Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[ProfessorDavey]

Capitalising "God" was correct in the context. It's effectively the name of the Christian god. Capitalising "gods" was wrong.

That is presuming there is only one purported monotheistic god - I suspect that's not true in practice (ie. actually purported gods over history) and certainly not true in theory.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Prof,

Blimey - finally you've got the definition right ...

I know – it’s quite a moment. Perhaps we should mark the occasion with a glass of something?

I wonder if this means we’ll now be spared the endless repetition of “go on then, prove there’s no God” straw man he’s so assiduously pursued in the past. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Prof,

I know – it’s quite a moment. Perhaps we should mark the occasion with a glass of something?

I wonder if this means we’ll now be spared the endless repetition of “go on then, prove there’s no God” straw man he’s so assiduously pursued in the past.

If you are saying ''There's no God'' then you need to give proof. If you are not proposing that but merely that you do not believe in Gods then according to what you once said to Alan Burns, we can expect sound reason and or evidence for a God free existence. If your belief is based on probability what then is that probability and how did you come by it?

[jeremyp]

That is presuming there is only one purported monotheistic god

The usage of the word without an article assumes that. Note that the possibility of multiple gods is covered in the same sentence.

- I suspect that's not true in practice (ie. actually purported gods over history)

There are many people called "Jeremy". We don't use a lowercase "J" though.

The convention I use is to capitalise when using it in the context of a name e.g. "God is not great"  and use lower case in other  contexts e.g. "the Christian god", "a religion's gods", "some gods".

and certainly not true in theory.

I wish I had your levels of certainty. Life must be so much easier.

[jeremyp]

If you are saying ''There's no God'' then you need to give proof.

No we don't. You don't even need proof to say "there is a god". What you do need though is evidence. So far all the evidence is on the side of the "no god" squad.

[ProfessorDavey]

The usage of the word without an article assumes that. Note that the possibility of multiple gods is covered in the same sentence.
There are many people called "Jeremy". We don't use a lowercase "J" though.

The convention I use is to capitalise when using it in the context of a name e.g. "God is not great"  and use lower case in other  contexts e.g. "the Christian god", "a religion's gods", "some gods".

I understand that but I don't think it is correct as it implies a specific monotheistic god, namely the christian God. But I don't think that is the right way to define atheism which isn't interested in placing any god above any other for special mention.

So my reading of the definition is that people have proposed (or might propose) that in somewhere in the universe exist a god (monotheistic and includes the christian God but also any other monotheistic god) or there many be multiple gods. Atheists do not believe either proposition and therefore do not believe in god or gods. To capitalise God implies the only monotheistic god possible is the christian one, or that the christian God deserves special mention. Neither is appropriate in my mind - hence non-capitalisation is most appropriate in both cases.

Regarding capitalising J - that is because it is a proper noun - so you would never say 'I don't believe in Jeremy or jeremies' - you'd say 'I don't believe in Jeremy or Jeremies'.

Also there is no guarantee that every purported monotheistic god have the personalised characters that would warrant a capital letter and proper noun. In the absence of that surety it is most appropriate not to use a capital.

[Stranger]

If you are saying ''There's no God'' then you need to give proof. If you are not proposing that but merely that you do not believe in Gods then according to what you once said to Alan Burns, we can expect sound reason and or evidence for a God free existence. If your belief is based on probability what then is that probability and how did you come by it?

And Vlad still doesn't get it...

I am (along with many atheists) not claiming "god free" (there isn't even a general definition of what "god" means) my only "claim" is that I've never seen a reasonable definition of a god and an accompanying reason to take the idea seriously. Hence, in this context, gods are in exactly the same category as my gravity pixies and leprechauns - namely, those things which we have seen no reason to take seriously.

This really isn't hard - if you think some god exists, then you need to define the term and provide a supporting argument. It's actually no different to somebody positing something in science (a new particle or a fifth force of nature, or whatever) - nobody is going to take the claims seriously until they see some sort of reasoning or evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wish I had your levels of certainty. Life must be so much easier.

What I mean is that in theory someone could propose a monotheistic god that isn't the christian one - I suspect they already have. In that respect it is perfectly reasonable to say:

'That is presuming there is only one purported monotheistic god - I suspect that's not true in practice (ie. actually purported gods over history) and certainly not true in theory.'

[Nearly Sane]

I understand that but I don't think it is correct as it impugns a specific monotheistic god, namely the christian God. But I don't think that is the right way to define atheism which isn't interested in placing any god above any other for special mention.

....

Implies rather than impugns?

[ProfessorDavey]

Implies rather than impugns?

Woops, but Sunday morning pedant nonetheless

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No we don't. You don't even need proof to say "there is a god". What you do need though is evidence. So far all the evidence is on the side of the "no god" squad.

And what evidence is that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And Vlad still doesn't get it...

I am (along with many atheists) not claiming "god free" (there isn't even a general definition of what "god" means) my only "claim" is that I've never seen a reasonable definition of a god and an accompanying reason to take the idea seriously.

Take it seriously as opposed to what though?
The answer of course is what you do take seriously or at least take for granted which is God Free. Since that then is your position what reasons/evidence or argument can you give?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What I mean is that in theory someone could propose a monotheistic god that isn't the christian one - I suspect they already have. In that respect it is perfectly reasonable to say:

'That is presuming there is only one purported monotheistic god - I suspect that's not true in practice (ie. actually purported gods over history) and certainly not true in theory.'

I think you are settling for the old I just believe in one less god than you schtick.
Many believe that the divine could be behind theistic belief but Christianity is Gods most comprehensive revelation.

That qualifies certainly my belief rather than your own 9.9 out of 10 Disbelief which you superimpose on believers.

[ProfessorDavey]

Take it seriously as opposed to what though?
The answer of course is what you do take seriously or at least take for granted which is God Free. Since that then is your position what reasons/evidence or argument can you give?

I'll answer that one for myself.

Firstly I do not know that god or gods do not exist, hence I am an agnostic.

Secondly I have never seen any credible evidence for the existence of any god (despite people having to demonstrate their existence for centuries) and therefore I do not believe in the existence of god or gods - hence I am an atheist. However there are countless things for which there is amply evidence for their existence. Therefore I will base my understanding of the world and universe on things that have been demonstrated to exist, and not concern myself in that understanding with things for which there is no evidence that they even exist.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you are settling for the old I just believe in one less god than you schtick.

Which is true beyond question. Over the centuries people have claimed that thousands of god exist - let's define that number a n (a very big number). I do not believe in n gods, you do not believe in n-1 gods.

Many believe that the divine could be behind theistic belief but Christianity is Gods most comprehensive revelation.

But that is just a belief and you have no evidence to support either the existence of god, which you'd need to do before your claim that christianity is god's most comprehensive revelation becomes relevant. And of course other, just as firmly held, beliefs are available - including those from other non-christian theists who may just as fervently believe that their god or gods are top dog. But of course they have no more evidence for their belief than you do - in other words no evidence.

That qualifies certainly my belief rather than your own 9.9 out of 10 Disbelief which you superimpose on believers.

Actually I don't - while it is true that I do not believe in n gods and you do not believe in n-1 gods, I fully recognise that the -1 part is incredibly important to you.

Why the argument is valuable is when theists, in error, claim that atheists must prove that god does not exist, or provide evidence that god doesn't exist. It allows atheists to simply state to the theist that the approach I use for your purported god is effectively the same as you use for Thor, or Odin, or Vishnu. Despite the fact that you do not believe in those gods (presumably because you've never seen credible evidence for their existence) there is no onus on you to provide evidence for their lack of existence. And guess what - there is no onus on me to provide evidence that the christian god does not exist either. The onus rests entirely on those making a positive claim for existence, regardless of whether they are claiming that that god is Thor, or Odin, or Vishnu or the christian god.

[Stranger]

Take it seriously as opposed to what though?

As oposed to not taking it seriously - that is, not believing it.

The answer of course is what you do take seriously or at least take for granted which is God Free. Since that then is your position what reasons/evidence or argument can you give?

The total lack of any reasonable definition of any god(s) and an associated reason to take it seriously, is all the reason I need not believe in any notion of god(s). I can do this without claiming that I know that there is no reasonable definition of some god that actually exists.

This is exactly what everybody does with fantastical stories or any other claims for that matter, such as a new particle or force, or anything else. You can't put all the thousands of god-ideas into some special category that requires people to need a reason not to accept them. They all individually stand or fall entirely on how well they can be justified.

The questions "do you believe in god?" or "do you believe in god-free?" are meaningless anyway, without an associated definition of the relevant god. I can, for example, conclude that reality does not contain the god that created the universe 6000 years ago in six literal 24 hour days - because there is good evidence that this did not happen. With respect to that god-idea, I do positively believe in god-free.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you are saying ''There's no God''…

(Quietly puts away the bottle of Chateau d'Yquem ‘47...) Aw no, such a shame. For a minute there when a while back you correctly said “Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods” it really looked like we’d made a breakthrough, yet quick as you like you bollocksed it all up by changing that to “If you are saying ''There's no God''…”

See whether you can work out for yourself the fundamental difference between the following:

1. A lack of belief in God or Gods; and

2. Saying ''There's no God"

It's really not that difficult - I reckon even you could do it, or at least you could if you're not still hell-bent on trolling instead.

…then you need to give proof.

Well, reasoning a least but as no-one I know of actually says that it’s neither nor here there.

If you are not proposing that but merely that you do not believe in Gods then according to what you once said to Alan Burns, we can expect sound reason and or evidence for a God free existence. If your belief is based on probability what then is that probability and how did you come by it?

Oh dear. The only reason necessary to justify not believing in god(s) is not being aware of a sound argument to validate that belief. I am not aware of a sound argument for god(s), thus I do not believe in it/them. But then you knew this already didn’t you because, presumably it’s exactly the same rationale you would use to justify your non-belief in leprechauns.   

[jeremyp]

And what evidence is that?

The fact that religionists have been scrabbling for centuries to find some evidence that there is a god and come up empty.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The fact that religionists have been scrabbling for centuries to find some evidence that there is a god and come up empty.

That might be true from a philosophical naturalists perspective.
But why should the rest of us buy it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As oposed to not taking it seriously - that is, not believing it.

The total lack of any reasonable definition of any god(s) and an associated reason to take it seriously, is all the reason I need not believe in any notion of god(s). I can do this without claiming that I know that there is no reasonable definition of some god that actually exists.

This is exactly what everybody does with fantastical stories or any other claims for that matter, such as a new particle or force, or anything else. You can't put all the thousands of god-ideas into some special category that requires people to need a reason not to accept them. They all individually stand or fall entirely on how well they can be justified.

The questions "do you believe in god?" or "do you believe in god-free?" are meaningless anyway, without an associated definition of the relevant god. I can, for example, conclude that reality does not contain the god that created the universe 6000 years ago in six literal 24 hour days - because there is good evidence that this did not happen. With respect to that god-idea, I do positively believe in god-free.

God has been described as the creator and maintainer of the universe whose existence is independent of it's creation.
You have been noted as finding simulated universe reasonable and therefore you logically have to find God reasonable.

[Gordon]

God has been described as the creator and maintainer of the universe whose existence is independent of it's creation.

Hobbits have been described as small people with hairy feet.

You have been noted as finding simulated universe reasonable and therefore you logically have to find God reasonable.

You have been noted as finding 'God' reasonable and, therefore, you logically have to find leprechauns reasonable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hobbits have been described as small people with hairy feet.

And Leprechauns have erroneously been likened to God having all his powers when I have informed them that they are small people dressed in green

You have been noted as finding 'God' reasonable and, therefore, you logically have to find leprechauns reasonable.

Poor analogy since Leprechauns are small people dressed in green and Stranger at one time thought that proposing a creator of the universe could, if shaved of ''religion'', be a reasonable proposition. He was unable to say why we should shave away religion nor why being a creator of the universe was not itself a religious notion.

[Stranger]

God has been described as the creator and maintainer of the universe whose existence is independent of it's creation.

Those are some aspects of some god definitions.

You have been noted as finding simulated universe reasonable and therefore you logically have to find God reasonable.

Drivel. I do not find simulated universe to be particularly reasonable - certainly no more so than me being a Boltzmann brain - and using a universe simulator as a definition of "god" is mindless idiocy for reasons that I'm not going to go over yet again.

That's before we get to the car crash of a logical structure you seem to be attempting. You've got some otherwise undefined notion of "God" (G) that has a property of being "the creator and maintainer of the universe whose existence is independent of it's creation" (C), then you've got me finding some things that have this property reasonable (R) (leaving aside that I don't particularly) and you seem to be trying to imply that I must therefore regard this otherwise undefined "God" as reasonable.

So it goes:-
G is C (All G are C, since G is singular)
Some C are R
Therefore G is R (All G are R)

You're suffering from an undistributed middle again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As oposed to not taking it seriously - that is, not believing it.

or as opposed to taking philosophical naturalism seriously.

[Stranger]

And Leprechauns have erroneously been likened to God having all his powers when I have informed them that they are small people dressed in green

I've never seen anybody do this. Do you have a link?

He was unable to say why we should shave away religion nor why being a creator of the universe was not itself a religious notion.

Blatant falsehood. I explained both at great length, several times, as did other posters, IIRC.