Oh, I give up with the formatting. If anyone knows how to fix it please help, even my usual notepad trick doesn't seem to work anymore.
Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!
by bohm 139 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Essan
Hi Caedes, I think my skin is fairly thick, however I have been debating similar subjects in multiple threads recently and in many cases the responses have simply descended into relentless ad hominem and I wanted to make sure that didn't happen here because, as well as getting tiresome after a while, it also also derails the debate. I don't think I've spoken to you before. Thankfully it seems that both you and Bohm are prepared to 'play nice' :)
By first cause I just meant first cause. I don't imply a "supernatural connotation" but I do allow for various theories regarding what that "first cause" might be. Basic theism as a response to this reasonable notion of a "first cause" may not be accurate, but it is itself reasonable. It's possible to have more than one reasonable possibility. As I can only keep repeating, I think that claiming that an Intelligent "first cause" - God - as an explanation for the complexity of the Universe, is only as sensible or as evidenced as Santa or the Easter bunny is spectacularly unfair, inaccurate and unreasonably dismissive.
Your use of 'supernatural' and 'natural' is wrong, IMO. You speak as if what is "supernatural" and "natural" is objective. They aren't. They are entirely subjective and also subject to change over time. 'Supernatural" just means that which cannot be explained according to our current scientific understanding. An "eclipse" was at one time considered a "supernatural" event, until it came to be understood and was deemed "natural". Therefore saying that science has no dealings with the "supernatural" and that God is "supernatural" is bogus. Science these days deals directly with things that would be deemed by the man on the street as pretty damned supernatural and which still shocks even scientists themselves - such as particles the can be in two places at the same time: bilocation - and discoveries are showing the quantum world to be more bizarre and "supernatural", or "spooky" as Einstein said, everyday. As soon as these phenomena are observed and explanations are attempted, they become "natural". Therefore, God cannot be placed in the "supernatural" bucket and discarded with the claim that the notion is and will always be "unscientific". (BTW. A "theory" is not that which is "proven" in the sense most understand proven as categorically determining undeniable fact, it just meets the scientific standards to be considered "plausible" enough to be widely accepted, for now. You said that the 'many worlds' idea has "not been proven". Yet, it is also often referred to as a "theory" as well as a "hypothesis".).
But let me ask you a question so that I understand your position more clearly.
You have said that denial of the existence of God is exactly as justified as the denial of the existence of Santa and The Easter bunny. So what probability do you assign to the existence of this unholy 'Trinity', exactly? :)
-
bohm
Essan: Just so we do not cross-post, will you address the questions in my previous posts at a later time?
-
Essan
Sorry Bohm, as you can see I'm carrying on at least two fairly in-depth discussions on this thread and more on others so I may have missed a few questions. I tried scanning back to pick them out but I'm not entirely sure which you are referring to.
Would you be prepared to repeat them?
One I noticed was about would I see Dawkins saying that "God almost certainly doesn't exist" (or suchlike) as being in your 'Atheist 2' category. I have to say I'd struggle to do that because I feel his statement is fraudulent. The reason I feel this is that his reference to near "certainty", which invokes probability, is completely bogus. It's entirely false that "there is a high probability that God doesn't exist" because it impossible to measure this probability. Many have tried and have all received wildly differing results because with so many of the factors involved being unknowns, probability cannot be measured. What this reveals is that when one clearly takes a 'side', as Dawkins does against God's existence, yet also fraudulently invokes supposed probability, what they are really doing is stating a belief but attempting to weasel out of it at the same time by couching it in scientific terms that the belief actually has no right to.
I see this as very similar to a Theist who says "I have faith in God's existence".
So i see such statements as being those of a sneaky "atheist 1" - unless sneakiness is the definition of atheist 2: one who makes bogus references to "probability" and claims to use "believe" differently to everyone else, whereas an atheist 1 just has the courage of his convictions to say "God does not exist, dammit!" :)
-
bohm
Essan:
I think that somewhere between the lengthy posts and the many questions we have gotten a bit derailed from what was the main point. Allow me to restate it:
1) Absolute denial of any hypothesis, eg. Santa, easter bunny, etc. - does strictly speaking now have a place in science. 2) The word believe, as in "I believe in X", can carry the meaning "i think X is true with high probability"3) the definitions of "believe" above is most often implied by scientists, since from (1) it goes against the hearth of science to deal with absolutes. 4) Thus, if a person say: "I believe there is no God", especially if he is a scientist, it is wise to see which definition he use of the word. In particular, i think it is wise to consider he is not in violation of all conventional scientific wisdom by using the word "believe" as an absolute, ie. implies 100% certainty.
If you have no objection to the above, there is very little that seperat us. There is, perhaps, a side issue of how many people who call temselves atheist who use the word "believe" like i outlined above -- i can only argue from personal experience and say it is the vast majority i have met -- but it is not the main point of the post, and i propose we let it rest untill the above is resolved. Thus, let me ask you this:
Do you agree with points 1-4? If not, which do you agree with, and which do you take issue with?
-
bohm
Essan: While i think the above is the most central, i just cannot pass your last post. You wrote:
One I noticed was about would I see Dawkins saying that "God almost certainly doesn't exist" (or suchlike) as being in your 'Atheist 2' category. I have to say I'd struggle to do that because I feel his statement is fraudulent.
I have to applaud you for painting with a big brush, but its a very hard accusation and want to keep you up to it.
The reason I feel this is that his reference to near "certainty", which invokes probability, is completely bogus.
It's entirely false that "there is a high probability that God doesn't exist" because it impossible to measure this probability. Many have tried and have all received wildly differing results because with so many of the factors involved being unknowns, probability cannot be measured.
First, when you write "fraudulent" and "bogus", i think you should be able to follow it to the door. When you say "...because its impossible to measure this probability" is like saying: "...because its impossible to weight the distance to mars". Probabilities are estimated or calculated not measured, and the difference is more than syntax (but i wont get into that here).
So, Dawkins is not (i really hope not!) trying to measure a probability, more likely he has taken probability theory 101 and try to estimate it using the usual methods.
So your argument is that its impossible to Dawkins to say there is a high probability God does not exist because he cannot give you the numerical value?
If that is the case, is it then equally impossible to say there is a high probability the earth is not flat?
Look, we got to start out with the assumption Dawkins is being honest with us regarding his beliefs. I quoted the title of the chapter in the God delusion - why there is allmost certainly no God - and here is another quote from a review of the book:
On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
So dawkins are not certain, but think its improbable God exist. I think its reasonable to assume he mean what he writes - "innocent untill proven guilty".
-
Essan
Hi Bohm,
1. Absolute denial would only have a legitimate place in science if there is absolute proof that something does not exist. There is no such proof for God's nonexistence, not even close, therefeor absolute denial of the possibility to God's existence is in no way "scientific" but purely an expression of faith based belief and personal bias. As you say, to do this goes against good science.
2. Bohm said: "The word believe, as in "I believe in X", can carry the meaning "i think X is true with high probability"
It certainly does so for many rational Theists, who on questioning would concede that although they feel they have compelling evidence for God's existence, there is not absolute proof and so they bridge the gap in their minds with a degree of Faith. As for the "statement "it is highly probable that God does not exist" (or suchlike), this is basically the same statement as that made by the aforementioned Theist, except that it is dishonest. It is quite impossible to measure the probability of God's existence because the factors determining probability are unknown. There is no consensus because of this. Many have tried, all failed. Therefore if anyone invokes probability when dismissing God they are essentially lying, invoking scientific data that does not exist, and attempting to hide personal faith based belief and bias behind terms they have no business using.
3. If any scientists used 3 in relation to God, they are frauds, and are revealing an approach almost identical to the Theist, except that it is also dishonest. The Theist admits his faith, at least.
4. If a scientist says "I believe there is no God" then his statement is not scientific, no matter which definition of believe is used and he is merely expressing personal bias and belief just as a Theist does. If he is using "believe" as an absolute, 1, this is so. If he uses believe to refer to supposed probability, as in 2, this is so, because he cannot demonstrate probability and is therefore invoking probability fraudulently, in order to misrepresent an ordinary personal belief as a data based conclusion.
It's interesting that you say you have never met an atheist who absolutely denies God. I'd suggest that you probably have, even in this thread and have even praised their posts. The thing is many atheists who absolutely deny God try, much like the 'scientist' in option 2, to hide their certainty to some degree, because they are aware it is actually unwarranted. They hold the belief, but hypocritically don't want to be held accountable for it in the way they hold Theists accountable.
I asked Caedes to explicitly assign a probability of existence to three things which mentioned as examples and said should be accounted as exactly as likely to exist as each other. There has been no reply. I'll be interested to hear what probability he assigns to these three things of his: Santa, THe Easter Bunny, and God. His previous posts lead me to suspect that he considers each as equally impossible.
Someone who assigns a probability of zero to something is absolutely, unqualifiedly denying the possibility of it's existence. They are making an 'Atheist 1' statement, couched in deceptive and unwarranted scientific language.
Atheist 1's are not as rare as you would like to believe, Bohm.
But we'll see what Caedes response is.
-
Essan
LOL Come on Bohm,
This isn't a lab either and we're not doing science, we're debating Atheism. Are you sure you can't "measure the probability"? I seem to find endless references to doing so. In any case, you clearly understood what I meant. My point was many people have attempted to 'calculate probability' but cannot accurately do so because the factors are largely unknown. If you can't put the right data, and all of it, into the calculation you can't get the right answer. That is why there is no consensus on this. Therefore, any reference to a supposed "probability" for the existence of God is fraudulent, especially so if it is not even accompanied by the evidence of even an attempt to carry out this impossible task, and is just a belief, an opinion, which people are supposed to accept as authoritative because it is couched as "probability" and presented by a scientist.
You said: "So your argument is that its impossible to Dawkins to say there is a high probability God does not exist because he cannot give you the numerical value?"
It's that it's wrong for Dawkins to present a mere opinion, his personal belief, as if based on "probability" derived from hard reliable data when such is totally untrue. If he doesn't give a numerical value it's because he can't, either because he hasn't attempted to 'calculate the probability', knowing it is futile to attempt it, or he has but he knows the results are scientifically worthless because they are based on incomplete data - therefore he has no business rendering a judgement as if based on a reliable 'calculation of probability'. He has no business referencing "probability". The conclusion is bogus, the justification for it, fraudulent.
It's wrong, but it's common.
-
bohm
Hi Essan!
Thanks for your quick response. I hope you dont find my response tiresome, but i worry i do not quite understand your position.
1) Absolute denial of any hypothesis, eg. Santa, easter bunny, etc. - does strictly speaking now have a place in science.
As i read your response, we both agree here. So far so good . You elaborate: "There is no such proof for God's nonexistence, not even close, therefeor absolute denial of the possibility to God's existence is in no way "scientific" but purely an expression of faith based belief and personal bias."
I completely agree with that statement.
2) The word believe, as in "I believe in X", can carry the meaning "i think X is true with high probability"
As i read your post, you agree -- "It certainly does so for many rational Theists" -- but i would like to ask if it can mean the above in a general sence, also outside theistic context. For example, if a scientist (thestic, non-theistic...) say: "I believe in the many-world hypothesis" or "I believe gene XZV-1017b has an important role in understanding how HIV defeat the immune system", is it then entirely plausible he use "believe" in the sence above?
I know i ask many questions, but i feel this is one of the more important ones and i look forward to your response :-)Your seem to raise strong objections around questions 3 and 4, and I think i may have misunderstood your argument. Your rejection of my use of belief as implying high (or very high!) probability seem to be that i am misapplying probability theory. You wrote:
If a scientist says "I believe there is no God" then his statement is not scientific, no matter which definition of believe is used and he is merely expressing personal bias and belief just as a Theist does. If he is using "believe" as an absolute, 1, this is so. If he uses believe to refer to supposed probability, as in 2, this is so, because he cannot demonstrate probability and is therefore invoking probability fraudulently, in order to misrepresent an ordinary personal belief as a data based conclusion.
Earlier you also wrote:
As for the "statement "it is highly probable that God does not exist" (or suchlike), this is basically the same statement as that made by the aforementioned Theist, except that it is dishonest. It is quite impossible to measure the probability of God's existence because the factors determining probability are unknown.
If i understand you correctly, you hear me make the statement:
"I believe in X" can mean "I think the probability that X is very high"
and say: "Well, thats true in principle. It can mean that some times. But you are going to slap "God does not exist" in instead of X in a moment, and then your gonna end up with a wrong statement, because you cant talk about the probability of God existing or not because you cant measure it"
Do i understand you correctly?
If yes, i believe you are implying the following:
There are statements in this world where we can talk about their probabilities being high or low, and there are statements where we cannot.
and "God does not exist" fit the later category.
-
bohm
BTW, I can see we have cross-posted.