Originally posted by robbie carrobie
two things strike me hear, the insinuation that there is no god, itself bordering on a truth claim without a shred of evidence and the fact that its hardly absurd to believe in an intelligent creator when the known world is teaming with intelligence, one could say it takes a greater leap of faith to limit ones search for truth to unintelligent agenci ...[text shortened]... the most unsubstantiated assertions on the basis of scant evidence, all hail the God of science!
the insinuation that there is no god, itself bordering on a truth claim without a shred of evidence
Firstly, it is not bordering on a truth claim because it clearly is a truth claim to claim something doesn't exist.
Secondly, because of Occam's razor, no shred of evidence is required to rationally dismiss any existential claim. If this was not the case, then we would require evidence that there is NO supernatural teacup orbiting Mars to justify any claim that there is NO supernatural teacup orbiting Mars and such evidence is impossible to obtain -so we should believe that there could credibly exist such a thing?
But, because of Occam's razor, the only rational default assumption must be there is NO such teacup and, for the same reason, NO God, and thus the burden of proof must be placed on the person who claims that there exists such a thing, NOT the person that says there is NO such thing!
and the fact that its hardly absurd to believe in an intelligent creator when the known world is teaming with intelligence,
What kind of “intelligent creator”? A human one that doesn't require supernatural magic to create something or one that does?
There existing many NONE supernatural people that can NOT magically create the whole universe doesn't make it any more probable that there exists a fantastical supernatural being that IS a supernatural person that CAN magically create the whole universe! Your logic is flawed.
one could say it takes a greater leap of faith to limit ones search for truth to unintelligent agencies!
Not rationally say so! See my previous application of Occam's razor.
let me elaborate on how that logical principle can be applied in this case:
“there exists a God” is NOT an equal possibility to “there exists no God” because the assumption that there is a God is not one assumption but many including, depending on exactly which religion you would regard as most valid, there exists an object (called God) that simultaneously has all the characteristics of 1, being the creator of the whole universe 2, being immortal, 3, being benevolent, 4, having a mind, 5, being supernatural (which in turn assumes that there exists a supernatural) 6, there is only one such object with all these characteristics (i.e. there is only one God)....etc. Now, if we label each of these assumptions A, B, C, ...etc then the probability of there being a god must be the probability of A AND B AND C AND D ….etc but the probability of there being no god must be the probability of ~A OR ~B OR ~C OR ~D ...etc. ( the "~" in logic means "NOT" ) . Note that there is asymmetry (i.e. NOT completely symmetrical) between the two possibilities and therefore the probabilities between the two possibilities of there being a god and there being no god for, with there being a god, ALL the defining characteristics of a god have to be simultaneously true (as indicated by the use of the “AND” logic operations) but, for there being no god, only ONE of the defining characteristics of a god have to be false (as indicated by the use of the “OR” and "~" logic operations). This is not only what makes these two possibilities unequal but also indicates that the probability of there being a god must be very 'small' compared to that of there being no god.
The above is the correct why to apply the logical principle of Occam's razor and an analogous argument can be made against the hypothesis that there is a supernatural teacup orbiting Mars and any other existential claim made in the absence of good supporting evidence for such an existential claim.