Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Just as well I did provide an example or the thread would have fallen into complete nebulousness.

It already had, I think, until you leapt in and spontaneously restarted it with your assertion of casual dismissal. Thank you.

Also remember, when an idea is "casually" dismissed, it may be the thirtieth time in discussion that the idea reappears. What appears to be casualness is normally fatigue from dealing with the same points, over and over.

If those points had been "dealt with", so that they could be Accepted or Rejected, for logically-sufficient reasons, then it would only be necessary to quote or refer to the conclusive argument.

Perhaps the reason such points arise again and again is that no firm conclusion can be logically justified, based on available knowledge and information?

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

Inconclusive evidence for God’s existence logically means there is no onus on anyone to believe. That is sufficient to justify non-belief. The fact that God can’t be proven or disproved either way means that believing or disbelieving is a choice. Ironically, that correlates with the principle of the New Testament.

[Pattern-chaser]

As before, noting that this is about the logic of Acceptance/Rejection of any idea:

Pattern-chaser,

Inconclusive evidence for God’s existence logically means there is no onus on anyone to believe.

Agreed, there is no onus to Accept; the idea in question belongs where it started, on the Maybe pile. After all, as you note, there is no conclusive evidence to do otherwise.

That is sufficient to justify non-belief.

Not quite; it is sufficient to conclude that neither Acceptance nor Rejection is justified. The idea must stay on the Maybe pile, logically.

The fact that God can’t be proven or disproved either way means that believing or disbelieving is a choice.

Logically, neither belief nor disbelief can be justified. There is sufficient reason to leave the idea on the Maybe pile, nothing more.

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

Agreed, there is no onus to Accept; the idea in question belongs where it started, on the Maybe pile. After all, as you note, there is no conclusive evidence to do otherwise.

Yes, logically, God does belong on the maybe pile. But the fact that atheists do not put him in that pile - does not justify a claim that they are being illogical - Simply because of the fact that there is nothing to cause them to believe - No evidence and no logical underpinning - As those factors are present, they don't have to put God in the maybe pile, and can within reason reject the claim that he exists.

[Good_Egg]

Just wondering if "everyone else thinks so" counts as justification for acceptance or rejection?

[Pattern-chaser]

Agreed, there is no onus to Accept; the idea in question belongs where it started, on the Maybe pile. After all, as you note, there is no conclusive evidence to do otherwise.

Yes, logically, God does belong on the maybe pile.

Yes, and this is a thread about logic, and logical argument.

But the fact that atheists do not put him in that pile - does not justify a claim that they are being illogical...

If they see fit to place the idea on the Rejected pile — without a logical and sufficient justification — then yes, it does mean they're being illogical. But that is not 'wrong'. Humans make all kinds of decisions for all kinds of reasons, and only some of them are logical. I would not, and do not, argue against that. I only observe that if their arguments do not conform to the rules of logic, then they are illogical, but perhaps not 'wrong'.

Simply because of the fact that there is nothing to cause them to believe - No evidence and no logical underpinning - As those factors are present, they don't have to put God in the maybe pile, and can within reason reject the claim that he exists.

Not logically, they can't.

Just wondering if "everyone else thinks so" counts as justification for acceptance or rejection?

That's not a logical rule I've heard of before. Perhaps I had a sheltered upbringing? The Principle of Objective Consensus, perhaps?

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

Is there no logical foundation for the existence of God – Therefore, there is no valid reason to believe in him. The fact that his existence - cannot be disproved doesn't create the basis for a positive affirmation (as you know). Nor an illogicality for not believing. Theists do not believe in God through logic but through faith. To place God on the maybe pile, atheists must believe that he can exist, which would epistemologically be faith - as there is nothing (logical) - that supports that idea. Meaning they can logically reject the idea that God exists.

[Pattern-chaser]

[There is] no logical foundation for the existence of God – Therefore, there is no valid reason to believe in him.

There is no logical foundation for the non-existence of God – Therefore, there is no valid reason to disbelieve in Her.

The fact that his existence - cannot be disproved doesn't create the basis for a positive affirmation (as you know). Nor an illogicality for not believing. Theists do not believe in God through logic but through faith. To place God on the maybe pile, atheists must believe that he can exist, which would epistemologically be faith - as there is nothing (logical) - that supports that idea. Meaning they can logically reject the idea that God exists.

Ooo, that's a bit twisted, and the logic of your argument is a bit murky, I think. Your ideas seem to revolve around binary thinking, in this instance that God either exists or not. But there are three piles — Accepted, Maybe and Rejected — not two.

According to logic and reason, God might or could exist.
Also, in accordance with the same logic and reason, God might or could be an invention.

Because there is no evidence, or the like, that would justify a conclusion, logic and reason dictate and demand that God remains on the Maybe pile, until something changes. Maybe new evidence will emerge? It seems unlikely, but...

God belongs on the Maybe pile because the move to another pile must be justified by sufficient reason, and there is none.

Please note that this is a position based only on logic and reason, as this topic is. Faith and feeling have their place, but this topic is not it.

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

I agree. The concept of God cannot logically move from the maybe pile (which I've already stated). But that does not mean it cannot be rejected. Maybe - only facilitates the choice of belief or non-belief - It doesn’t necessitate either. Given there is no evidence indicating God's existence, atheists have that justification as the reason for not believing. You say that my thinking is binary, but the maybe pile only exists in the context of this argument. In reality God either exists or he doesn’t.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser,

I agree. The concept of God cannot logically move from the maybe pile (which I've already stated). But that does not mean it cannot be rejected.

Er, yes, it does. God must (logically) remain on the Maybe pile, and so cannot be placed onto the Rejected pile. Even a God can only be in one pile at a time... Being on the Maybe pile means that no-one should accept or reject God, if they follow logic and reason. "Maybe" means just that, and it precludes outright rejection, as well as acceptance.

Maybe - only facilitates the choice of belief or non-belief - It doesn’t necessitate either.

No, it mandates neither! There is no (logical) choice of acceptance or rejection available. Of course, people can choose to believe what they want to, but here we are concerned only with logical argument. Outside of logic and reason, human behaviour will be what it always has been ... somewhat unpredictable.

Given there is no evidence indicating God's existence, atheists have that justification as the reason for not believing. You say that my thinking is binary, but the maybe pile only exists in the context of this argument. In reality God either exists or he doesn’t.

Now you are trying to overlay the logic we have examined somewhat exhaustively with binary thinking again. The Maybe pile, along with its Accepted and Rejected fellows, is as real as any human-imagined creation. This isn't so much about God's existence, as our understanding of it, and how it is approached using logic and reason as our tools. And that understanding features three piles, or something like them.

Binary thinking often denies the reality of the real world, as we experience it, where there is sometimes a Maybe option. True, false ... or maybe something in between? Black, white ... or maybe some shade of grey? Right, wrong ... or maybe a bit of both? And so on. Yes, there are definitely real world moments when binary thinking is the way to go. But not always.

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

Binary thinking often denies the reality of the real world, as we experience it, where there is sometimes a Maybe option. True, false ... or maybe something in between? Black, white ... or maybe some shade of grey? Right, wrong ... or maybe a bit of both? And so on. Yes, there are definitely real world moments when binary thinking is the way to go. But not always.

Outside the realm of thought. How can God's existence be a "maybe"?

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser,

Binary thinking often denies the reality of the real world, as we experience it, where there is sometimes a Maybe option. True, false ... or maybe something in between? Black, white ... or maybe some shade of grey? Right, wrong ... or maybe a bit of both? And so on. Yes, there are definitely real world moments when binary thinking is the way to go. But not always.

Outside the realm of thought. How can God's existence be a "maybe"?

God's existence must be a Maybe, according to logic and reason, because there is insufficient evidence to justify Acceptance or Rejection. To reach any conclusion, we must have sufficient reason, and in this case, there is no such reason.

This is not about "the realm of thought"; our discussion is not aimed at, or about, "the realm of thought". Any conclusions we reach, or cannot reach, concern the real world, not philosophical Ivory Towers. Billions of people believe in God. This does not justify their belief, but it does make the idea of God in the real world a worthwhile subject of philosophical discussion.

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

Binary thinking often denies the reality of the real world, as we experience it, where there is sometimes a Maybe option. True, false ... or maybe something in between? Black, white ... or maybe some shade of grey? Right, wrong ... or maybe a bit of both? And so on. Yes, there are definitely real world moments when binary thinking is the way to go. But not always.

Outside the realm of thought. How can God's existence be a "maybe"?

God's existence must be a Maybe, according to logic and reason, because there is insufficient evidence to justify Acceptance or Rejection. To reach any conclusion, we must have sufficient reason, and in this case, there is no such reason.

This is not about "the realm of thought"; our discussion is not aimed at, or about, "the realm of thought". Any conclusions we reach, or cannot reach, concern the real world, not philosophical Ivory Towers. Billions of people believe in God. This does not justify their belief, but it does make the idea of God in the real world a worthwhile subject of philosophical discussion.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. But I don't think I can make it any clearer.

[Good_Egg]

God is the personification of Good.

This act of personification allows the believer to have a relationship, a closeness, a devotion to Good that is much harder to have with goodness conceived as an abstract principle.

Does Good hear and respond to heartfelt prayers ? Or does an alignment with Good allow us to influence the world in mysterious ways ? I don't know. Maybe.

The commitment of the heart should be to Good, not to ideas about Good.

Maybe to you it is clear that there is truth or lack-of-truth in that act of personification. To me it is not - it is a genuine Maybe.

[Pattern-chaser]

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. But I don't think I can make it any clearer.

I believe you have made yourself "clear". I wonder why you say this? Is it your thought that if I understood you, I would agree with you?