Originally posted by rwingettI thought your argument was circular because what follows: "It therefore follows :" in your post seems to be little more than a restatement of the premise. I guess that is not a circular argument as such, but more of a tautology.
My conclusion is not circular because it is disprovable.
Originally posted by rwingettOne of the problems I have with your claims is where you appear to claim that the existence of God is not disprovable. Science has a very strong history of essentially disproving religious claims. Why should it fail to do so for others?
Religion, on the other hand, has no such record. No article of religious faith has ever been factually demonstrated. It is reasonable to speculate that none ever will.
Also, though it may be 'reasonable to speculate' that no religion will prove its claims, it seems unreasonable to claim that it is impossible for them to do so.
Originally posted by rwingettYet all of us do accept some forms of evidence that have not as yet lived up to that standard. For example, I rather doubt that you have managed to convince Kelly of the validity of the Theory of Evolution - or is it only the requirement that some disinclined people be convinced?
Part of the criteria for evidence is that it not only convince proponents of an argument, but that it be able to convince people who are not inclined to accept an argument. It must overcome the burden of proof. Theists have presented a variety of arguments for their position over the centuries. The teleological argument, the cosmological argument, arguments ...[text shortened]... able to overcome that burden of proof. They all lead to a Scotch verdict. They are not proven.
My main complaint however is that you are asking people who do not accept your standards of proof, but rather rely more heavily on personal experience and wishful thinking, to come to the same conclusion as you - that all beliefs are equal - even when from their perspective the relative quantities of evidence are significantly different.
For example, if someone accepts 'trusted authority' as a source of evidence then he would be more likely to follow the religion of his father, president and the majority of his country members than say the religion of members of a foreign country. Maybe it is his standards of proof that are at fault, in which case it might be best if you attack that directly?
Originally posted by twhiteheadDisproving various religious claims does nothing to disprove the existence of god. All it does is prove that theists have no idea what they're talking about. There may be a god that is something other than what they conceive. Although it should cause us to suspect that there may be no god at all.
One of the problems I have with your claims is where you appear to claim that the existence of God is not disprovable. Science has a very strong history of essentially disproving religious claims. Why should it fail to do so for others?
Also, though it may be 'reasonable to speculate' that no religion will prove its claims, it seems unreasonable to claim that it is impossible for them to do so.
I am prepared to accept the claim that god falls outside the realm of science. If you wish to claim otherwise, you do so at your own peril.
In case you have forgotten, I've gone through the trouble of removing any absolute statements from my argument. Although it is highly improbable that any religion will prove its claims, it is certainly possible for them to do so. All it would take is for god to factually demonstrate his existence. If god really is omnipotent, then that should be an easy task.
Originally posted by rwingettWhy? Just a moment ago you implied that all evidence should be in the realm of science. Surely if God can be said to exist then there must be a very extraordinary exclusion clause or he should be subject to scientific investigation just as all other existent entities are.
I am prepared to accept the claim that god falls outside the realm of science. If you wish to claim otherwise, you do so at your own peril.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is the point that you never seem to get, tw -- you know, the category error thing. Of course, I've given up on arguing it with you, so let's see how well rwingett does!
Why? Just a moment ago you implied that all evidence should be in the realm of science. Surely if God can be said to exist then there must be a very extraordinary exclusion clause or he should be subject to scientific investigation just as all other existent entities are.
Originally posted by twhiteheadPerhaps god is accessible to science or perhaps he is not. How would I know either way? I am prepared to provisionally accept the claim that he is not. I think it is a fool's errand to do otherwise. The only thing that will come of it is to relieve the theists from shouldering the entire burden of proof.
Why? Just a moment ago you implied that all evidence should be in the realm of science. Surely if God can be said to exist then there must be a very extraordinary exclusion clause or he should be subject to scientific investigation just as all other existent entities are.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf Gods existence is of a different 'category' than normal every day existence then it must mean something different from what I understand it to mean. More importantly, I don't think most theists put it in a different category. The God that you and Rwingett do not believe in, is not the God that theists believe in.
This is the point that you never seem to get, tw -- you know, the category error thing. Of course, I've given up on arguing it with you, so let's see how well rwingett does!
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't think there is a theist alive who would agree that his god is accessible to scientific testing.
If Gods existence is of a different 'category' than normal every day existence then it must mean something different from what I understand it to mean. More importantly, I don't think most theists put it in a different category. The God that you and Rwingett do not believe in, is not the God that theists believe in.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLike I said, it's at this point that you start up with the crazy talk and things fall apart.
If Gods existence is of a different 'category' than normal every day existence then it must mean something different from what I understand it to mean. More importantly, I don't think most theists put it in a different category. The God that you and Rwingett do not believe in, is not the God that theists believe in.
The category error is treating metaphysics empirically. Remember Hume on metaphysics -- 'consign it to the flames'? Well, I'm not to go over that old ground again.
Rwingett -- you head them off at the impasse.
Originally posted by rwingettThey may not like the idea when stated outright, but the vast majority do claim that his influence (and hence himself) is detectable and thus should be subject to scientific scrutiny. Can you find a theist who admits that all evidence he has for God is indistinguishable from other more naturalistic explanations?
I don't think there is a theist alive who would agree that his god is accessible to scientific testing.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, Dawkins makes that point in The God Delusion, that if god interacts with the universe then even if we cannot detect him directly, we should be able to detect evidence of his interaction. That's all well and fine for a god who is claimed to interact with the universe. But what about for a god who does not? A deistic god, who sets the laws of nature in motion, but who has no further interaction with his creation, would be undetectable. As would a pantheistic, or panentheistic, conception of god. It is instructive to note that chapter 4 of The God Delusion is titled: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God. Contrary to popular belief, not even Dawkins is willing to delve into the realm of certainty.
They may not like the idea when stated outright, but the vast majority do claim that his influence (and hence himself) is detectable and thus should be subject to scientific scrutiny. Can you find a theist who admits that all evidence he has for God is indistinguishable from other more naturalistic explanations?
But if you think god can be detected scientifically, then the burden of proof rests with you to do so. I will not say it is impossible, but I am as skeptical of your claim as I am of any theist's.
Originally posted by rwingettBut the vast majority of theists believe in a God that strongly interacts with the universe.
But what about for a god who does not? A deistic god, who sets the laws of nature in motion, but who has no further interaction with his creation, would be undetectable.
For those who believe in a deistic God that does not leave any traces, I would fully agree with your claim that their beliefs are purely speculative and not based on any form of evidence whatsoever and thus not only highly unlikely to be true but all equally probable. But how many believers can you find?
I also agree that if the definition of 'god' is made so loose as to potentially include just about anything then one has no hope of showing that 'god' does not exist. But the the word is rather meaningless anyway. Once you start defining the word, say by stating that 'god' made the universe - all we need to do is show that the universe was not made, surely a potentially achievable scientific goal - and we have disproved the existence of god.
But if you think god can be detected scientifically, then the burden of proof rests with you to do so. I will not say it is impossible, but I am as skeptical of your claim as I am of any theist's.
I see no reason why one cannot investigate the existence of God as understood by the vast majority of believers - so long as they do not play the old moving target game. If Jesus's body was discovered today, still inside its tomb, a significant number of Christians would simply adjust their religion to cater for it rather than the more reasonable approach which would be to become skeptical of all their previous beliefs.