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

cavfancier wrote:

Seeing as our illustrious author has encouraged us to do Google searches for his beloved razor, I found this interesting piece which backs up Setanta's well-stated post that Ockham never stated that the simplest solution is most likely the correct one:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html

I believe that the Michael Wong who wrote that explaination is the same guy that wrote the "monkey sphere" article.

Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:01 am Post: 780564 - Please offer an opinion on...

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

0 Replies

John from Old Gotham, i would point out that although we agree on what constitutes unambiguous evidence, "proof" gets bandied about by any fool who thinks she has seen the "true" way of things. For the believer, the mere existence of the cosmos is "proof" of a deity. However, that mere existence does not constitute unambiguous evidence of the existence of a deity--it is something open to more than one explication.

That was my point, this is my story, an' i'm stickin' to it . . .

0 Replies

john/nyc wrote:

cavfancier wrote:
Seeing as our illustrious author has encouraged us to do Google searches for his beloved razor, I found this interesting piece which backs up Setanta's well-stated post that Ockham never stated that the simplest solution is most likely the correct one:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html

I believe that the Michael Wong who wrote that explaination is the same guy that wrote the "monkey sphere" article.

Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:01 am Post: 780564 - Please offer an opinion on...

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

I quite enjoyed that article. I don't see a problem with being both smart and satirical.

0 Replies

In the sense that I'm using the term "proof" it means the establishment (using evidence) of the truth of a given proposition.

Therefore, if there is "unambiguous evidence," then the matter is proven.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

john/nyc wrote:
cavfancier wrote:
Seeing as our illustrious author has encouraged us to do Google searches for his beloved razor, I found this interesting piece which backs up Setanta's well-stated post that Ockham never stated that the simplest solution is most likely the correct one:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html

I believe that the Michael Wong who wrote that explaination is the same guy that wrote the "monkey sphere" article.

Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:01 am Post: 780564 - Please offer an opinion on...

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

I quite enjoyed that article. I don't see a problem with being both smart and satirical.

Agreed. I wasn't trying to indicate a problem.

0 Replies

Well, I won't nitpick words and definitions. What I enjoyed about Wong's Occam article is that it did point to the ambiguity of the entire concept of the 'razor.' That's why I posted it. As for 'unambiguous evidence', I understand this is a bugbear of an issue in this thread, but I'll wait for Frank to pipe in. It's really not my issue. Personally, I don't see much difference between the terms, but I could invent some if you want.

0 Replies

Ahh, posting at the same time....I am taking this lightly as well my friend, don't get me wrong. Smile

0 Replies

Shortly before his death, Physicist Richard Feynmen was interviewed on PBS...and he made a point about "proving things."

He said that almost nothing can be proven...and he mentioned the incredible discipline necessary to even get close.

I have, for whatever reasons, tried to stay away from asking for proof of anything...and instead ask for evidence.

Perhaps my use of "unambiguous" is inappropriate.

I know I am certainly looking for more than: "I prayed to be able to walk; and I walked...therefore there has to be a God." I am certainly looking for more than: Theists cannot prove there is a God...therefore there are no gods."

If can suggest a word that I can use that makes more sense than "unambiguous"...I will certainly consider it.

0 Replies

Frank,

Would you contend with the following statement:

The first human utterance RE the existence of gods either implied their existence or explicitly stated their existence.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Einherjar wrote:

Quote:
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)

Without making a statement in any direction on the core subject of this thread, i will observe that you have make an inadmissable statement herre, which i have emphasized. William of Occam wrote: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda"--causes are not to be multiplied. If you are going to characterize or extrapolate someone's principle, it would intellectual honesty at the least to acknowledge as much.

(I'm not faulting your application of the principle; i am pointing out that "Occam's razor" states no such thing.)

I did a search on the latin bit, and it appears you are right. I then ran a search on what I was saying, and came up with this.

Quote:

The principle of parsimony is defined as "a scientific rule that states that if there exists two answers to a problem or a question, and if, for one answer to be true, well-established laws of logic and science must be re-written, ignored, or suspended in order to allow it to be true, and for the other answer to be true no such accommodation need be made, then the simpler of the two answers is much more likely to be correct."

I thought I'd seen the same thing called occams razor. I didn't intend to extrapolate anything.

Blue sky: You may have missed it, but I did define gods as "sentient eternal beings" in my first post. Using your definition I'd agree with you that god(s) did exist. (given that your definition of love matches my understanding of it.)

Adding something to a hypothesis with no evidence to back it up makes the hypothesis (with the addition) less likely to be true. It follows that the more you add the less likely the hypothesis (with the additions) is to be true. A complex addition is a sum of less complex additions, so the greater the complexity added to a hypothesis, the less likely it is to be true.

By itroducing "original hypothesis", "original hypothesis + X" and "original hypothesis + Y" (Y being the antithesis to X) I get

P(original hypothesis)=P(original hypothesis + X)+P(original hypothesis + Y)

So since the probability of a hypothesis with an addition becomes less likely to be true with the increasing complexity of the addition, and the probability of the original hypothesis remains unaffected, the probability of the antithesis to the hypothesis with an addition will have to increase with the complexity of the addition.

Conscious thought requires way more complexity than anything we have experienced in the natural world that is not the result of a simple process. And so I argue that due to the complexity gods would have to display in order to achive sentience, (as demanded in my definition) the probability of any hypothesis which assert their existence is negligible compared to an othervise identical hypothesis which assert their nonexistence.

0 Replies

Einherjar

Quote:

but I did define gods as "sentient eternal beings" in my first post. Using your definition I'd agree with you that god(s) did exist. (given that your definition of love matches my understanding of it.)

You see, the definition of God as well as methods to prove/disprove can change the conclusions. There is an ambiguity with that respect that needs to be acknowledged when we assert one way or the other.

0 Replies

john/nyc wrote:

Frank,

Would you contend with the following statement:

The first human utterance RE the existence of gods either implied their existence or explicitly stated their existence.

I'm not sure I even understand it, John.

I suspect (SUSPECT) that the first human considerations of gods had to do with fears of the unknown.

The people first positing gods...I SUSPECT...were not really trying to deal with the question of "What is the nature of REALITY?" (which, in reality, is what we are doing here)...

...but rather dealing with the day to day hardships they encountered.

The sun obviously was a huge force...and since "it travelled across the sky"...they invented ways for it to do so that fit into their concepts of what could and could not be done. And a god in a chariot...or some such...was invented as an explanation.

Even when the chariot was discarded...the notion that some thing[/b] was CAUSING the sun to move across the sky...remained.

Early humans worried about the availability of food...always a chancy thing...and at some point, I think they invented gods (like we invent superstitions about ladders, black cats, and found pennies laying heads up)...and did what they considered right to propitiate those gods in hope of abundant food supplies.

The Hebrews...always a resourceful group...brought a bit of sophistication to these endeavors.

MY GUESS is...the first human considerations of gods does NOT imply their existence...but rather, implies that the world has always been a strange and foreboding place...and superstition can lead to anything...even gods.

0 Replies

blueSky wrote:

You see, the definition of God as well as methods to prove/disprove can change the conclusions. There is an ambiguity with that respect that needs to be acknowledged when we assert one way or the other.

I agree, which is why I defined god in my first post in this thread, and told others that they should let me know if they disagreed with my definition.

In my first post in this thread I wrote:

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

Using your definition

blueSky wrote:

god is love

I would not contest the existence of god(s?).

0 Replies

Would you agree that the first human consideration of god, regardless of what motivated that consideration, was not "there is no god?"

0 Replies

I KNOW that there are posts missing from this thread. And if I'm deluding myself, it is a pretty convincing delusion.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'll cop out on this one a bit, John...because I have absolutely no idea of what early humans thought...nor why they eventually came to the "we need gods" positions. I can make guesses...but all guesses on something like this are way, way out!

At some point...for some reason...humanity began to deal with the questions: "What is going on here?" "What is the reality?"...

...and they invented gods.

But they surely would have NOT invented the absence of gods. The first human pronouncement on the subject had to be that gods exist. Nobody, out-of-the-clear-blue-sky, would have said that there are no gods. So it is my position that the statement "There is no god" is not an affirmative statement but a responsive one. Therefore, proving (perhaps through utilizing unambiguous evidence) the truth of the matter, is the burden of the theist.

0 Replies

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I usually wouldn't engage in an A-Theism vs. Theism argument except for the position that you took, which I would describe as "Ferocious Agnosticism." The position is a difficult one to defend since one could easily trip over one's own words while arguing with either side that would be disadvantageous when it came time to argue with the other side. Yours is a delicate position.

My position is similar to that of the defendant in a criminal case where the question is guilt or no-guilt. "You are guilty" is the position of the prosecution, while "I am not guilty" is the position of the defendant. The affirmative "You are guilty" is similar to "There is (or are) god(s)." The reactive "I am not guilty" is similar to "There is (are) no god(s)". The reactive position only exists because there was an initial affirmative position. The prosecution (theist) has the burden of proving its case. The defendant (a-theist) has no burden at all. The statement "there is no god" is reactive and needs no defense.

0 Replies

John

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I have no problem with my postion at all...and have never had a moment of difficulty defending it.

I stand by my statement that if a person asserts in debate that there is a God...that person has an ethical obligation to give evidence to back up that assertion.

If an atheist (as many athesits do) says: The evidence you offered is deficient...and the assertion "There is a God" is not sustained...so I reject it...

...I have no problem at all.

There does not devolve on the atheist any obligation to give evidence of anything...other than any refutation of the "evidence" the theist offered.

IF HOWEVER...the atheist (as many do) asserts in debate that there are no gods...

..then that person is ethically obliged to present evidence to back up that statement.

Not sure why you do not agree with that...but it certainly is your right.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know