STD and Jesus

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
You've already identified the problem with your own position. No matter what universal no-god argument you may make, they can get out of it if they change the definition of 'god'.

Yeah, but to get out of mine you have to claim something really ridiculous 'is god'.

To which I respond that, I neither accept that as a reasonable suggestion for a member
of the set of all possible god concepts, and that no significant number of sane people
actually believe in and worship such a god.

If you can only get around my arguments by defining god to be a teapot then you have
already lost and just wont admit it.


Very few believe in actual real things as being 'gods'.

The most common is claiming 'the universe' is god.

To which I respond by asking whether there is something other than the physical universe
we see and can detect that they think makes up god, and whether they think that 'the universe'
has a mind.

If they answer no, then they have just relabelled 'the universe' as god, and I reject that on the
grounds that we already have a perfectly good term for the universe [the universe] and that
what they are calling 'god' is so far off of what people normally mean by the term that it's
no-longer a reasonable concept to attach to the label 'god'.
I mean sure, if you really want to call 'the universe' god then I can't, and wont try, to stop you,
but you are no longer using the word to mean the same thing as everyone else. And more to the
point, no member of the major religions can get out of this argument like this, because their god
concepts all qualify.

If they answer yes, then there is something they believe in that they have insufficient evidence
to justify believing in, and the argument holds.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, you are correct that it is fundamentally impossible to prove the non-existence of an undefined entity.
But I think he has met your challenge in finding a single argument that works against many different god-concept - just not every possible god concept.

Also I would note I wasn't trying to 'prove the non-existence' of anything.

My argument talks only about what you should [or should not] believe in.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It is irrational to believe in any proposition for which there is insufficient evidence.

There is insufficient evidence to justify belief in any reasonable god concept**.

It is thus irrational to believe in god/s.



There, I just made an argument against believing in any god. 😉 😛


**By 'reasonable god concept' I am not accepting 'the ...[text shortened]... should be noted that I have not yet met an actual believer whose god would
fail this test.

I don't agree with your first sentence. Many physicists seem to believe in string theory, for which there is no evidence what so ever. One would hardly call them irrational.

What is irrational is to believe in something where there is significant evidence against it, or where it is inconsistent, such as a young earth with no later false history.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't agree with your first sentence. Many physicists seem to believe in string theory, for which there is no evidence what so ever. One would hardly call them irrational.

What is irrational is to believe in something where there is significant evidence against it, or where it is inconsistent, such as a young earth with no later false history.

Many physicists seem to believe in string theory, ...

Um, No. Not in the same way. [and if they do then yes they are being irrational].

Many physicists believe that string theory is the best candidate for a Grand Unified Theory.

This is not at all the same as believing in the existence of god/s.

String theory also doesn't have 'no evidence to support it'.

String theory, like all proposed GUT's, must comply with ALL currently available evidence
about the way the world works, and must give [to within measurement accuracy] exactly
the same answer as the Standard Model in every circumstance where the standard model
has been verified. [and similarly for General Relativity]

What string theory famously doesn't have is any evidence to to prove that it is the correct
replacement for the standard model... which is hardly a unique problem... and the difficulty
of getting it to make testable predictions.

Which again is not the same thing as having 'no evidence to support it'.


If anyone genuinely believes that string theory IS ACTUALLY the way the universe works then
they are indeed being irrational in holding that belief because it is not sufficiently demonstrated
to justify believing that.

Whether or not it's rational to believe that String Theory is the best candidate for replacing
The Standard Model is a separate question. But it doesn't become rational simply because many
people, even many qualified people, believe it. It's either justified, or it isn't.



If you only claim it's irrational to believe propositions for which there is evidence against being
true, then you would thus have to accept as rational belief in the truth of any claim for which
we had no, or had only inconclusionary evidence. [of which there are an infinite number, for
example I could claim that there is a rose pattern bone china teapot in orbit around Neptune
and you would have to say that I was not being irrational for believing that]

As a major plank of rationality is maximising the holding of true beliefs and minimising false ones,
this would lead to the adoption of many false beliefs.

It thus cannot be considered rational.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Many physicists seem to believe in string theory, for which there is no evidence what so ever. One would hardly call them irrational.

I have to agree with googlefudge that if you are correct that they believe in string theory, and there is no evidence, then they are being irrational. Scientists are quite capable of irrational beliefs.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Many physicists seem to believe in string theory, ...

Um, No. Not in the same way. [and if they do then yes they are being irrational].

Many physicists believe that string theory is the best candidate for a Grand Unified Theory.

This is not at all the same as believing in the existence of god/s.

String theory also doesn't have ...[text shortened]... this would lead to the adoption of many false beliefs.

It thus cannot be considered rational.

Hold on a second, we have no evidence for Russel's Teapot, or any other proposition you want to make up on the spot. There is no direct evidence for String Theory [1], given that the requirement is a difference from the Standard Model. There's no inconsistency with God existing and the Standard Model, but I don't think anyone regards that as evidence for God's existence. There is however evidence for God, admittedly nothing likely to satisfy an agnostic, but it's still evidence. Your sentence was: It is irrational to believe in any proposition for which there is insufficient evidence. Now if this is going to make a material difference, such as affecting laws [2], then I think that it's irrational, but if all it means is that the believer uses up their Sunday morning (or Friday evening or whenever) doing a bit of praying then frankly I don't think they're being irrational. Especially if one has sympathy with the logic of Pascal's wager.

I think you are confounding belief, justified belief, and scientific proof. Belief does not have to be justified. Justified belief is knowledge, so someone claiming to know that God exists based solely on their upbringing and the Bible (or Koran or whatever) would be being irrational - but a choice to believe isn't. Scientific proof is a specific form of justification.

[1] As an aside, the attraction of String Theories is not that they provide Grand Unified Theories but that they automatically include a Quantum Theory of Gravity. Grand Unified Theories don't require String Theory, at least to a first approximation, and have their own technical problems, but do have some nice features of their own.

[2] By laws I mean the human laws we make for each other, not the laws of physics.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Hold on a second, we have no evidence for Russel's Teapot, or any other proposition you want to make up on the spot. There is no direct evidence for String Theory [1], given that the requirement is a difference from the Standard Model. There's no inconsistency with God existing and the Standard Model, but I don't think anyone regards that as evidence f ...[text shortened]... their own.

[2] By laws I mean the human laws we make for each other, not the laws of physics.

There is however evidence for God ...

I defy you to name me any evidence FOR the existence of a god.

.......................................................


The 'tenets' of rationality are: [and they are not writ' so I am paraphrasing as a matter of course]

1) Only correct beliefs about the world form a sound foundation for making decisions:
Therefore a rational person will attempt to hold as many true beliefs as possible,
and as few false beliefs as possible.

2)Utilising logic and reason to achieve your goals in as efficient and reliable way as possible.

One of your 'goals' as a rationalist is [by definition] 'tenet 1', and taken with 'tenet 2' this entails
using a belief generating system which maximises the number of true beliefs and minimises the
number of false beliefs.

It is thus irrational [weather you like it or not] to hold any beliefs about the world which are
not sufficiently justified. Because to do otherwise would not minimise holding false beliefs, and
maximise true ones.

I think you are confounding belief, justified belief, and scientific proof. Belief does not have to be justified. Justified belief is knowledge, so someone claiming to know that God exists based solely on their upbringing and the Bible (or Koran or whatever) would be being irrational - but a choice to believe isn't. Scientific proof is a specific form of justification.

No, I know exactly what it is I am talking about. [whether I'm right or not... different story]

I've been round the block a few times on this very subject.

So I know for example that a Justified Belief is emphatically not knowledge.

A Justified TRUE Belief is the minimum standard for knowledge... and people round here can punch holes in that
all day long.

I'm a Bayesian myself, so all knowledge claims are claims of probability, and it's just a matter of reaching a sufficiently
high level of probability of being correct given the stakes and nature of the claim being made.

But that's a whole other kettle of fish.


Also I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for the 'logic' of pascals wager and will shred any attempt to make
such an argument in my sleep.

Originally posted by googlefudge

There is however evidence for God ...

I defy you to name me any evidence FOR the existence of a god.

.......................................................


The 'tenets' of rationality are: [and they are not writ' so I am paraphrasing as a matter of course]

1) Only correct beliefs about the world form a sound foundation for m ...[text shortened]... the 'logic' of pascals wager and will shred any attempt to make
such an argument in my sleep.

Well there's the Bible. Lots of people regard it as evidence. I did say that agnostics or atheists would not regard it as sufficient evidence, but many do.

How can you distinguish between a justified belief and a justified true belief?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah, but to get out of mine you have to claim something really ridiculous 'is god'.

To which I respond that, I neither accept that as a reasonable suggestion for a member
of the set of all possible god concepts, and that no significant number of sane people
actually believe in and worship such a god.

If you can only get around my arguments by ...[text shortened]... lieve in that they have insufficient evidence
to justify believing in, and the argument holds.

And who decides what's 'really ridiculous', and what is not? Debates on theism are notorious for the two parties not agreeing on that score.

Also, even if I accept your argument as valid against most gods, it lacks punch, because it does not elaborate on evidence at all. What kind of evidence has been looked for? [historical, scientific, experiential, etc.] What were the criteria for deciding how to interpret the evidence? How was the evaluation of 'insufficient' made?

I am sure that if any one of us came up with a way to eliminate STD's from the face of the earth, we would do it. Why won't Jesus? The non BS answer is that Jesus can't do it because Jesus does not exist.

Originally posted by 667joe
I am sure that if any one of us came up with a way to eliminate STD's from the face of the earth, we would do it. Why won't Jesus? The non BS answer is that Jesus can't do it because Jesus does not exist.

That is obviously a wrong answer. Would you like to try again?

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is obviously a wrong answer. Would you like to try again?

Sorry! BS answer. If you had the power to eliminate STD's you would if you have any decency at all. Why won't Jesus? He either does not exist, or he has no decency and is not worthy of blind adoration!

Originally posted by 667joe
Sorry! BS answer. If you had the power to eliminate STD's you would if you have any decency at all. Why won't Jesus? He either does not exist, or he has no decency and is not worthy of blind adoration!

Wrong again.

Forgive me, but you are not at all persuasive!