Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Of course Kenny.

Theist-someone who believes God exists.
Atheist-someone who believes God doesn't exist.

Newborn babies can't be either.

I guess various people describe the term in various ways. Of course using that definition; a lot of people who are called "Atheist" (myself included) are not. Just because a person is a Theist doesn't mean they worship the God of Abraham; in theory a person could worship anything they choose. I believe in the Bible there were people worshiping a golden calf which is just a big chunk of metal! I would find it foolish for a person to claim something doesn't exist without an explanation of what it is they are claiming the non-existence of. I doubt very many people called atheist would actually fit into that category.

Ken

Sure. For the sake of discussion here, we are talking about theism regarding God. Not God and gods, because it's a Christian forum.

I was under the impression we were talking about theism regarding any God; otherwise we would have to label the Hindu, the Zoroastrianist, and all other theists who worship different God's Atheists as well. Is that what you were talking about when you say Atheist?

Ken

Kenny,

I'm just trying to keep it simple, to avoid confusion if possible. We're primarily talking about the God of the bible.

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Agnosticism is the default position, for it is not an epistemological position whereas theism and atheism are.

Agnosticism - No knowledge / I don't know / It's unknowable
Theism - Belief that God or gods exists
Atheism - (A = not) therefore not theism - Belief that God or gods do not exist

For example I am not afleaist about there being a flea in our house. I am agnostic about whether a flea is somewhere in my house, actually prior to this comment I was too because I hadn't thought about it and held no position either way. Then again the dogs were just let inside so now I have good reasons to become fleaist, since it is likely they do have at least one flea between them.

This whole default position rubbish and the definition of atheism being distorted across the internet gets weary at times...

Atheism and Theism is about what you believe, Agnosticism is about what you know; a totally different conversation. In theory, you can believe God does or does not exist; but not know.

Ken

Agnosticism is the belief that the nature and existence of god/s is unknown and inherently unknowable. Direct from a philosophy book and different to your definition. Notice it too is also a belief. It is an epistemic position in that we can't know or is unknown, however that wasn't the context of my reference to epistemological position in my previous comment. Yes beliefs can simply be just that...So sure you could hold beliefs for theism/atheism with absolutely no epistemic foundation. However generally they are formed with what WE DO KNOW as an indication either for and against Gods existence, therefore those who argue from that are using underlying knowledge to argue for their beliefs, which means it is based on an epistemology. Epistemology is theory of knowledge and also comes in many different schools. Usually you will find a matching metaphysical position with an epistemology such that they cohere well together.

This whole discussion as far as I see it is quite complicated. Since it also comes down to discussions about true belief which is generally considered knowledge.. Quite frankly I read about this sometime ago and it is quite a large topic, I might go have another read to clear my thoughts on it all further. Philosophers are still debating the relationship between belief and knowledge.

Perhaps you should also learn about reformed epistemology, in that belief in God is a properly basic belief, therefore it does an end run around this discussion. If it is properly basic then it is warranted belief. A reformed epistemologist could potentially argue that you are not functioning properly. Reformed epistemology also does an end run around the whole foundationalist and coherence theories of belief as well.

The problem is at the root we all hold to basic beliefs and work outward from that point. We cannot escape that, if you have ever read discussions between foundationalists and coherence theory holders it's quite interesting..

I hold that belief in God is properly basic no different to my belief that I talked with my wife this morning even though she is not here to confirm it, or lets say last week I was alone at night reading a book on scholastic metaphysics. I can't prove either, yet I am warranted in holding to those beliefs. Another properly basic belief is that my faculties are in fact working correctly, until I have a defeater for that I am warranted in maintaining that position.

Many Christians will also affirm the witness of the holy spirit which is how we know, but that's another big discussion...

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Agnosticism is the default position, for it is not an epistemological position whereas theism and atheism are.

Agnosticism - No knowledge / I don't know / It's unknowable
Theism - Belief that God or gods exists
Atheism - (A = not) therefore not theism - Belief that God or gods do not exist

For example I am not afleaist about there being a flea in our house. I am agnostic about whether a flea is somewhere in my house, actually prior to this comment I was too because I hadn't thought about it and held no position either way. Then again the dogs were just let inside so now I have good reasons to become fleaist, since it is likely they do have at least one flea between them.

This whole default position rubbish and the definition of atheism being distorted across the internet gets weary at times...

Atheism and Theism is about what you believe, Agnosticism is about what you know; a totally different conversation. In theory, you can believe God does or does not exist; but not know.

Ken

Agnosticism is the belief that the nature and existence of god/s is unknown and inherently unknowable. Direct from a philosophy book and different to your definition. Notice it too is also a belief. It is an epistemic position in that we can't know or is unknown,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnost ... erence.htm

K

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Agnosticism is the default position, for it is not an epistemological position whereas theism and atheism are.

Agnosticism - No knowledge / I don't know / It's unknowable
Theism - Belief that God or gods exists
Atheism - (A = not) therefore not theism - Belief that God or gods do not exist

For example I am not afleaist about there being a flea in our house. I am agnostic about whether a flea is somewhere in my house, actually prior to this comment I was too because I hadn't thought about it and held no position either way. Then again the dogs were just let inside so now I have good reasons to become fleaist, since it is likely they do have at least one flea between them.

This whole default position rubbish and the definition of atheism being distorted across the internet gets weary at times...

Atheism and Theism is about what you believe, Agnosticism is about what you know; a totally different conversation. In theory, you can believe God does or does not exist; but not know.

Ken

Agnosticism is the belief that the nature and existence of god/s is unknown and inherently unknowable. Direct from a philosophy book and different to your definition. Notice it too is also a belief. It is an epistemic position in that we can't know or is unknown,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

K

Your point is? Do you think people here will click on that and go OH OH Squible was wrong?

Odd you must have missed this bit on Wikipedia. "Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge") "

WHAT? WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE?

And must have missed this bit from Wikipedia too:

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of God, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2]"

Notice it says "view" which makes it a belief as well.

My further definition in todays post is also spot on. My book served me well, I also cross referenced it at a philosophy encyclopedia. And I see it corresponds with Wikipedia - From a philosophers POV, no surprises there since I did get it from philosophical writings.

I notice my basic definition you quoted from yesterday is also correct - I gave three views on the term - Its literal, popular and philosophical. - Wikipedia confirms this.

As for your quote Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:35 am Where you said

Kenny wrote: ...Agnosticism is about what you know..

is blatantly incorrect. Agnosticism is NOT about what "you know" rather it is about what we CANNOT know or DO NOT Know or more popularly used which is has no position or belief either way.

Hence we are born without belief / position either way therefore our default position is agnosticism.
WHY? Because they arguably don't know about God to form a belief in the first place.

Want to argue it more?

Dictionary third definition - ag-nos-tic - a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic.

BTW. Thanks for supporting my position.

I'm glad we AGREE!

Kenny,

I am beginning to wonder if you even read things properly.

Cheers

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Agnosticism is the default position, for it is not an epistemological position whereas theism and atheism are.

Agnosticism - No knowledge / I don't know / It's unknowable
Theism - Belief that God or gods exists
Atheism - (A = not) therefore not theism - Belief that God or gods do not exist

For example I am not afleaist about there being a flea in our house. I am agnostic about whether a flea is somewhere in my house, actually prior to this comment I was too because I hadn't thought about it and held no position either way. Then again the dogs were just let inside so now I have good reasons to become fleaist, since it is likely they do have at least one flea between them.

This whole default position rubbish and the definition of atheism being distorted across the internet gets weary at times...

Atheism and Theism is about what you believe, Agnosticism is about what you know; a totally different conversation. In theory, you can believe God does or does not exist; but not know.

Ken

Agnosticism is the belief that the nature and existence of god/s is unknown and inherently unknowable. Direct from a philosophy book and different to your definition. Notice it too is also a belief. It is an epistemic position in that we can't know or is unknown,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

K

Your point is? Do you think people here will click on that and go OH OH Squible was wrong?

Odd you must have missed this bit on Wikipedia. "Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge") "

WHAT? WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE?

And must have missed this bit from Wikipedia too:

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of God, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2]"

Notice it says "view" which makes it a belief as well.

My further definition in todays post is also spot on. My book served me well, I also cross referenced it at a philosophy encyclopedia. And I see it corresponds with Wikipedia - From a philosophers POV, no surprises there since I did get it from philosophical writings.

I notice my basic definition you quoted from yesterday is also correct - I gave three views on the term - Its literal, popular and philosophical. - Wikipedia confirms this.

As for your quote Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:35 am Where you said

Kenny wrote: ...Agnosticism is about what you know..

is blatantly incorrect. Agnosticism is NOT about what "you know" rather it is about what we CANNOT know or DO NOT Know or more popularly used which is has no position or belief either way.

Hence we are born without belief / position either way therefore our default position is agnosticism.
WHY? Because they arguably don't know about God to form a belief in the first place.

Want to argue it more?

Dictionary third definition - ag-nos-tic - a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic.

BTW. Thanks for supporting my position.

I'm glad we AGREE!

So are you saying agnosticism is NOT about knowledge?

Ken

PaulSacramento
You ask how one is able to "turn off or turn on" a belief as one chooses
Belief is all about choosing to have confidence in something and that can be via experience, evidence or even blind faith and sometimes a combination of all.
Some people choose to believe in God because personal experience or perhaps rational evidence or perhaps metaphysical arguments and some choose NOT to believe based on the very same things.
Now, people don't simply decide one day to believe in X and the other day to not believe, no of course not and no one said that.
I said people choose to believe and some choose NOT to believe based on the same evidence presented to them.

Ken
Isn’t that an example of logic and reason demanding belief? What may be logical and reasonable to one may not be for another.

PaulSacramento
Some may choose to not believe and then believe base don the very same evidence later one ( Anthony Flew is an example) simply because their understanding of the argument/evidence has changed and so their belief has changed.

Ken
That sounds like changing your mind based upon new information, or based on a change in how you view information; not simply choosing to believe or choosing not to believe.

PaulSacramento
Now, emotionally speaking, people can and do turn on their beliefs if an event happens to "warrant" that belief.
Take for example the husband that believes his wife loves him but then finds out she has been cheating on him.
Even if there may not be enough evidence to warrant, emotionally he can "turn off" his belief that his wife loves him because of what he believes she has done.
Ken
Again this sounds like changing your mind based upon new information weather the information has merit or not. IMO an example of choosing to turn off his belief would be for him to do it even though he doesn’t feel she has done anything wrong.

Ken

How about people that "fall out of love" and can't even give a reason other than "I just don't love her/him anymore" ?

Kenny wrote:
So are you saying agnosticism is NOT about knowledge?

Ken

I clarified that it was an epistemological position, when I clarified context - since I loosely used the term "epistemic position“ in the first comment, and on retrospect could have chosen better wording & terminologies but I was rushed for time.

But more to the point... Given you said agnosticism is "about what you know". Are you now saying when something is "about what you know" it is the same as something being a theory ABOUT knowledge itself?

Mind you the original point was default position. And given your question it seems you are attempting to equivocate in light of the original point.

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:
So are you saying agnosticism is NOT about knowledge?

Ken

I clarified that it was an epistemological position, when I clarified context - since I loosely used the term "epistemic position“ in the first comment, and on retrospect could have chosen better wording & terminologies but I was rushed for time.

But more to the point... Given you said agnosticism is "about what you know". Are you now saying when something is "about what you know" it is the same as something being a theory ABOUT knowledge itself?

Yeah I should have phrased it differently. I should have said atheism/theism is about belief, agnostic about knowledge. My bad!

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

PaulSacramento
You ask how one is able to "turn off or turn on" a belief as one chooses
Belief is all about choosing to have confidence in something and that can be via experience, evidence or even blind faith and sometimes a combination of all.
Some people choose to believe in God because personal experience or perhaps rational evidence or perhaps metaphysical arguments and some choose NOT to believe based on the very same things.
Now, people don't simply decide one day to believe in X and the other day to not believe, no of course not and no one said that.
I said people choose to believe and some choose NOT to believe based on the same evidence presented to them.

Ken
Isn’t that an example of logic and reason demanding belief? What may be logical and reasonable to one may not be for another.

PaulSacramento
Some may choose to not believe and then believe base don the very same evidence later one ( Anthony Flew is an example) simply because their understanding of the argument/evidence has changed and so their belief has changed.

Ken
That sounds like changing your mind based upon new information, or based on a change in how you view information; not simply choosing to believe or choosing not to believe.

PaulSacramento
Now, emotionally speaking, people can and do turn on their beliefs if an event happens to "warrant" that belief.
Take for example the husband that believes his wife loves him but then finds out she has been cheating on him.
Even if there may not be enough evidence to warrant, emotionally he can "turn off" his belief that his wife loves him because of what he believes she has done.
Ken
Again this sounds like changing your mind based upon new information weather the information has merit or not. IMO an example of choosing to turn off his belief would be for him to do it even though he doesn’t feel she has done anything wrong.

Ken

How about people that "fall out of love" and can't even give a reason other than "I just don't love her/him anymore" ?

Yeah I guess sometimes people loose interest; even in other people. But do you think people choose to loose interest?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

PaulSacramento
You ask how one is able to "turn off or turn on" a belief as one chooses
Belief is all about choosing to have confidence in something and that can be via experience, evidence or even blind faith and sometimes a combination of all.
Some people choose to believe in God because personal experience or perhaps rational evidence or perhaps metaphysical arguments and some choose NOT to believe based on the very same things.
Now, people don't simply decide one day to believe in X and the other day to not believe, no of course not and no one said that.
I said people choose to believe and some choose NOT to believe based on the same evidence presented to them.

Ken
Isn’t that an example of logic and reason demanding belief? What may be logical and reasonable to one may not be for another.

PaulSacramento
Some may choose to not believe and then believe base don the very same evidence later one ( Anthony Flew is an example) simply because their understanding of the argument/evidence has changed and so their belief has changed.

Ken
That sounds like changing your mind based upon new information, or based on a change in how you view information; not simply choosing to believe or choosing not to believe.

PaulSacramento
Now, emotionally speaking, people can and do turn on their beliefs if an event happens to "warrant" that belief.
Take for example the husband that believes his wife loves him but then finds out she has been cheating on him.
Even if there may not be enough evidence to warrant, emotionally he can "turn off" his belief that his wife loves him because of what he believes she has done.
Ken
Again this sounds like changing your mind based upon new information weather the information has merit or not. IMO an example of choosing to turn off his belief would be for him to do it even though he doesn’t feel she has done anything wrong.

Ken

How about people that "fall out of love" and can't even give a reason other than "I just don't love her/him anymore" ?

Yeah I guess sometimes people loose interest; even in other people. But do you think people choose to loose interest?

Ken

The point is people choose what to believe in and that choice is sometimes based one reason, sometimes on emotion and sometimes simply on self-interest and many times regardless of facts and evidence and proof.

This came from audie comment that:

For myself, I cannot fathom how someone can "choose" to believe, or disbelieve.

And my reply that people choose to believe or not all the time.

What we believe or disbelieve is all based on choice.

Kenny wrote:

Yeah I guess sometimes people loose interest; even in other people. But do you think people choose to loose interest?

Ken

I suppose some people actually can, or convince themselves they can, "choose" to believe.

Kind of like someone might put on a hat and choose to believe he is a cowboy.

Who am I to say what others can do with or to themselves? Nor they of me, for that matter.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

PaulSacramento
You ask how one is able to "turn off or turn on" a belief as one chooses
Belief is all about choosing to have confidence in something and that can be via experience, evidence or even blind faith and sometimes a combination of all.
Some people choose to believe in God because personal experience or perhaps rational evidence or perhaps metaphysical arguments and some choose NOT to believe based on the very same things.
Now, people don't simply decide one day to believe in X and the other day to not believe, no of course not and no one said that.
I said people choose to believe and some choose NOT to believe based on the same evidence presented to them.

Ken
Isn’t that an example of logic and reason demanding belief? What may be logical and reasonable to one may not be for another.

PaulSacramento
Some may choose to not believe and then believe base don the very same evidence later one ( Anthony Flew is an example) simply because their understanding of the argument/evidence has changed and so their belief has changed.

Ken
That sounds like changing your mind based upon new information, or based on a change in how you view information; not simply choosing to believe or choosing not to believe.

PaulSacramento
Now, emotionally speaking, people can and do turn on their beliefs if an event happens to "warrant" that belief.
Take for example the husband that believes his wife loves him but then finds out she has been cheating on him.
Even if there may not be enough evidence to warrant, emotionally he can "turn off" his belief that his wife loves him because of what he believes she has done.
Ken
Again this sounds like changing your mind based upon new information weather the information has merit or not. IMO an example of choosing to turn off his belief would be for him to do it even though he doesn’t feel she has done anything wrong.

Ken

How about people that "fall out of love" and can't even give a reason other than "I just don't love her/him anymore" ?

Yeah I guess sometimes people loose interest; even in other people. But do you think people choose to loose interest?

Ken

The point is people choose what to believe in and that choice is sometimes based one reason, sometimes on emotion and sometimes simply on self-interest and many times regardless of facts and evidence and proof.

This came from audie comment that:

For myself, I cannot fathom how someone can "choose" to believe, or disbelieve.

And my reply that people choose to believe or not all the time.

What we believe or disbelieve is all based on choice.

I am going to have to go with Audie on this one; I cannot fathom how someone can "choose" to believe or disbelieve; as I said before, for me belief happens after reason and logic demands it, not before. But I noticed you said "believe in", what does that mean? How are you defining the term to believe in someone or something? Perhaps that is different.

Ken

Audie wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Yeah I guess sometimes people loose interest; even in other people. But do you think people choose to loose interest?

Ken

I suppose some people actually can, or convince themselves they can, "choose" to believe.

Kind of like someone might put on a hat and choose to believe he is a cowboy.

Who am I to say what others can do with or to themselves? Nor they of me, for that matter.

I suspect that would be an example of someone lying to themselves; they can pretend they are something they are not, but deep down at the end of the day, they would know the truth of who they really are.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Yeah I guess sometimes people loose interest; even in other people. But do you think people choose to loose interest?

Ken

I suppose some people actually can, or convince themselves they can, "choose" to believe.

Kind of like someone might put on a hat and choose to believe he is a cowboy.

Who am I to say what others can do with or to themselves? Nor they of me, for that matter.

I suspect that would be an example of someone lying to themselves; they can pretend they are something they are not, but deep down at the end of the day, they would know the truth of who they really are.

Ken

One of Mom's sayings is to the effect of "People have an amazing, unlimited ability at self deception". It comes out tidier in Chinese.