07 Dec 06
Originally posted by rwingettPersonal accounts of experiences are not scientifically acceptable evidence. They may be evidence to search for scientifically acceptable evidence, but that's about it.
There is no evidence for a god that is scientifically acceptable. But that doesn't mean there is no evidence of any kind. There is personal experience, for example. Many, many people have claimed to have had some kind of personal interaction with a deity. This type of evidence is not very convincing, but it cannot be discounted out of hand.
The topic of ...[text shortened]... them. The Problem of Evil, on the other hand, very nearly makes the case against OOMP gods.
Your characterization of 'weaker' bits of evidence in proving there is no God is evidently subjective. When you claim that absence of evidence is among the 'weaker' bits of evidence, you implicitly accept that the issue here is what are the reasons to be an atheist. If not it's 'weaker' in what sense? I dare even say it is the ONLY evidence against logically possible Gods.
The GAFE is a logical argument that claims the logically impossibility of one type of Gods, so it's not 'evidence' of any sort. It's also a drop in an ocean of possibilites for God.
07 Dec 06
Originally posted by Palynka(I missed this one earlier)
'I exist' is not as self-evident as it appears. Like I said in another thread, the 'I' is a referent on which the property of existence can be applied. And without a definition of that referent, the expression is meaningless. The tricky part is that the referent cannot be defined in a non-circular way.
That some scientists are solipsists is quite irrelevant.
Maybe -- but the point is that science is indifferent to metaphysical assumptions of solipsism.
Your account of existence (broadly, the Russell-Frege view) is severely problemmatic. Statements like "I exist" (which make perfect sense to anyone but Carnap) simply cannot be handled by it. A referent need not be precisely defined to have meaning or semantic value.
07 Dec 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerCan you explain this further?
Your account of existence (broadly, the Russell-Frege view) is severely problemmatic. Statements like "I exist" (which make perfect sense to anyone but Carnap) simply cannot be handled by it. A referent need not be precisely defined to have meaning or semantic value.
07 Dec 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeDo you have any links or articles for this?
The philosopher John Searle provides an illuminating account of the existence of how things like money and marriage, which exist by virtue of collective agreement, can be ontologically reconciled with a physical world.
07 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaRoughly, it proceeds along the lines of Kripke's Naming and Necessity:
Can you explain this further?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke#Naming_and_necessity
Essentially, in the Frege-Russell view, "Palynka exists" would be false if you had been left-handed instead of right-handed (or vice-versa, if you are left-handed) or if you'd been paralysed of polio at age 7 whereas every reasonable man-on-the-street recognises that "Palynka exists" would still be true if these counterfactuals were true.
EDIT: Further issues with the Frege-Russell view is that statements like "I exist" (which makes sense to everyone but Carnap), "That tree exists" and "Something exists" are meaningless purely by virtue of their being unanalysable in the normal way. Which is absurd because they clearly do make sense to most listeners.
Frege/Russell argued that linguistic statements were meaningless where they could not be expressed as logical propositions; most modern philosophers of language (like Kripke) hold that Frege-Russell simply got it wrong and logic and language (and reality!!) are not interchangeable.
07 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaBeing an atheist and proving there is no god are not the same thing. One does not need any proof that theistic claims are wrong to be an atheist. So absence of evidence is a perfectly good reason to be an atheist. But absence of evidence, in and of itself, proves absolutely nothing. Contrary to the initial poster's claim, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. In fact, to use it in that context is a logical fallacy: the Argument from Ignorance.
Personal accounts of experiences are not scientifically acceptable evidence. They may be evidence to search for scientifically acceptable evidence, but that's about it.
Your characterization of 'weaker' bits of evidence in proving there is no God is evidently subjective. When you claim that absence of evidence is among the 'weaker' bits of evidence, you i 's not 'evidence' of any sort. It's also a drop in an ocean of possibilites for God.
From Wikipedia:
Argument from ignorance
The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:
* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently explained, so it was not (or could not be) true.
* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case - it is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more.
So while the absence of evidence may be sufficient reason to be an atheist in regard to any number or type of gods, it does absolutely nothing to disprove any of them. The GAFE, on the other hand, comes very close to actively disproving one particular category of gods. And since that category is the most dominant one at the present time, I daresay the GAFE is a highly relevant and effective tool.
07 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettThe problem with the GAFE argument (as I argued earlier in this forum) is that it's superfluous; the definition of "God" it uses can be shown to have inconsistencies independent of the existence of evil.
So while the absence of evidence may be sufficient reason to be an atheist in regard to any number or type of gods, it does absolutely nothing to disprove any of them. The GAFE, on the other hand, comes very close to actively disproving one particular category of gods. And since that category is the most dominant one at the present time, I daresay the GAFE is a highly relevant and effective tool.
Alternative definitions of 'God' (q.v. Plantinga) do not suffer from that problem, are still congruent with common notions of God and are not liable to GAFE.
07 Dec 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat is why I say the GAFE falls short of clinching the case. There are innumerable theodicies to contend with, and if a definition of what god IS cannot even be agreed upon, then it's difficult to disprove him.
The problem with the GAFE argument (as I argued earlier in this forum) is that it's superfluous; the definition of "God" it uses can be shown to have inconsistencies independent of the existence of evil.
Alternative definitions of 'God' (q.v. Plantinga) do not suffer from that problem, are still congruent with common notions of God and are not liable to GAFE.
07 Dec 06
Originally posted by rwingettThere's a worse problem with theodicies, IMO. If we cannot agree upon what 'good' and 'evil' are or mean (even if we cannot define them, as Moore points out) then we cannot have a theodicy to begin with.
That is why I say the GAFE falls short of clinching the case. There are innumerable theodicies to contend with, and if a definition of what god IS cannot even be agreed upon, then it's difficult to disprove him.
07 Dec 06
Originally posted by PalynkaYour father and your mather is not your creator. They cann't insure your existance and they don't control it.
Neither my father nor my mother are called Allah. And you shouldn't call them that, they already have a name.
Did they choose you to come?
And where did the first man and women came from.