While we cannot prove the certainty of the existence God, nor with certainty we cannot disprove it. While it can be argued that the God or gods presented in the religious scriptures, or beliefs, whether be it the Hindu, the Muslim, Jewish or Christian beliefs, may not fit into one’s liking or opinion to be adequate or reasonable, the extension does not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist.
Richard Dawking’s sponsoring the message on buses in England that goes like this “There’s Probably – No God” is a reasonable statement, but the categorical statement that “There is No God” is wrong. Of course you would have to take the risk in living the life believing the absence of God.
Strong/positive atheism asserts that there is no God. Compare this with weak atheism, which is merely the lack of belief in gods.Strong atheists usually back up their conviction by pointing out the contradictory nature, hence non existence, of God (especially the Biblical God).
ReplyDeleteIf hard, physical evidence is the only issue in discussion here, shouldn't all of us be believers of unicorns? After all, like God, the existence of unicorns has never been emphatically disproved.What about leprechauns? And fire breathing dragons? Zeus? Loki? Mermaids? Fairies?
When there is no evidence for the existence of God, eventually one would interpret that as evidence for no God.
We are talking about truth statement. True we cannot prove that there are no unicorn. That is also a truth statement.
ReplyDeleteBut the existence of unicorn or not does not affect the philosophical question.
We cannot prove there is no God, and we cannot prove there is no life after death. That is a truth statement.
Unlike the issue of the existence of the unicorn, God and Life after death has relevance to me.
Forget about the bibical God (if that is the particularity they have an axe to grind), the strong atheists do not have a logical basis in their conviction. I understand that you are weighing things based on logic.
Strong atheists who make a positive assertion about the non existence of God has the burden of proof, and they often substantiate their claim using logical arguments, which are, of course, not as superior as scientific arguments due to the absence of physical evidence/data. If anything, strong atheism relies too heavily, and often solely, on logical/philosophical arguments. The Problem of Evil and the Omnipotence Paradox are amongst those commonly cited as "evidence" (though they are not. As impeccably logical as they may be, they are merely rationales).
ReplyDeleteI was using the unicorn analogy, not to trivialise any religion or cause offence, but to underscore the unreasonableness of belief without evidence. Just because something cannot be disproved does not mean that it exists. Does every claim have to be accepted to be true until it is disproved? Why is God the exception?
You indicated that God and life after death bear great relevance to your life. How would you personally define this God?
i am building on truth statements. Checkbox on what is certain, before moving on to opinion, or pointers. For instant, we at this point state that God must be good. The argument against the existence of God presuppose that the present of evil knock God off the block. What if God is evil? or if he is indifference to good and evil.
ReplyDeleteAs a consequence of my unlearned mind, I am afraid I have run into a stonewall if you are using the term "truth statements" interchangeably with "absolute certainties". Do you have an example of what a truth statement is to aid my understanding?
ReplyDeleteWe cannot prove that there are no unicorn. That's a truth statement
ReplyDelete"We cannot prove that there is a God or other divine entities."
ReplyDeleteWould the above qualify as a truth statement? If it is, have we established that God can neither be proven nor disproved?
As a follow up, it is that logic can only be formed through truth statements. We cannot come to logical certainties in the considerations of statements that are less than that.
ReplyDelete"There is probably no God" is equivalent to "There is probably God". To encourage the audience that the risk of facing the consequence is zero by 'enjoying' is therefore a misdirection.
Right, "we cannot prove God" is a truth statement. As with a lot of things, we are dependent on operating based on 'prespective'.
ReplyDeleteConclusion 1 "There is a god"
ReplyDeleteConclusion 2 "There is no god"
They are both mutually exclusive uncertainties but they are uncertainties of different values. One is completely right and the other completely wrong. Like a light switch, it's either on or off - there is either a God(s), or there isn't.
You are spot on in saying that we are led to our respective conclusions via perspectives. For me, it comes down to the weight of evidence for and against, and the credibility it carries.
Even though both conclusions are unknowns, doesn't mean that they should be treated equally. Which conclusion is more justifiable by evidence, and which isn't? This is what Dawkins is getting at. Since there is an absence of evidence for God, why not just get on with life?
“When there is no evidence for the existence of God, eventually one would interpret that as evidence for no God.”
ReplyDeleteWhen there is no evidence for person x’s hate for me, eventually i would interpret that as absence of person x’s hate for me, or else I would be called paranoid. However, this doesn’t rule out the possibility that they actually do hate me but I just never saw the evidence.
“Just because something cannot be disproved does not mean that it exists. Does every claim have to be accepted to be true until it is disproved? Why is God the exception?”
Not every claim has to be accepted as true until disproved, for example, ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is in some ways the opposite approach, but I believe it then comes down to the ‘personal gain’ you get from either believing or disbelieving it until proof otherwise. Or, exactly what you have said - that you will favour the side with more proof, (but I said in my response under 'Is God there?' that the arguments are equal for me therefore I then side based on 'personal experience'/'personal gain').
"When there is no evidence for person x’s hate for me, eventually i would interpret that as absence of person x’s hate for me, or else I would be called paranoid. However, this doesn’t rule out the possibility that they actually do hate me but I just never saw the evidence. "
ReplyDeleteYes, there would a possibility, but to the point of being paranoid. Consider the other possibility which is more likely and much more reasonable - person x does not hate you.