No! I am NOT stating that. I am throwing into question the probable correctness of that probability of the subject being true or not
'Absolute' Knowledge, or the lack thereof
- Thread starter stateofmind
- Start date
No! I am NOT stating that. I am throwing into question the probable correctness of that probability of the subject being true or not
Come back with a good argument, and that would make the existence of God a more likely proposition. Bad arguments negate the premise they are trying to prove. The sphere of discussion on the existence or non-existence of God/Gods is based on arguments and evidence. Anything else is mere speculation.
Since theists also do not enjoy 100% knowledge (on average it is far less than rationalists), their premise also becomes questionable. Their "knowlege" is not reliable in the scientific sense, being based on subjective experiences.
Since theists also do not enjoy 100% knowledge (on average it is far less than rationalists), their premise also becomes questionable. Their "knowlege" is not reliable in the scientific sense, being based on subjective experiences.
I'll make it easy for you guys...
Below is a syllogism. Try to destroy it.
1. Atheists have little to no knowledge about God or gods.
2. Therefore they are almost completely ignorant of God or gods.
3. Therefore they cannot form a probability that is probably correct about whether God or gods exist or not.
Below is a syllogism. Try to destroy it.
1. Atheists have little to no knowledge about God or gods.
2. Therefore they are almost completely ignorant of God or gods.
3. Therefore they cannot form a probability that is probably correct about whether God or gods exist or not.
OK,
Atheists have access to the same knowledge about God that theists do. They can read the same books, evaluate the same evidence, and are generally much better at distinguishing fact from fantasy.
The non-existence of God can be shown scientifically. There is no need for such a hypothesis to explain the universe. Several quite plausible naturalistic explanations exist for it's origins. Evolution explains how species arose, plausible explanations exist for abiogenesis. Claims of miracles remain unproven. Prayer has not been shown to have a real effect. Religious people commit crimes and evil to the same or greater extent than non-religious people. As a scientific hypothesis, God should be rejected as most probably false, the same way the heliocentric view of Earth should be.
Atheists have access to the same knowledge about God that theists do. They can read the same books, evaluate the same evidence, and are generally much better at distinguishing fact from fantasy.
The non-existence of God can be shown scientifically. There is no need for such a hypothesis to explain the universe. Several quite plausible naturalistic explanations exist for it's origins. Evolution explains how species arose, plausible explanations exist for abiogenesis. Claims of miracles remain unproven. Prayer has not been shown to have a real effect. Religious people commit crimes and evil to the same or greater extent than non-religious people. As a scientific hypothesis, God should be rejected as most probably false, the same way the heliocentric view of Earth should be.
No! I am NOT stating that. I am throwing into question the probable correctness of that probability of the subject being true or not
How can you measure this probable correctness of the subject being true when there is no evidence or knowledge of the subject and nothing to add to the equation.
I can create the same graph and say that invisible fairies are real. What do you think the probable correctness of that graph will be.
You can do it more precisely for something like ET, who we have no evidence of, but we do have us as at least a somewhat advanced species as a base that it could happen elsewhere. Then we can calculate other factors, like how many stars, how many rocky planets etc etc.
But how with god ?
State of mind,
Neither can theists.
See below.
You are stating that, you just did it again above.
Again, nobody can prove something does not exist. There is no way to create a scale of probability on something that does not exist and has no supporting information. Whether that be God or invisible fairies.
You could do that for ET and Bigfoot though.
Neither can theists.
See below.
You are stating that, you just did it again above.
Again, nobody can prove something does not exist. There is no way to create a scale of probability on something that does not exist and has no supporting information. Whether that be God or invisible fairies.
You could do that for ET and Bigfoot though.
I'm guessing you meant geocentric?
Okay I see how you're approaching this now. The reason your comparison for the geocentric model for the solar system isn't the same as God existing or not is because all of the elements of the solar system are observed and understood, which approaches absolute knowledge, which leads to us being able to draw probabilities that are probably correct (from now on I'll call them "probable probabilities", for the sake of brevity, is that okay?).
All of the elements of God or gods are NOT understood by atheists, which leaves them closer to absolute ignorance, which allows them to only draw more or less improbable probabilities about the existence or non-existence of God or gods.
Some theists are charlatans, no doubt. Let's just group that type of theist with atheists for the sake of this discussion, fair enough?
jpappl said:
Actually you could prove something doesn't exist by exhausting every possibility and not finding it.
And no, I'm not stating what you said. Perhaps you aren't reading carefully enough?
Last edited:
That's BS. Atheists have the burden of attaining knowledge of religious practices and beliefs if only to be able to refute them. You can't simply declare that no one but you can understand a field of knowledge that you invented and artificially place out of reach of anyone but True Believers.
Do you have any disagreements with my graph?
State of mind,
Why not all theists as well. Nobody has knowledge, all are ignorant.
How do you know that you have exhausted every possibility ?
No matter what you do to prove something does not exist, you can not prove it to a believer and you know it does not exist how ?
I read it well enough.
Here: I will break down my original sentence bit by bit.
Your stating that if we don't have knowledge
in this case absolute ignorance about the subject
that it affects the probability of the subject being true. ”
So tell me what I missed.
Why not all theists as well. Nobody has knowledge, all are ignorant.
How do you know that you have exhausted every possibility ?
No matter what you do to prove something does not exist, you can not prove it to a believer and you know it does not exist how ?
I read it well enough.
Here: I will break down my original sentence bit by bit.
Your stating that if we don't have knowledge
in this case absolute ignorance about the subject
that it affects the probability of the subject being true. ”
So tell me what I missed.
RIGHT THERE!!! It doesn't affect the probability of the subject being true... it affects the probable correctness of any probability that person can make on that given subject.
Mind you, I am just playing with you. No idiot should be taken seriously..
No, not you
Alright, a challenge. I like challenges...
As a start a false assumption. What if the atheist was a theist first, thus has lots of knowledge about FALSE gods and decided to be an atheist?
Mind you any conclusion based on a false premise should be suspect, why are you uncertain about the number of deities? It is either one or many. Since you don't seem to know the number, how come you are making logical conclusion about the matter?
Sure they can. There is a box with marbles in it. A bunch of kids are allowed to take some marbles. They may or may not take out marbles. We can not know the exact number of the marbles left in the box, nevertheless we can guess the number and it can be correct, by accident. So an atheist can also GUESS the probability that can be not just probably, but most likely correct.
No, not you
Alright, a challenge. I like challenges...
As a start a false assumption. What if the atheist was a theist first, thus has lots of knowledge about FALSE gods and decided to be an atheist?
Mind you any conclusion based on a false premise should be suspect, why are you uncertain about the number of deities? It is either one or many. Since you don't seem to know the number, how come you are making logical conclusion about the matter?
Sure they can. There is a box with marbles in it. A bunch of kids are allowed to take some marbles. They may or may not take out marbles. We can not know the exact number of the marbles left in the box, nevertheless we can guess the number and it can be correct, by accident. So an atheist can also GUESS the probability that can be not just probably, but most likely correct.
Sure they can. There is a box with marbles in it. A bunch of kids are allowed to take some marbles. They may or may not take out marbles. We can not know the exact number of the marbles left in the box, nevertheless we can guess the number and it can be correct, by accident. So an atheist can also GUESS the probability that can be not just probably, but most likely correct.
In this example the system is understood... or is very close to absolute knowledge.... so the probability anyone claims will probably be close.
Of course a probability can be correct on accident... what's your point?
Do you have any disagreements with my graph in the OP?
Sciforums is an intellectual desert....
You know syzygyz... ask Helen Keller that same question about the marbles and don't let her touch the box... that's closer to a valid comparison.
Of course. 100% knowledge is not a prerequisite for knowledge. I have heard this before from theists, it basically goes like this, "If you don't know everything, how can you know anything?".
I suggest that theists and atheists share 100% of the knowledge available to them about God.