-->
@TwoMan
Here's how I see it. A perfectly rational mind would accept that a claim is true if there's more information indicating that it's true rather than false, and vice versa.
What's the strongest argument for atheism?
Posts
Total:
590
Of course, a perfectly rational mind would instantaneously adjust their beliefs to the corresponding amount of evidence for and against the claim.
Evidence available to us is often dynamic and changes over time
-->
@TwoMan
Evidence varies in ways such as veracity, weight, relevance, etc. The evidence would need to be evaluated on its merits. The slightest bit of circumstantial evidence probably would not sway me especially with a subject as weighty as this.
I agree, It's important to keep the concepts of 'evidence' and 'proof' seperate.
Look at it this way - in a legal case, evidence can make an innocent person look guilty if a bit more has been discovered in the direction of guilt. It doesn't mean there isn't undiscovered evidence pointing to innocence. I would hope that, in this case (the existence of God), the evidence would be incontrovertible.
-->
@TwoMan
It's immoral to punish an innocent person though so the threshold of evidence needs to be higher as a practical matter. You can still accept that a person is guilty by an epistemic threshold where they more likely did the crime than not but also accept that they haven't met a threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.
-->
@Fallaneze
Testable evidence. A hypothesis that cannot be tested is a poor hypothesis.
-->
@secularmerlin
Define "testable evidence."
-->
@Fallaneze
Well if the evidence hasn't met a threshold beyond a reasonable doubt, by definition, that is not enough to assume guilt. That was probably an inappropriate metaphor.
In the case of God's existence, I would hope that any evidence would be incontrovertible, meaning it can't be explained by any other cause. I also realize that may be too much to ask for, so as secularmerlin keeps saying, skepticism is the the way to go.
-->
@Fallaneze
Go outside and drop a rock. You have just tested gravity.
-->
@Fallaneze
And I'd say people change their views accordingly - most of the time.Evidence available to us is often dynamic and changes over time
But i don't accept it's a matter of believing or not believing. Belief isn't all or nothing but on a scale from 0-100 and new information moves the pointer. But English doesn't have 100 words so we end up saying ' i don't belive' for 0-20, 'i do believe' for 80-100 and 'unsure' for points in between.
-->
@secularmerlin
What is your definition of "testable evidence"?
-->
@TwoMan
Why does a belief need to reach a threshold of "incontrovertible" rather than simply "more likely true than false"?
-->
@keithprosser
The scale (so to speak) from 0-100 should be based on the preponderance of evidence for and against the claim. Belief or disbelief should be based on whether the body of evidence favors or disfavors the claim. When the scale is above 50, the claim should be accepted. When the claim is exactly 50, the claim should neither be accepted nor rejected. When the claim is below 50, the claim should be rejected.
-->
@Fallaneze
A belief doesn't, this particular one does. It is arguably the most important belief there can be. I don't wish to be led into a belief this important by the slightest amount of nearly weightless evidence.Why does a belief need to reach a threshold of "incontrovertible" rather than simply "more likely true than false"?
-->
@Fallaneze
The scale (so to speak) from 0-100 should be based on the preponderance of evidence for and against the claim. Belief or disbelief should be based on whether the body of evidence favors or disfavors the claim. When the scale is above 50, the claim should be accepted. When the claim is exactly 50, the claim should neither be accepted nor rejected. When the claim is below 50, the claim should be rejected.
I don't go for that. it implies the only options are full-on belief or full-on disbelief. That isn't how the world works.
-->
@TwoMan
But if you set an artificially high threshold of evidence you're left with room that the belief is more rational than not.
-->
@keithprosser
Disbelief and belief with varying strength and mere non-belief.
-->
@Fallaneze
English is often abiguous. Is 'mere non-belief' the same as 'firm rejection' or the same as 'not quite total belief'?Disbelief and belief with varying strength and mere non-belief.
i believe it is well over 99% probable there is no god. I don't suppose I can justify more than a fraction of that 99% with hyper-rational facts and rigorous arguments. People are irrational and emotional; we aren't Vulcans.
-->
@Fallaneze
What is your definition of "testable evidence"?
To be testable, evidence must be reproducible under controlled conditions.
To be evidence for God, there must be no naturalistic explanation that is compatible with the evidence.
-->
@Fallaneze
The strongest argument for atheism is the lack of evidence for theistic claims and the overwhelming evidence that gods are inventions of Man.
-->
@Fallaneze
There is absolutely no evidence that the claim "gods exist" has any veracity at all. The claim is false, gods don't exist.
-->
@Fallaneze
Are you sure?It's immoral to punish an innocent person
If a woman is raped within the city limits she is to be stoned to death.
There is only one argument for atheism. I believe not gods exist. If you think otherwise you aren't one
Ignorence.
-->
@Fallaneze
It depends on what is being tested but I gave an example. Post 40
-->
@disgusted
Ignorance.Ignorence.
:)
-->
@keithprosser
Well you either accept that a claim is true, neither accept a claim to be true nor reject it to be untrue, or you reject the claim as untrue. The extent to which you agree or disagree depends on how strong the evidence is.
-->
@Stronn
We don't always have the luxury of reproducing something under controlled conditions. Searching for the best explanation of the Big Bang for instance.
Theists and atheists both believe that nature exists. The naturalist however believes that nature is all there is and that there is nothing beyond nature. Merely observing nature does not inform us one way or the other whether there is nothing beyond nature. And in fact, I'd say that our ability to apprehend abstract mathematical, logical, and moral truths is evidence against naturalism.
-->
@Stronn
Lack of evidence isn't evidence against anything unless you actually have evidence against something.
The number of different versions of God don't make the claim any more or less unlikely. That wholly depends on the defintion.