regards ippy

[Grace of God]

Why not leave it to the cosmologists ?  That the cosmos was artificially 'created' by some being operating in some external domain of reality is a claim that comes within the purview of cosmology.  Cosmology brings a level of discipline to enquiry and their findings are more likely to be authoritative.  As amateurs, the likes of me and you, with no equipment and no training would more likely end up finding what we want to believe rather than any sort of objective truth.

So are you saying things can only exist or can only be considered worthy of the possibility of existence if science says so...

[floo]

So are you saying things can only exist or can only be considered worthy of the possibility of existence if science says so...

Science is much more likely to come up with the answer than religion, imo.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Grace,

So are you saying things can only exist or can only be considered worthy of the possibility of existence if science says so...

No, he's saying that - so far at least - "science" is the only method we know of reliably to investigate whether or not something exists. If you can think of another one though, by all means propose it.

[torridon]

So are you saying things can only exist or can only be considered worthy of the possibility of existence if science says so...

If we want to get to the truth of some or other matter, we would do well to use structured and disciplined methods to do so.  Anything less would be negligent. 

[jeremyp]

I think that what Maeght is saying is that the default position for anything is agnosticism. However, in many cases, non-belief is the obvious option in pracrice, eg with orbiting teapots. Russell once wrote that he was an agnostic in theory, but an atheist to all intents and purposes.

To suggest that God is not one of the many cases, is special pleading.