Logically Superior Statement?

[Forward Union]

Which is logically Superior;

"I do not believe in God"

"I believe that there is no God"

The first statement isn't making any claims. It's simply a rejection ofa positive claim that there is a God. It requires no justification, because there is no evidence for the existance of God. It's pretty much untouchable.

The second actually claims that there is positive reason to believe there is no God beyond the lack of evidence. Now, there actually is no evidence that God does not exist, not that there needs to be. Certainly, if he doesn't exist there never will be evidence that he doesn't exist. The onus is on the Christian to prove God exists. I'm not debating that, I am an atheist.

However, I don't think it's logical to say "I believe there is no God" because it's a statement that needs justifying. Why do you believe there is no God? A lack of evidence can only bring you so far as to say "I do not believe in God" but to go a step further, and say I actually believe that God does not exist is a leap of faith and unscientific.

Discuss.

[pusher robot]

I agree with the logical positivists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism) who would describe the second claim as "not cognitively meaningful."


Perhaps the view for which the logical positivists are best known is the verifiability criterion of meaning, or verificationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism). In one of its earlier and stronger formulations, this is the doctrine that a proposition is "cognitively meaningful" only if there is a finite procedure for conclusively determining whether it is true or false.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#cite_note-7) An intended consequence of this view, for most logical positivists, is that metaphysical, theological, and ethical statements fall short of this criterion, and so are not cognitively meaningful.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#cite_note-8) They distinguished cognitive from other varieties of meaningfulness (e.g. emotive, expressive, figurative), and most authors concede that the non-cognitive statements of the history of philosophy possess some other kind of meaningfulness. The positive characterization of cognitive meaningfulness varies from author to author. It has been described as the property of having a truth value, corresponding to a possible state of affairs, naming a proposition, or being intelligible or understandable in the sense in which scientific statements are intelligible or understandable.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#cite_note-9)

[Lynx]

I believe in the unknown, the 'god of the gaps'.

[Demogorgon]

I would in fact take the second position, but I think most people would take the first if they were being accurate about their views. The difference being I am a strong atheist while most others are weak atheists (the general consensus tends to be that weak atheism is in fact stronger), that means I particularly believe that there is not a God rather than simply not believing in one.

The reason I believe there is no God goes as follows.

1. I believe materialism is correct (if you don;t agree with the starting premise here, you won't agree with this at all, but bear with me)

2. Therefore any non-material thing (such as thoughts) must be the product of a set of material circumstances, that presuming everything else was identical would always come about (for instance if I am in an identical state of mind in identical circumstances, I will always have identical thoughts, no matter how many times the process was repeated across various possible worlds)

3. God is a non-material force

4. Therefore for God to exist it must be the case that the set of material circumstance in this universe must entail God. That means that in all possible worlds with a material setup identical to this world there must be a God.

5. It is possible to conceive of this universe existing without a God and even to come up with alternative explanations as to why they exist that are no less plausible than the existence of God

6. In other words it is not the case that God would exist in every possible world with the same material setup as this one and therefore God is not necessary for these material circumstance. That is the material circumstances we have do not NECESSITATE a God, even if one is conceivable.

7. According to premise two, for a non-material to exist it must ALWAYS come about from the same material circumstances, as God does not do so, God does not exist.

The potential problem with this argument is that it could be argued that it works backwards, saying that God is dependent on the Universe, rather than the other way round. However as it is utterly meaningles to talk of the existence of things not connected in someway to the Universe, I do not think that this is a problem.

[eyedrop]

"I believe that there is no God"
I choose this one. As the existance of a god would mean that the nature-laws would be meaningless. As a god (existance of a supernatural being) would negate anything we would know about the workings off things, as the supernatural being could interact with everything as it chooses.

[Demogorgon]

I choose this one. As the existance of a god would mean that the nature-laws would be meaningless. As a god (existance of a supernatural being) would negate anything we would know about the workings off things, as the supernatural being could interact with everything as it chooses.

Not necessarily, so long as said being didn't interact or at least didn't do so very often. I mean you can have a pendulum swing back and forth and we know how it works even though we an iteract with it and stop it from following its natural process.

[eyedrop]

Not necessarily, so long as said being didn't interact or at least didn't do so very often. I mean you can have a pendulum swing back and forth and we know how it works even though we can iteract with it and stop it from following its natural process.
If the being didn't interact I wouldn't care anyway. As for your other option, well I like a predictible universe and it seems to be predictible.

Edit; But this is really just an arguement for materialsm.

[mikelepore]

The second actually claims that there is positive reason to believe there is no God beyond the lack of evidence.

Not the way you wrote it. Your conclusion would apply if the second statement had been "There is no God", but the statement was: "I believe that there is no God", which is a description only of the speaker's mental state. The statement asserts that the speaker has a belief. The statement "I believe that there is no God" if true if the speaker does in fact believe that there is no God.

[al8]

I do not think the two statements contradict each other. At least they do not need to. I ascribe to both. My reason for taking the latter is that I think absense of evidence is partial evidence of absense. And to make a complete addition the fact that ideas of god change as one would expect of it where it a mere human invention. It historically changes in accordance with times, whim, politics and even in response to science, hence such things as 'god-of-the-gaps'. Gods are shattered to pieces with knowladge, and one doesn't even need to know everything to correctly vector the non-existece of gods. This is no faith, it's strong or absolute certainty within the framework of reason. That is the only framwork human certainty should be expressed in and based upon.

[Chapter 24]

Well, in either case, theists (mainly Christians) will challenge one's stance in a disbelief in God; that is, they demand that you prove there is no God. Which clearly is inaccurate considering it is their role to prove its existance

[mikelepore]

This topic began discussing proof although definition has to come first. One person who says "God" means "some sort of primordial creative tendency, such that the Big Bang wasn't the actual beginning of all potential energy." Another person who says 'God" means "an invisible man who keeps a record of which people read erotic books, so that their ghosts can be punished in hell." The two individuals are talking about two entirely different concepts. Both individuals may use the name "God" for whatever it is they they're visualizing. There's no hope for either person to say "prove it" to the other before they have defined what hypothetical thing they're talking about.

[LSD]

You can't prove they are and you cannot prove they aren't...unless you can prove how gravity DOES function. Otherwise, you can disregard that baseless assertion; can you just not resist the urge to say WRONG? You can still call bullshit if people don't provide evidence.

...wait a minute... what?!?

So you're saying I should say that the existance of "God" is "Bullshit" ...just not say that it's wrong...

Again, what's the difference?


I see nothing like that in common with the definitions.

I do however disregard ANY conjecture without evidence.

Alright, I think we have to really get into this "disregarding" / assumption thing, so here goes.

Let's look at this hypothetically. Suppose that you are a rational actor presented with two opposing propositions, A and B. A contends that object X exists, B contends that it does not.

You have never heard, thought, considered, or imagined X nor its existance and so therefore have no preconceptions or oppinions regarding the existance or nonexistance of X.

Now, neither A nor B can prove their propositions. B cannot do so because it is a negative conjecture and negative conjectures are notoriously impossible to prove. A also cannot prove its case because, for our hypothetical example, its proponents simply cannot find any supporting evidence.

Now, under your paradigm, you would look at both propositions equally, analyze them, and finding both of them to be lacking evidence, you will disreagd them both. You will "pay no attention or heed" to either of them.

Now what does this mean?

In terms of theory B, it really has no effect. B is proposing the nonexistance of an object that you previously did not believe to exist. Therefore your acceptance of this theory would have no effect, likewise your disregarding of it has no effect. In terms of A, however, its acceptance would matter. It proposes that X does exist, which you did not previously believe. Its disregarding, therefore, matters.

By disreageding A you are, effectively, attempting to return to the status quo. That is, you've found both theories to be flawed and so do not want a part of either. The problem, of course, is that you cannot forget that you heard the theories, especially A, since B is, ultimately, just its counterpart.

Your inability to forget, therefore, changes the entire dynamic.

Your disregarding of B, again, has no practical effect. But your disregarding of A means that you have been made aware of the theory of the existance of X and have chosen to not accept it. You have considered the theory and have, instead, chosen to return to your original position which is, now, indistinguishable from B.

Before being introduced to A and B, your thinking, actions, ideas were all, when it was relevent, predicated on the nonexistance of X, since you had never heard of it. Likewise they were, and still are, predicated on the nonexistance of theoretical object Y which you have never heard of.

You have now head of X but choose to revert to the prior status quo in which your thinking, actions, and ideas are predicated on the nonexistance of X. This is precisely what B proposes.

Ultimately, you have rejected both A and B because they cannot prove themselves, but you cannot prove that A or B are false. You are, as established, adopting the essential features of B however, and, more importantly, are disregarding the positive proposition of A. You are accepting your original mindset, as discussed above, even though you have no proof that your original mindset was corrrect. You are, therefore, accepting your original position without proof.

You are saying that, because of lack of evidence, you are going to disregard the existance of X and, in every important way, return to your original mindset in which X does not exist.

You are accepting without proof a mindset and theoretical framework predicated on the nonexistance of X.

"Accepting without proof"


as•sump•tion (…-s¾mp“sh…n) n. 1. The act of taking to or upon oneself. 2. The act of taking over. 3. The act of taking for granted. 4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition. 5. Presumption; arrogance. 6. Logic. A minor premise. 7. Assumption.a. Theology. The bodily taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven after her death. b. A Christian feast celebrating this event. c. August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.

Disregarding a positive conjecture is indistinguishable from assuming its counterpart.

Read the thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/agnosticism-debate-t34268/index6.html), it's a looong one but it's a damn good one. Probably the best discussion of the nature of God/religion/atheism on the board.

[pusher robot]

The reason I believe there is no God goes as follows.

1. I believe materialism is correct (if you don;t agree with the starting premise here, you won't agree with this at all, but bear with me)

2. Therefore any non-material thing (such as thoughts) must be the product of a set of material circumstances, that presuming everything else was identical would always come about (for instance if I am in an identical state of mind in identical circumstances, I will always have identical thoughts, no matter how many times the process was repeated across various possible worlds)

3. God is a non-material force

4. Therefore for God to exist it must be the case that the set of material circumstance in this universe must entail God. That means that in all possible worlds with a material setup identical to this world there must be a God.

5. It is possible to conceive of this universe existing without a God and even to come up with alternative explanations as to why they exist that are no less plausible than the existence of God

6. In other words it is not the case that God would exist in every possible world with the same material setup as this one and therefore God is not necessary for these material circumstance. That is the material circumstances we have do not NECESSITATE a God, even if one is conceivable.

7. According to premise two, for a non-material to exist it must ALWAYS come about from the same material circumstances, as God does not do so, God does not exist.

The potential problem with this argument is that it could be argued that it works backwards, saying that God is dependent on the Universe, rather than the other way round. However as it is utterly meaningles to talk of the existence of things not connected in someway to the Universe, I do not think that this is a problem.Really the fundamental problem with this argument is that it begs the question. The very first premise assumes the conclusion. What basis do you have for rejecting the existence of things outside our observable material universe? Those reasons cannot be any stronger than - nor are they likely to be different from - your reasons for rejecting the existence of God. Therefore those reasons are insufficient for proving the conclusion.



If the being didn't interact I wouldn't care anyway. As for your other option, well I like a predictible universe and it seems to be predictible.

Edit; But this is really just an arguement for materialsm. No, it's a logical fallacy, the argument from wishful thinking.

[F9]

"I do not believe in God"

Because even if there was God(there isnt) i would still not believe in him.

Fuserg9:star:

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I directly believe that there is no god. That is not to say I think a non-specific god is literally impossible, just that it is so improbable as to render it a meaningless concept, like Russell's Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

-Alex

[Demogorgon]

Really the fundamental problem with this argument is that it begs the question. The very first premise assumes the conclusion. What basis do you have for rejecting the existence of things outside our observable material universe? Those reasons cannot be any stronger than - nor are they likely to be different from - your reasons for rejecting the existence of God. Therefore those reasons are insufficient for proving the conclusion.

It doesn't beg the question because it isn't an argument for materialism. Rather it is an argument presuming that materialism is correct and using it as a basis for strong atheism. If you disagree with the materialist outlook, you do not need to go any further than that to find flaw with my argument. It is not meant to convince anybody not yet convinced of materialism. If I were to try and do that, it would have to be a far longer argument. But we are not talking about materialism here, just whether strong atheism can be as robust as weak atheism and I was trying to show that from a materialist perspective, it can be.