assertive-atheism vs agnostic-atheism (oh Frank!)

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.

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.

If I remember correctly (there's always a chance) Sir Huxley first used the term "agnostic" in the modern sense as a statement regarding the scientic method. Using that understanding, my personal feeling is that "agnostic" is useful term when applied to serious thought processes but that many of us live our daily lives under the umbrella of "atheism" as a matter of convenience.

Blue Sky:

Like Frank you too seem to have bypassed my argument completely. When two models of the world both match the evidence at hand the simplest is always more likely to be true. It's a law of logic. Do a web-search on "occams razor" and you'll see.

I simply state that both models involving gods, and models not involving gods match our observations, and that models involving gods are inevitably more complex than models not involving gods.

You are the one arbitrarily deciding that it is less complex to suppose the universe exists without gods than with gods.

(By the way...you do know that Occam used his razor in defense of religious arguments...don't you?)

But the probability or likelihood is not the truth or the end we are seeking here.

If you say model involving God's existence is more complex, complex for whom? I doubt you can objectively prove that it is complex for all?

Even there is no agreement among people on what one means by God.

I'll use the definition god="sentient eternal being" for now, although anyone who prefers another definition is welcome to make suggestions.

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. (Edited for clarity)

What is the difference between "unambiguous evidence" and "proof"?