Reply
Tue 21 Sep, 2004 02:47 pm
Frank Apisa has been challenging people to defend the assertion that "there are no gods" in the "Atheist Discussion" thread, and I figured I'd pick up the glove. I'll use the definition god="sentient eternal being" for now, although anyone who prefers another definition is welcome to make suggestions.The only difference between my position and Franks is, from what i gather, that he considers the deist hypothesis of a god being the uncaused first cause to be a credible alternative to purely physical explanations.
The only differense between a god which will fit in the deist model and a force of nature is that the god is sentient. It seems logical that for every conceivable specific deist hypothesis, a similar hypothesis substituting a inanimate force of nature in the place of god can also be conceived. Both hypotheses will then provide a full explanation of the phenomenon observed.
We can then employ occams razor which states that in the event that two hypotheses both provide a full explanation of a phenomenon, the least complex hypothesis is the most likely the correct, and the most complex the least likely to be correct. Simple logic also states that, if one adds an aspect to a hypothesis which does in no way influence the predictions, in this case the gods sentient conciousness, the ratio betwen the likelyhood of the hypothesis excluding the added aspect, and the likelyhood of the hypothesis including the added aspect wil equal the ratio betwen the likelyhood of not the added aspect, and the likelyhood of the added aspect. The likelyhood of a deist hypothesis being true relative to the likelyhood of it's laws-of-physics-equivalent being true, is thus the same as the likelyhood of a sentient consciousness always having existed, (no evolution) compared to that of it not having existed.
The enormous complexity of a sentient consciousness thus allows us to pretty much dismiss the deist hypothesis, citing occams razor. A sentient deighty model would be simpler than a law of physics model if the phenomena to be explained displayed complex intelligent behaviour. Any hypothesis specifying suficient details to make a god model less complex than a law of nature model would be way more complex than the simplest law of nature models. The probability of a god being involved in creating the world is thus negligible. (because the sum of it and the relatively much much greater probability of the world being created by some law of nature is exactly one)
If no proof concerning the existence of gods exists, assertive atheism is therby the only logical possition. (by which i mean 99.9% certainty or more that gods do not exist) That gods do not exist can not be posetively proven, as is the case with everything relating to the natural world, but it can be shown to be owerwhelmingly unlikely. The existance of gods which had nothing to do with creating the universe is equally unlikely because of the same added complexity.
The only hope for your agnostic position now Frank is that you either find a hole in my resoning, or that you can present some sort of evidence supporting the existence og gods. The probability of gods existing based on no evidence at all is minute, and does not warrant taking up an agnostic-atheist position over an assertive-atheist one.
Can't wait to see your answer - Einherjar
(Edited for clarity)
I see no unambiguous evidence that there are gods...and I see no unambiguous evidence to cause me to assert there are no gods.
If you have such unambiguous evidence...please present it.
If not...you have no case.
Occams razor states that of two hypotheses giving the same predictions, the most complex is most likely wrong. A sentient god adds a whole lot of complexity. In the absence of evidence, ambigous or othervise, the probability of gods existing is negligible, and assertive atheism is justified.
Einherjar wrote:Occams razor states that of two hypotheses giving the same predictions, the most complex is most likely wrong. A sentient god adds a whole lot of complexity. In the absence of evidence, ambigous or othervise, the probability of gods existing is negligible, and assertive atheism is justified.
I don't much give a rat's ass what Occam's razor states.
I'm asking you for any unambiguous evidence upon which to base a statment: There are no gods.
Occams razor is the name of a logic argument. According to formal logic very complex hypotheses like the existense of non evolved sentient beings are far less likely to be true than simpler explanations. If there is no evidence, the probability of the existance of gods is minute, based on their complexity alone.
I think it's just socially irresponsible to let Bill loose with a razor after his beloved football team was defeated.
Seing as how it is neither proven nor disproven that there are bilions of made in taiwan teapots orbiting jupiter you would consider it equally likely that they did as that they didn't. That is illogical. The notion of them being there would have to be coupled with a notion of how they got there to make a hypothesis. this would make it more complex, thet is assuming more, than the simple hypothesis that they aren't there. Thus, them not being there is by far more likely than them being there.
Frank --
I'd be interested in your position on things like glorms, wibbledonks, and crudgers -- things whose names I am freely making up because, like the name "god", they have no real definition and their existence or non-existence wouldn't make any difference to the observable world anyway.
Are you agnostic about them too, or would you rather assert that they don't exist?
Einherjar wrote:Occams razor is the name of a logic argument. According to formal logic very complex hypotheses like the existent of non evolved sentient beings are far less likely than simpler explanations. If there is no evidence, the probability of the existance of gods is minute, based on their complexity alone.
As I said earlier, I don't much give a rat's ass about what Occam's razor says...and I am not interested in a lecture on Philosophy 101 from you. I've studied philosophy in graduate school.
If you are asserting that there are no gods...please furnish such ambiguous evidence you have that there are none...or let's just drop this subject.
I am asserting that it is far more likely that gods do not exist, than it is that they exist. This assertion builds on the facts that no evidence exists to support the existence of gods, and that the existence of gods would add a lot of complexity to our universe. For a sentient being to be randomly compiled is all but impossible. Thus according to occams razor, (it aplies wether you like it or not) the hypothesis that gods do not exist, which would not require the assumption of unlikely events such as a sentient being being compiled by chanse, is by far the most likely.
If you do not intend to attack this argument we might as well, as you say, drop it, because I have no other.
If either of you guys has any unambiguous evidence that gods do not exist...please furnish it, or acknowledge that one cannot make a reasonable, logical pro-active statment about what is or what is not without such evidence. (Actually, you need proof...but I'd settle simply for evidence.)
Thomas...I simply would refrain from stating categorically that gooops, fergnestnvts, or vminksins, exist or do not exist.
IF EITHER OF YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT THERE ARE NO GODS...please furnish what evidence you have upon which you are basing that assertion.
If not...why not just acknowledge that you are guessing?
Einherjar wrote:I am asserting that it is far more likely that gods do not exist, than it is that they exist. This assertion builds on the facts that no evidence exists to support the existence of gods, and that the existence of gods would add a lot of complexity to our universe. For a sentient being to be randomly compiled is all but impossible. Thus according to occams razor, (it aplies wether you like it or not) the hypothesis that gods do not exist, which would not require the assumption of unlikely events such as a sentient being being compiled by chanse, is by far the most likely.
If you do not intend to attack this argument we might as well, as you say, drop it, because I have no other.
If you have "no other" -- you have nothing, because the Occam's razor argument is pitiful.
For the record...try applying Occam's razor to the question of "What is the explanation for the Sun doing its thing each day?"
Which is the better explanation: The one that fits into Occam's theory...namely: the sun simply moves across our sky with us stationary...or is it the far more complicated and unlikely series of events (as Occam would have argued) THAT ACTUALLY EXIST?
I am not aserting that gods can be proven not to exist, but that the existence of gods is far less likely than the non-existance of gods. I have shown this to be the case unless evidence is presented which supports the existence of gods. No such evidence has been precented.
Thus I win!
Unless you have access to such evidence that is, which I seriously doubt you have.
Quote:Which is the better explanation: The one that fits into Occam's theory...namely: the sun simply moves across our sky with us stationary...or is it the far more complicated and unlikely series of events (as Occam would have argued) THAT ACTUALLY EXIST?
Actually I find both models, (rotating earth/orbiting sun) to be equally complex. Anyway, occams razor doesn't state that the simpler solution is always acurate, just that it is more likely to be so than is the more complex one. The difference in likelyhood growing with greater difference of complexity between the two hypotheses.
Einherjar wrote:I am not aserting that gods can be proven not to exist, but that the existence of gods is far less likely than the non-existance of gods. I have shown this to be the case unless evidence is presented which supports the existence of gods. No such evidence has been precented.
Thus I win!
No you don't win...in fact, you lose.
I have been saying that one cannot logically say definitively that gods exist...and one cannot logically say that they don't.
You have just acknowledged that you cannot say they don't.
And your asssertion that since theists cannot prove that a god exist is somehow evidence that it is more likely that there are no gods...is illogical in its entirety.
We cannot prove that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Are you asserting that because of that...it is more likely there is no other life than that there is?
Your argument is not well considered. (And I might add...not especially well presented. Use paragraphs and do a bit of editing so that what you have to say is fathomable.)
Frank Apisa wrote:IF EITHER OF YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT THERE ARE NO GODS...please furnish what evidence you have upon which you are basing that assertion. If not...why not just acknowledge that you are guessing?
Because the reason I self-identify as what Enherjar would call an 'assertive atheist' isn't that I have evidence gods don't exist. It's because the question of their existence is so meaningless it isn't even worth the trouble of asking. Unlike you, I feel that if something's existence doesn't make a difference to the observable world, that's another way of saying the something doesn't exist.
Frank Apisa wrote:Which is the better explanation: The one that fits into Occam's theory...namely: the sun simply moves across our sky with us stationary...or is it the far more complicated and unlikely series of events (as Occam would have argued) THAT ACTUALLY EXIST?
It depends on the phenomenon you want explained. If that phenomenon is only, in your words, "the sun doing its thing everyday", "the sun simply moves across our sky" is the better explanation. If the phenomenon you want explained includes the observed motions of planets and fixed stars, it's the more complex Copernican astronomy.
My point is that in both cases, the best answer
for the phenomenon in question is the "Occam's razor" answer
for the phenomenon in question.
Thomas wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:IF EITHER OF YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT THERE ARE NO GODS...please furnish what evidence you have upon which you are basing that assertion. If not...why not just acknowledge that you are guessing?
Because the reason I self-identify as what Enherjar would call an 'assertive atheist' isn't that I have evidence gods don't exist. It's because the question of their existence is so meaningless it isn't even worth the trouble of asking. Unlike you, I feel that if something's existence doesn't make a difference to the observable world, that's another way of saying the something doesn't exist.
Frank Apisa wrote:Which is the better explanation: The one that fits into Occam's theory...namely: the sun simply moves across our sky with us stationary...or is it the far more complicated and unlikely series of events (as Occam would have argued) THAT ACTUALLY EXIST?
It depends on the phenomenon you want explained. If that phenomenon is only, in your words, "the sun doing its thing everyday", "the sun simply moves across our sky" is the better explanation. If the phenomenon you want explained includes the observed motions of planets and fixed stars, it's the more complex Copernican astronomy.
My point is that in both cases, the best answer
for the phenomenon in question is the "Occam's razor" answer
for the phenomenon in question.
How's the weather in Germany these days, Thomas.
I've missed our talks during my absence from A2K.
Pretty stormy, though we had a nice, warm-but-not-hot weekend. Nice to be arguing with you again too!
Quote:I have been saying that one cannot logically say definitively that gods exist...and one cannot logically say that they don't.
I have never disputed this.
Quote:You have just acknowledged that you cannot say they don't.
Which I never disputed. I guess I need to clean up my posts, people don't seem to get the contents.
Quote:And your asssertion that since theists cannot prove that a god exist is somehow evidence that it is more likely that there are no gods...is illogical in its entirety.
It is not. For a god to exist major changes would have to be made to the laws of physics as we know them. It is much more likely that no god exists.
If a tiger is loose in a zoo, it is more likely that the tiger was let out of it's cage by accident, than it is that the gorilla was let out by accident and bended the bars to the monkeys cage, allowing the monkey to steal the keys to the tigers cage and let it out. Both hypotheses are plausible given the evidence. The less complex one is more likely.
Quote:We cannot prove that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Are you asserting that because of that...it is more likely there is no other life than that there is?
Actually current models would account for life elsewherre in the universe. A mechanism allowing life to arise on this planet, but prevent it elsewhere would be more complex than the same laws of nature governing the entire universe.
Quote:Your argument is not well considered. (And I might add...not especially well presented. Use paragraphs and do a bit of editing so that what you have to say is fathomable.)
My argument applies, but I will edit for clarity.
Einherjar, let me argue like you...
I am not asserting that gods can be proven to exist, but that the existence of gods is more likely than the non-existence of gods. This is to be the case unless evidence is presented which contradicts the existence of gods. No such evidence has been presented. Unless you have access to such evidence that is, which I seriously doubt you have.
So...
To me 'I don't know' is more honest and accurate way of looking at this.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace