God and Certainty

[SorryImPsychic]

Either there is evidence for God, or there is not.

Is it logically possible to attain this certainty?

Please discuss.

Logic cannot help us here. Logic depends on knowing the truth values of the propositions we make.

Logically the proposition that "God Exists" must follow the construction True or False, but not both True and False.

A = God exists
-A = God does not exist (negation)

The question is:
A or -A

But we are stuck here because without proof/evidence who can attribute a truth value to the statement?

"A = God Exists"

Who can show:

(A) is True and therefore (- A) is False

or

(A) is False and therefore (-A) is True

Both Atheist and Theist are arguing about an a "truth" value that has proven to be indeterminate at this point of time.

[Antipositor]

There is no evidence for the existence of any particular god, there is no evidence for flying pigs, there is no evidence for perpetual motion machines etc. Are you seriously suggesting that to be credited with intellectual honesty one has to accept the possible existence of every weird notion the human imagination is capable of?

Why not? What's difference between having a particle of doubt for all things, and having no doubt whatsoever? Not much strain on the mental budget I dare to say.

Where it counts is where you imagine there to be no chance at all of something happening, yet it might. A young man I once knew had a bad habit of crossing train tracks with his car without looking. For him there was no evidence of a train on hundreds of occasions, therefore to him, the chance of colliding with a train didn't exist. His certitude was disproved one day when he was run over by a train.

[Pebble]

Why not? What's difference between having a particle of doubt for all things, and having no doubt whatsoever? Not much strain on the mental budget I dare to say.

Where it counts is where you imagine there to be no chance at all of something happening, yet it might. A young man I once knew had a bad habit of crossing train tracks with his car without looking. For him there was no evidence of a train on hundreds of occasions, therefore to him, the chance of colliding with a train didn't exist. His certitude was disproved one day when he was run over by a train.

As a rather more decisive type, I am happy to say that there is no evidence for god(s) after thousands of years of searching and no logical reason for the kinds of gods proposed, to exist therefore I am an atheist. Being a skeptic, I am happy to look at new evidence on the subject. Having common sense, I will not give more than cursory attention to claims that are not rapidly followed by robust information.

[SorryImPsychic]

Where it counts is where you imagine there to be no chance at all of something happening, yet it might

Exactly! The notion that because it has always happened just so - it will continue to happen just so. Our day to day existence is based on assumptions not certainties. Reality often proves otherwise.

We have to always bear in mind the real and everpresent "potentiality" for other possibilities.

[SorryImPsychic]

Surely the Almighty has the ability to provide the ultimate proof for his own existence.

God, as presented in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, puts forward his own concise, emphatic, unfalsifiable statement about his existence.

I AM
.
Now we attempt to disprove this....but we can't.

[Antipositor]

There is no evidence for the existence of any particular god, there is no evidence for flying pigs, there is no evidence for perpetual motion machines etc. Are you seriously suggesting that to be credited with intellectual honesty one has to accept the possible existence of every weird notion the human imagination is capable of?

Fine, I agree there is no evidence for such things, but it's not scientific to say it proves they don't exist. Neither is it to say they do exist. It's very simple when you know that science isn't like a court of law where some sort of answer is required.

[Pebble]

Fine, I agree there is no evidence for such things, but it's not scientific to say it proves they don't exist. Neither is it to say they do exist. It's very simple when you know that science isn't like a court of law where some sort of answer is required.

We have been around this one several times now, but little progress! If you read what I have written, I absolutely agree that one cannot disprove the existence of pretty well anything. The point I am making is that this is no bar to being both an atheist and a skeptic. An atheist does not state that the existence of god(s) has(have) been disproven, it is a statement that one sees no adequate reason for 'belief' in them. The primary difference with an agnostic position, is that the atheist further conlcudes that logic tends to support a view that god(s) as envisaged will never be shown to exist - that is all. Call that 'closed minded' if you will, but that is not correct.

A similar example is homeopathy, there is no quality supporting evidence for homeopathy, there is no logical basis - you on the basis of your previously stated position would be a homeopathic agnostic (it has not been proven not to work) I would be an atheist (it will never be shown to work). The difference here is that we can test the hypothesis out, and can come to a positive conlcusion if it were ever shown to work. I frequently analyse the data produced, it remains as I had predicted - neutral on balance (some positive, some negative as is the nature of purely statistical enquiry). Thus evaluation of the evidence can be done objectively even if one 'believes' that the underlying concept is flawed.

[Antipositor]

As a rather more decisive type, I am happy to say that there is no evidence for god(s) after thousands of years of searching and no logical reason for the kinds of gods proposed, to exist therefore I am an atheist. Being a skeptic, I am happy to look at new evidence on the subject. Having common sense, I will not give more than cursory attention to claims that are not rapidly followed by robust information.

Decisiveness is a great virtue... when it's needed.

What's the need to declare a certitude where no need exists, and evidence is scant? Much comedy is based on charactars who form needless certitudes and consequently pay for their errors.

[Croydon Bob]

What's the need to declare a certitude where no need exists, and evidence is scant?

Who said that there was a need? Nobody.

Your only argument is straw man, over and over again. You have an irational belief that people here think in a certain way and won't accept that you are (largely) wrong.

[Pebble]

Decisiveness is a great virtue... when it's needed.

What's the need to declare a certitude where no need exists, and evidence is scant? Much comedy is based on charactars who form needless certitudes and consequently pay for their errors.

Harking back to a previous post to produce a superficial side step?

Why not engage the issue head on - you raised it?

If you wish to continue playing, provide evidence to support your contention that those who have decided that on current evidence 'x' is more probable are incapable of objective evaluation of new evidence, and I shall counter.

As I see your posts - you deride atheists on the basis that according to your definition of sketpicism/scientific rational they are 'closed minded' quasi religious individuals. Unable to handle the rational of a purely logical approach, you hope that ad hominem approaches will allow a graceful exit from the debate.

[Nukapai]

The debate over atheism vs agnoticism is why I no longer use either term - I just say that I have no religious beliefs, and leave it at that.

I tried to tackle the question of the relative weighting of different beliefs here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Scales.htm

I've gone from saying that to declaring myself Pastafarian (depends who is asking and whether they might have a sense of humour about these topics).

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Wagers are based on uncertainties; and Pascal's Wager implies that there is no way to be completely certain of God's existence/nonexistence, therefore it's best to hedge your bets. I believe the critical difference between an atheist and an agnostic is often defined as that the atheist is certain there is no God, but the agnostic is uncertain either way.

Some debate within skeptical circles has been over whether skepticism itself should follow an "atheistic" or an "agnostic" approach to unanswered questions. My own view is that solving for the X factor by declaring it a zero is a fallacy, therefore uncertainty (agnostic) better defines skepticism than denial (atheistic).

The trouble with Pascal's Wager is that he tries to make the rationality of the wager turn on the size of the stakes without reference to evidence. Trivially, Pascal's argument "proves" far too much: it "proves", for example, that you'd be wise to worship Satan and despise God if it is asserted that Satan is in fact in charge of your future and everlasting career.

As for unanswered questions, much depends on which candidate answers we are looking at. Exotic entities have to earn their keep by accounting for evidence that cannot be accounted for by their humdrum siblings. Psychic cutlery-bending powers, for example, would come into their own if someone would just bend cutlery when he was being watched so closely that he couldn't do it surreptitiously by humdrum means.

Your X-factor doesn't get us any forrader. It simply muddles the situation where the evidence we have is inconclusive with the situation where evidence is needed but absent.

[Antipositor]

A similar example is homeopathy, there is no quality supporting evidence for homeopathy, there is no logical basis - you on the basis of your previously stated position would be a homeopathic agnostic (it has not been proven not to work) I would be an atheist (it will never be shown to work).

The important distinction with regard to homeopathy is whether there is no supporting evidence or no supporting evidence you recognize. You are tailoring your own criteria to suit your conclusions.

[ZERO]

There is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural gods.

There is an infinite amount of things, limited only by imagination, for which there is no evidence. Do we rule none out? Do we really entertain the possible reality of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Of course not.
What makes god any different?

Until some real evidence for a god is demonstrated it is entirely reasonable to have the opinion that there are no gods.

[Pebble]

The important distinction with regard to homeopathy is whether there is no supporting evidence or no supporting evidence you recognize. You are tailoring your own criteria to suit your conclusions.

The distinction that is important is that with homeopathy it is possible to amass evidence. With gods there are no trials that can be designed to test the current hypotheses.

Then you charge that I do not analyse evidence objectively (no evidence provided by you!). Take a look at: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/sho...?t=2706&page=3

post 32 on is the most relevant to your allegation. Tell me where my analysis lacks objectivity, since this is your clear position.