The meaning of life?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:09 pm I've already identified myself as an agnostic weak atheist.
You can identify yourself as a toaster too...but the accuracy of the nomenclature will still be up for debate.

Analytics are 100% on the side that says "A + theos" means "no god(s)."

However, your self-professed claim, "There is no evidence for God," (to which you say, and I quote, "Bingo!") is just as wildly irrational and overreaching as the basic claim of Atheism itself. It's not a thing which you have, or could have, any rational warrant to assert.

Moreover, there are plenty of people who insist they do have evidence that, at least (you would have to admit) for them, counts in reckoning the existence of God far more likely than the non-existence of God.

So there's your claim they have none, with obviously no plausible warrant for you saying so, over and against their assertion that a great many of them do, in fact, see what they regard as evidence -- and with you having provided no reason to doubt the sincerity of their claim or the accuracy of their interpretation.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

Sure, lots of people say they have evidence for god. But do they?

I have plenty of evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. Should I trot it out for you? If you say you find the evidence unconvincing, surely you have no warrant to do this by your own standards of evidence, right?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:31 pm Sure, lots of people say they have evidence for god. But do they?
Good question. And it would deserve to be answered if they were the ones making the knowledge claim in this case.

But these people are not those writing here, "Bingo," or "There is no evidence for God." Consequently, the fact that no evidence exists (if true) would require proof from the one stating it -- that is, from you.

Otherwise, you're back to being a straight agnostic, and saying merely "I personally do not know what evidence there is for God, but I do believe that I have none." That might be true, but leads to no further conclusions.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:50 pm
davidm wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:31 pm Sure, lots of people say they have evidence for god. But do they?
Good question.
OK. So what's the good answer?

What's the evidence?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:50 pm Consequently, the fact that no evidence exists (if true) would require proof from the one stating it -- that is, from you.
As has been discussed, no one can prove a universal negative.

Can you prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist? If so, please provide your proof.

I can't prove that no evidence for god exists. What I can reasonably do is ask that a theist show the evidence that he claims he has.

I do not say that no evidence exists for God, still less that no evidence CAN exist for god. I've said nothing like this. I've said I don't see any such evidence -- certainly not evidence that would meet what I would regard as a minimum standard of evidence.

But if you've got the evidence, spill it.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

Evidence for Santa Claus:

I have a personal relationship with Santa Claus — I first met him when I was four years old, and sat in his lap at a department store! He was dressed all in red just as has been described, and he had an awesome white beard.

Every Christmas Eve, NASA tracks Santa by satellite and radar and provides updates on his progress across the globe. Why would NASA do that unless Santa exists? Are you suggesting that NASA lies?

Every Christmas morning when I was a kid there were tons of presents under the tree and my parents told me they were delivered by Santa. Are you calling my parents liars? Them are fightin’ words!

We’d leave cookies out at night for Santa and on Christmas morning the cookies had been devoured, leaving mere crumbs behind. Who else could have eaten the cookies but Santa?

Lots of books talk about Santa and have pictures of him. These pictures perfectly match the Santa whom I met when I was four years old and began a lifelong personal relationship with him. My own kids have sat in Santa’s lap, as I did so long ago! We WUB you, Santa! :santa:

Like God, Santa is omniscient and knows who’s naughty and nice. I know this for a fact because when I was eight I was a little brat all year long and on Christmas morning I got coal in my stocking from Santa. :(

There is plenty more evidence, but that should be sufficient even for the most hard-boiled A-Santaist.

As you note:
So there's your claim they have none, with obviously no plausible warrant for you saying so, over and against their assertion that a great many of them do, in fact, see what they regard as evidence -- and with you having provided no reason to doubt the sincerity of their claim or the accuracy of their interpretation.
I’m glad you agree with me that there is no plausible warrant for saying that I or others have no evidence for Santa, and that you can provide no reason to doubt the sincerity of my claim or the accuracy of my interpretation.

Still, if you can PROVE a universal negative — that Santa does NOT exist — go right ahead! Bear in mind you’ll have to swim upstream against the MASSIVE EVIDENCE for the existence of Santa — which, on your own account, you have no plausible warrant to question.

Right?

:santa:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:05 pm As has been discussed, no one can prove a universal negative.
And since Atheism is a universal negative ("There is no god(s)), it is without proof. Hence, it is irrational.
Can you prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist? If so, please provide your proof.
I know of no one who is aiming at proving this. If you find them, let me know.
I can't prove that no evidence for god exists. What I can reasonably do is ask that a theist show the evidence that he claims he has.
Yes, you can. And if you find he has evidence, there are only two ways you can go. One is to change your mind. The second is to deny that the evidence is / should count as evidence. And it is this latter that Atheists try.

They know of the existence of evidences. All they have to do is google "evidences for God," and they'll get a whole bunch. And for those who are fair-minded, there will be more than enough for them to contemplate. They'll see that Theists aren't nuts...that they have good reasons to at least think they have evidence for God.

To an agnostic, that sort of open-mindedness is possible. So is even the recognition that some of the evidence is very good. And still, the atheist may rationally waver; but at least he's being fair.

But for the Atheist, no such open-mindedness is possible. Let one evidence be genuine, and his worldview collapses. There may be evidence; but whatever it is, it just doesn't matter to them, because having closed their minds on the subject already, NOTHING will count as evidence to them. Nothing CAN count as evidence, for even one iota of it forces them to become mere agnostics...and they won't accept that, because it stops them from being able to dismiss the whole question.
I do not say that no evidence exists for God, still less that no evidence CAN exist for god. I've said nothing like this. I've said I don't see any such evidence -- certainly not evidence that would meet what I would regard as a minimum standard of evidence.
Even that is fair enough. But if you are open, you will at least see strong arguments that require complicated explanations for you to continue to dismiss -- not a bunch of simpletons believing in a "Santa Claus" level fantasy.

So really, what you see will be up to you. The evidence is there.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

You're saying Santa is a fantasy??? :sob:

Can you prove Santa doesn't exist?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:42 pm They know of the existence of evidences. All they have to do is google "evidences for God," and they'll get a whole bunch. And for those who are fair-minded, there will be more than enough for them to contemplate. They'll see that Theists aren't nuts...that they have good reasons to at least think they have evidence for God.
And of course you are quite well aware that I am aware of all the evidences for God -- and their rebuttals, as well. You know this, because we have corresponded on this. Nor have I ever said, or implied, that theists are nuts for their beliefs.

You know perfectly well that I am aware of, and understand quite well, the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the argument to design, the fine-tuning argument ... on and on. Yet, as you yourself must be aware, there are rebuttals to all these arguments -- which maybe YOU don't find persuasive, but who are you -- on your own standards -- to contend that these rebuttals have no plausible warrant?

Now, were you going to provide your disproof of Santa? Are you prepared to prove a universal negative? Why should I not believe in the literal existence of Santa? I'm serious.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Viveka »

davidm wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:23 am
Viveka wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:48 pm
davidm wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:24 pm "Lack of belief" is just another way of saying, "I do not believe god exists." This is obviously not the same as "having no true beliefs."

The strong atheist goes further and says, "I believe god does not exist." He does not lack a belief in God -- he has a belief, the positive belief that god fails to exist.
Lacking necessarily entails no true belief. Read my previous posts on this thread and you'll see why Atheism is a belief in opposition to Theism, and lacking belief is Agnosticism.
Lacking belief is not agnosticism. As explained, "gnosis" (knowledge) is about KNOWING, not belief.
'

Yes, and A-gnosis means 'without knowledge.' Duh.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

Viveka wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:58 pm
davidm wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:23 am
Viveka wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:48 pm

Lacking necessarily entails no true belief. Read my previous posts on this thread and you'll see why Atheism is a belief in opposition to Theism, and lacking belief is Agnosticism.
Lacking belief is not agnosticism. As explained, "gnosis" (knowledge) is about KNOWING, not belief.
'

Yes, and A-gnosis means 'without knowledge.' Duh.
Yeah, and what's the point of your "duh"? That's just what I said! A-gnosis means without knowledge; but one can have beliefs (or non-beliefs) without claiming to KNOW (or not know). My whole point!

BTW, have your worked out what a fictitious force is yet? Have you figured out how a light clock works, and what that portends? Have you figured out that the so-called twin's paradeox does NOT involve one twin traveling AT light speed? Have you discovered yet why the twin paradox is actually NOT a paradox?

DUH!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:54 pm ...who are you -- on your own standards -- to contend that these rebuttals have no plausible warrant?
Actually, everybody has to take a view of that. So it's no surprise that I do.

And you do too, you say. You claim you understand some of the major arguments...but you claim to find the rebuttals more compelling. If I were ironic, I would just turn it around and say, "who are you...?"

But of course, that's silly. We are rational inquirers (I would hope), and we are seeking to find the inference to the best explanation for the origins, design, causality, nature and various data available to us in the universe.

So "who are we" to judge?

We are us. As rational inquirers, what else should we be doing? :shock:
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:38 pm
davidm wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:54 pm ...who are you -- on your own standards -- to contend that these rebuttals have no plausible warrant?
Actually, everybody has to take a view of that. So it's no surprise that I do.
Oh? So why is your view that the "evidence" trumps the rebuttals more plausible then my view, that the rebuttals trump your "evidence?"
And you do too, you say. You claim you understand some of the major arguments...
I do understand them very well, as you well know.

Do you recall our conversation about Plantinaga's laughable "ontological argument," in which he either ineptly or dishonestly illegitimately conflated the natural language meaning of "possibility" with the specific modal-language meaning of the word, as a modal operator? All you could reply is that I should reply to Plantinga directly -- but of course you were unable to defend his indefensible argument.
... but you claim to find the rebuttals more compelling. If I were ironic, I would just turn it around and say, "who are you...?"
Yes, I do find the rebuttals more compelling. And? On your own criteria for what counts as evidence, you have no "plausible warrant" to contest my rebuttals. Since I don't share your definition of evidence, I do not have a comparable problem.
But of course, that's silly. We are rational inquirers (I would hope), and we are seeking to find the inference to the best explanation for the origins, design, causality, nature and various data available to us in the universe.

So "who are we" to judge?

We are us. As rational inquirers, what else should we be doing? :shock:
I agree. Were you going to now disprove the existence of Santa Claus? :santa:
Last edited by davidm on Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by Viveka »

davidm wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:00 pmI agree. Were you going to now disprove the existence of Santa Claus? :santa:
Why would Santa Claus have the properties of ultimate goodness, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience? And why would we not represent that with something more fitting, like a Buddha or Shiva or Brahman or Praeternatural Beings?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The meaning of life?

Post by davidm »

Viveka wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:22 pm
davidm wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:00 pmI agree. Were you going to now disprove the existence of Santa Claus? :santa:
Why would Santa Claus have the properties of ultimate goodness, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience? And why would we not represent that with something more fitting, like a Buddha or Shiva or Brahman or Praeternatural Beings?
Which has nothing to do with my point. That point is that you cannot disprove a universe negative statement. "Prove that Santa Claus does not exist." I cannot prove that. Nor can anyone disprove the existence of ICan's monstrous god, who in his "ultimate goodness" throws people into a lake of fire for eternity after they die for not believing in him. To be an atheist does not require that one disprove the existence of this or any god, just as being an a-santaist does not require that one disprove the existence of Santa.
Last edited by davidm on Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply