A theism, a theism, my kingdom for a theism

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

No, but

a) there is objective evidence that God exists in the form of human thoughts (MRI scans and such ...)

b) I've never seen any objective evidence that God exists as anything other than thoughts in human minds.

During the past two decades, I've asked several people (who claimed to believe in God) whether they could provide any objective evidence that God exists (as other than ...). No one has done so yet.

I've asked for such evidence on this and other forums. No one there has provided or pointed to any.

At one blog where the blogger had chastised the National Academy of Sciences for failing to provide objective evidence that God didn't exist, I posted a request for objective evidence that God _did_ exist (as other than ...). My posted request was deleted. I re-posted my request. It was deleted again.

And all this and more doesn't convince you not only that god doesn't exist
but that you can be certain of this?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

And all this and more doesn't convince you not only that god doesn't exist but that you can be certain of this?

IMO, one of the fundamental truths which I wish was taught more widely: we can't be certain of anything.

Statistical likelihood can be applied. But we can't be certain.

We're not God.

(Of course, I might be wrong....)

[davar55]

Originally Posted by chalsall

IMO, one of the fundamental truths which I wish was taught more widely: we can't be certain of anything.

Statistical likelihood can be applied. But we can't be certain.

We're not God.

(Of course, I might be wrong....)

I am certain of your sincerity. But placing all knowledge as
contingent is a major philosophical Fallacy, not a principle
of merit. While the god concept's contradictoriness may be
the deepest one to discover, making it perhaps the hardest
to dispel, I think the several agnostics who've contributed
here could do well to embrace at least the Possibility that
existence of any god can actually be disproven. It may
seem right elevate uncertainty/doubt as a value, but I've
been suggesting the opposite. It's fine to challenge the
theists for evidence or proof of existence, but after you've
won your point, don't grant that POV the credence of your
own uncertainty.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

It's fine to challenge the theists for evidence or proof of existence, but after you've won your point, don't grant that POV the credence of your own uncertainty.

Please don't blow sunshine, Sunshine.

I simply seek the truth. Wherever that leads.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

And all this and more doesn't convince you not only that god doesn't exist
but that you can be certain of this?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But 99.99999% is good enough for most everyday decisions.

Firm conclusions can become revisable when further evidence is found.

But believers' reliance on a book of many authors and long history of exclusion and revision without any supporting objective evidence is way, way, way, way ... short of even 1%.

.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by davar55

[...]
I think the several agnostics who've contributed
here could do well to embrace at least the Possibility that
existence of any god can actually be disproven[...]

Only the agnostics? Not embracing the idea that the existence of god can be disproven is compatible with atheism too, I think.

Perhaps this is only a trivial semantic point, but I'll make it because I think it could possibly lie at the root of some of the discussion here. Agnosticism literally means a "don't know" position. And actually, davar55, I believe that you too are an agnostic as well as being quite obviously an atheist. While you take the view that it is possible to disprove the existence of god, you don't claim that anyone has actually done so, so you don't really claim to know for certain that god does not exist. (Or do you?)

I consider myself both agnostic and atheist. I believe that god does not exist, basing this belief on Occam's Razor and my lack of any reason to suppose that any god does exist. But I don't know for sure.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Only the agnostics? Not embracing the idea that the existence of god can be disproven is compatible with atheism too, I think.

Perhaps this is only a trivial semantic point, but I'll make it because I think it could possibly lie at the root of some of the discussion here.

Another and far from trivial point is that we don't seem to have a commonly agreed understanding of what "god" is. By "we" I mean the participants in this discussion. It's abundantly clear that we as a species disagree vehemently and all too often violently.

For instance, I don't believe that the Roman god Pan exists as anything but an intellectual construct, as a description of certain aspects of human social behaviour. However, does that have any bearing on whether or not I believe in the divinity of Christ, perhaps as a re-incarnation of Krishna? Would I be acting inconsistently if I asserted that I was both a Pastafarian and a Frisbeetarian?

[chappy]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

I consider myself both agnostic and atheist. I believe that god does not exist, basing this belief on Occam's Razor and my lack of any reason to suppose that any god does exist. But I don't know for sure.

I think this is my position, if I understand you correctly :), I call myself a Weak Atheist, or Atheist Agnostic. My philosophical position comes from not caring whether there is a deity or not, because deity has no explanatory value. There might be one more akin to the deist view who set the Universe in motion some time ago but, if so, She doesn't kick around in our affairs much.

I believe we can't rule out the possibility of Other or even the possibility of an Ultimate Other. But we can rule out the notion of certain conceptions of god--like the one described in the bible.

The classic alt.athiesm contributor Stephen Roberts line is "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

[davar55]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Only the agnostics? Not embracing the idea that the existence of god can be disproven is compatible with atheism too, I think.
...
Agnosticism literally means a "don't know" position. And actually, davar55, I believe that you too are an agnostic as well as being quite obviously an atheist. While you take the view that it is possible to disprove the existence of god, you don't claim that anyone has actually done so, so you don't really claim to know for certain that god does not exist. (Or do you?)

I consider myself both agnostic and atheist. I believe that god does not exist, basing this belief on Occam's Razor and my lack of any reason to suppose that any god does exist. But I don't know for sure.

I made a decision on entering this thread to try to avoid my
occasional pedantic approach to explaining my religious non-beliefs.
So I've avoided certain statements and arguments. But I must note
that you are right about agnosticism's root but incorrect in saying
one can be both an agnostic and an atheist without contradicting
oneself. A true atheist knows there is no god. The issue I was
raising earlier is how can one be certain (to oneself) if one cannot
prove it to someone else's satisfaction. What is a personal proof?
I do consider it to be a certain fact, but the means by which I
acquired certainty were long and complicated and personal.
I do believe the explanation can be transferred to others, but
probably only to those predisposed to disbelief, i.e. to other atheists
who might not have proof but know anyway.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

A true atheist knows there is no god.

A true atheist believes they know.

Just like the theist.

IMO, only the agnostic position is intellectually honest.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by chalsall

A true atheist believes they know.

Just like the theist.

IMO, only the agnostic position is intellectually honest.

You said that earlier in this thread, and I objected to it then.
Some atheists think it's the agnostics' views that are untenable.
Just because an agnostic thinks not knowing is more reasonable
than knowing doesn't mean he should label atheists intellectually
dishonest. That's just inflammatory. For us, it's not an opinion.