• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Atheists Who Claim There is a God

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
This should be fun.

Let the domain of x be the set of all things. If God exists, then some x is God. If God does not exist, then no x is God. Simple:

Theism: ∃x[Gx]​

In words: there exists a thing (∃x), and that thing is God (Gx).

Atheism: ∀x[~Gx]​

In words: for all things (∀x), no thing is God (~Gx).

Atheists often place the burden of proof on theists, because, atheists claim, "one cannot prove a negative." In this context, the term "prove" does not mean the same thing as it does in mathematics, but, instead, it means to verify empirically. Since it is impossible to empirically verify that every single thing is not God, then one cannot prove that no thing is God. However, in principle, only a single empirical verification is needed to prove that God exists. There is a logical asymmetry: in principle, atheism cannot be proven and theism can. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the theist.

In the meantime, however, the atheist claims that every new thing we discover that is not God decreases the probability that God exists. Atheists claim the existence of God is highly improbable, because we have searched and searched and yet no thing discovered so far has been God. The structure of the argument is inductive, e.g.

~Ga, ~Gb, ~Gc, ~Gd ⊢ ∀x[~Gx]​

Atheists observe singular instances of things not being God (~Ga, ~Gb, etc.) and conclude that no thing is God (∀x[~Gx]). Like all inductions, the argument is strictly invalid, i.e. the truth of the conclusion is not necessary given true premises. Instead, the singular instances are said to make the conclusion more probable. In this case, the evidence appears to support or partially justify the claim that God does not exist. Each observation of something new that is not God, supports the conclusion even more.

Let y be the degree to which a set of premises supports a conclusion (where 0 > y < 1). Appending y to the previous argument, we get a partial entailment:

~Ga, ~Gb, ~Gc, ~Gd ⊢y ∀x[~Gx]​

The more y increases, the more ∀x[~Gx] is supported. In the limiting case, every thing has been observed not to be God, y equals 1, and the argument is purely deductive. In other words, in the hypothetical scenario in which our evidence exhausts all possibilities, the support for the conclusion becomes comprehensive. That said, this is impossible to achieve in practice, and hence the burden of proof is on the theist. I mention this limiting case to illustrate the relationship between induction and deduction.

From here out, to keep things from getting too cluttered, I am going to refer to all observations of things that are not God as "the evidence" or just "e," and the claim that no thing is God will be "the hypothesis" or "h." The previous induction can now be restated:

e ⊢y h​

To relate this idea of evidential suppor to probability, atheists rightly claim that the degree of support (y) which is given by the evidence (e) to the conclusion (h), is equal to the conditional probability of h given e.

(1) e ⊢y h ⇔ p(h|e) = y

Given the premises, the conclusion of a deductive argument must be true on pain of contradiction. That is, the deductive relation between the premises and conclusion is a necessary truth. It follows, that for any deduction, a corresponding material implication, with the premises as antecedent and the conclusion as consequent, will be a tautology.

A ⊢ B ⇔ ⊢ A → B​

We can extend this principle to our partial entailment or induction.

(2) e ⊢y h ⇔ ⊢y e → h​

And from (1) and (2) we get

(3) ⊢y e → h ⇔ p(e → h) = y

And from (1) and (3), we get

(4) y = p(e → h) = p(h|e)​

That is, the degree of evidential support for the hypothesis is equal to the probability of e → h and the probability of h given e. So far, this agrees with the atheists intuition of how evidential support and probability behave.

When changing the probability of the hypothesis in light of the evidence, it is necessary to also change the probability of all logical consequences of the hypothesis. The set of all logical consequences of the hypothesis has the same probability as the hypothesis, because they are logically equivalent. Now consider the following a valid deduction from the hypothesis.

(5) h ⊢ e → h​

That is, it is impossible to update the probability of h in light of e without also updating the probability of e → h in light of e, however, the probability of e → h given e actually declines rather than rising:

(6) p(e → h|e) < p(e → h)​

This result is necessary supposing the neither p(h) or p(e) are equal to 0 or 1. Since y is equal to the probability of e → h, it follows that after updating the probability of h in light of e, y actually decreases.

This argument demonstrates something incredibly counter-intuitive. Supposing that the existence of God is initially assigned a probability greater than 0, it follows that as the probability that God does not exist increases, the evidential (or inductive) support that God does not exist actually decreases!

Thus, by atheists own standards, they have no right to say that the evidence does not support the existence of God. In fact, every time they observe something and it is not God, the evidential support for the conclusion that some thing is God keeps growing even while its probability is decreasing. It's counter-intuitive but true: higher probability reduces evidential (or inductive) support!

Alright, I'm done. Whew!
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I guess scientologists shouldn't be playing with math.
Thus, by atheists own standards, they have no right to say that the evidence does not support the existence of God. In fact, every time they observe something and it is not God, the evidential support for the conclusion that some thing is God keeps growing.
From nothing to nowhere!
 

Jessica

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
268
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
There is no probability of god's existence in my mind.

That is to say, it's not assigned greater than zero, it is zero. I could be wrong, but that doesn't equate to doubt so much as being an admittance of fallibility.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
This should be fun.



In the meantime, however, the atheist claims that every new thing we discover that is not God decreases the probability that God exists. Atheists claim the existence of God is highly improbable, because we have searched and searched and yet no thing discovered so far has been God. The structure of the argument is inductive, e.g.

~Ga, ~Gb, ~Gc, ~Gd ⊢ ∀x[~Gx]​



If the number of things in existence is infinite, isn't that moot?
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
I'm sorry but this makes very little sense to me.


Firstly, you present a straw argument here:

In the meantime, however, the atheist claims that every new thing we discover that is not God decreases the probability that God exists.

This is simply untrue. What atheists claim is that each new thing that we learn which is in direct conflict with the prevailing religious thoughts and texts serves as evidence that such thoughts and texts do not present truth, and that any conclusions drawn from them are questionable. Essentially, the argument is something akin to: You believe in B because you trust C; however, here is some evidence that C is not trustworthy. Et cetera.


Secondly, as Ginkgo pointed out above, if the universe is indeed infinite, then any finite amount of information about it cannot be represented as a percentage of the whole amount of information available. As such, no matter what we know, it would not affect the conditional probability of God's existence, at least in a very abstract sense of the term God.


Lastly, I'm having difficultly following your usage of the logical symbols above. In particular, the inference symbol (⊢) is used in a manner with which I am not familiar. Care to clarify?


Let me end by saying that, as an Atheist, I resign myself to the fact that I can never know for certain if God exists or doesn't exist. However, for me it seems very likely that any talk of God by members of our species is based on pure conjecture and fantasy, and that anyone claiming to have truth is simply being presumptuous.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783

Atheists often place the burden of proof on theists, because, atheists claim, "one cannot prove a negative." In this context, the term "prove" does not mean the same thing as it does in mathematics, but, instead, it means to verify empirically. Since it is impossible to empirically verify that every single thing is not God, then one cannot prove that no thing is God. However, in principle, only a single empirical verification is needed to prove that God exists. There is a logical asymmetry: in principle, atheism cannot be proven and theism can. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the theist.


Thats not completly correct; valid empirical verification in experimental physics following the concept of empirical research means that an experiment can be repeated several times and that it can be executed backwards. Even if you can prove a given outcome several times, this is no proof for a fact to be true. It needs several years of research, isolating all possible side effects, which could have led to the result, before an answer is taken for granted. And after that this answer is only taken for so long as granted, until proven otherwise.

In the meantime, however, the atheist claims that every new thing we discover that is not God decreases the probability that God exists. Atheists claim the existence of God is highly improbable, because we have searched and searched and yet no thing discovered so far has been God. The structure of the argument is inductive, e.g.

~Ga, ~Gb, ~Gc, ~Gd ⊢ ∀x[~Gx]​

This is a failure of definition. A rationalist can say that the probability of Gods existence decreases by finding evidence against it. An atheist tho believes that there is no God. He has made the conscious choice to deny a Gods existence and he is like the theist a believer and no rationalist.


Atheists observe singular instances of things not being God (~Ga, ~Gb, etc.) and conclude that no thing is God (∀x[~Gx]). Like all inductions, the argument is strictly invalid, i.e. the truth of the conclusion is not necessary given true premises. Instead, the singular instances are said to make the conclusion more probable. In this case, the evidence appears to support or partially justify the claim that God does not exist. Each observation of something new that is not God, supports the conclusion even more.

Let y be the degree to which a set of premises supports a conclusion (where 0 > y < 1). Appending y to the previous argument, we get a partial entailment:

~Ga, ~Gb, ~Gc, ~Gd ⊢y ∀x[~Gx]​

I think your fixation on a mathematical proof does cloud the reality of Atheism even further. As I said an atheist is no more than a believer. He has made the conscious choice to deny that deities exist, his opinion has to be treated like the opinion of a theist. It is an opinion of belief and not based on scientific evidence.

Scientifically inductions do not exist. This of course a matter of argument and depends on the interpretation, but from my personal view induction does not exist as well. If I was to trust in induction to exist, I would on the same time need to believe things like religious intervention, in which a deity induces an idea into a humans head. Since I am a an agnostic, who believes that thinking about philosophy and religion is a major waste of time, I cant support the existence of induction.

Gnosis in general is the meaning that religious people have a sort of enlightened knowledge about things that others dont have. Agnosis is the disbelief that such an enlightened knowledge would exist. The greek letter A- in the beginning is always used to present an opposing opinion but on the same premise. Which means that the agnostic doesnt rule out the possibility that there may be more to things than mankind does know, but he is convinced as well that this applies for all mankind and religious people are no exception to this rule.

The more y increases, the more ∀x[~Gx] is supported. In the limiting case, every thing has been observed not to be God, y equals 1, and the argument is purely deductive. In other words, in the hypothetical scenario in which our evidence exhausts all possibilities, the support for the conclusion becomes comprehensive. That said, this is impossible to achieve in practice, and hence the burden of proof is on the theist. I mention this limiting case to illustrate the relationship between induction and deduction.

From here out, to keep things from getting too cluttered, I am going to refer to all observations of things that are not God as "the evidence" or just "e," and the claim that no thing is God will be "the hypothesis" or "h." The previous induction can now be restated:

e ⊢y h​

To relate this idea of evidential suppor to probability, atheists rightly claim that the degree of support (y) which is given by the evidence (e) to the conclusion (h), is equal to the conditional probability of h given e.

(1) e ⊢y h ⇔ p(h|e) = y

As I stated, I dont believe in induction and things already have become a bit cluttered, I am not completly able to follow anymore.

This argument demonstrates something incredibly counter-intuitive. Supposing that the existence of God is initially assigned a probability greater than 0, it follows that as the probability that God does not exist increases, the evidential (or inductive) support that God does not exist actually decreases!

If you believe in induction, the word counter-intuitive basically shouldnt exist no more, cause then everything could be intuitively deduced some how. When I read your sentence correctly, it says that if we assume God exists, then facts speaking in favor of that assumption do increase the probability of Gods existence. Thats true but that could have been said easier.

Thus, by atheists own standards, they have no right to say that the evidence does not support the existence of God. In fact, every time they observe something and it is not God, the evidential support for the conclusion that some thing is God keeps growing even while its probability is decreasing. It's counter-intuitive but true: higher probability reduces evidential (or inductive) support!

Alright, I'm done. Whew!

The last sentence makes no logical sense to me. You basically say, when the probability of Gods existence decreases, Atheists have no right to believe in his non-existence ? You lost me.

One thing is for sure tho, if you take the right from Atheists to not believe in a God, you have to take the right from Theists who do believe as well.

The rest is only words...
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
I'm replying a second time to address something apart from the specific topic you presented in this thread. In particular, this regards your method for presenting your thoughts to those around you, and how that presentation affects your ability to respond to criticism. Judging from the formatting, length, and overall appearance of your post, I would imagine that you felt this idea was particularly significant; and, if I may project a bit here, it seems as though you might have experienced a great deal of satisfaction with your accomplishment.

However, of particular note is the certainty with which you covey these ideas. Rather than offering them up as a work in progress, or perhaps even asking for criticism, you present them as truth, and in this way you prime your future state to emotionally reject such criticisms. This isn't to say that you would be incapable of seeing the fault in your reasoning, only that it would be emotionally more difficult since you displayed such a confidence with them when you first presented them.

I might recommend that you structure future arguments in a way that, if anything, downplays your confidence in them. This method tends to be more conducive to a learning environment, and allows you to more easily accept the ideas of others without the emotional turmoil.
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'll teach you something funny about logic and I'll keep it very simple.

If obtained knowledge/all existing knowledge is <1 then if x*2=10, x could be said to be 5, but what if x is only 2.5 and you've overlooked z completely?

What z you say? Well, that's something we don't know, do we? Obtained knowledge / All existing knowledge is after all <1.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I'll teach you something funny about logic and I'll keep it very simple.

If obtained knowledge/all existing knowledge is <1 then if x*2=10, x could be said to be 5, but what if x is only 2.5 and you've overlooked z completely?

What z you say? Well, that's something we don't know, do we? Obtained knowledge / All existing knowledge is after all <1.

I agree, math is a tool of definition used and applied in a constrained environment. Philosophical debates tho aint constrainable and shouldnt be treaten like math
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
I was pretty sure that atheism was a belief, as in, atheists need no more reason to believe that God doesn't exist than theists do. Theists often claim to "feel" God in dire situations... perhaps an atheists just doesn't.
 

Red Herring

Superwoman
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,488
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There is a difference between

atheist = somebody who believes there is no god

and

atheist = somebody who does not believe there is a god.

The two definitions are often used alongside, but the difference is vital to this discussion!
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There is a difference between

atheist = somebody who believes there is no god

and

atheist = somebody who does not believe there is a god.

The two definitions are often used alongside, but the difference is vital to this discussion!

Somebody who does not believe there is a god is basicly an agnost. An agnost doesn't believe either way and will live their lives through their own rules.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
I agree, math is a tool of definition used and applied in a constrained environment. Philosophical debates tho aint constrainable and shouldnt be treaten like math

Though terms are symbolic and not numerical, analytic philosophy should be treated very similarly to math.
 

Red Herring

Superwoman
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,488
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Somebody who does not believe there is a god is basicly an agnost. An agnost doesn't believe either way and will live their lives through their own rules.

That is not the definition I am used to.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-0

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge whether God exists or does not. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
Somebody who does not believe there is a god is basicly an agnost. An agnost doesn't believe either way and will live their lives through their own rules.

I don't believe this is the case. Agnosticism is not restricted to religious philosophy, and deals more with the belief that the truth of some things cannot be verified. An atheist is someone who does not believe there is a God, and although some atheists go so far as to believe there is no God, the second is not a necessary criteria whereas the first is.
 

Jonny

null
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
FREE
Though terms are symbolic and not numerical, analytic philosophy should be treated very similarly to math.

This might sound like an odd request, but I would very much appreciate it if you discussed in more detail the implications of your use of the term should in the quoted statement.
 

LEGERdeMAIN

New member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
2,516
There is a difference between
atheist = somebody who believes there is no god
and
atheist = somebody who does not believe there is a god.
The two definitions are often used alongside, but the difference is vital to this discussion!

I suspect that there is no god, I do not suspect that there is a god. What difference?
 

Red Herring

Superwoman
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,488
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I suspect that there is no god, I do not suspect that there is a god. What difference?

The difference is quite significant.
In the first case ("I suspect that there is no god", or rather "I believe there is no god") you are in deed proclaiming an assumption for which you have no ultimate proof, only clues. But for many people that is just fine and they are willing to take that risk.
In the second case ("I do not suspect that there is a god" or "I do not believe there is a god") you simply proclaim the absence of a belief. Just as you have no belief in a 100m tall pink rabbit floating in outerspace.
If you go by the first definition, an atheist makes a consious decision, he says he is convinced there is no god. He probably assumes he has proof or at least good reasons to doubt.
If you go by the second definition, an atheist is just anybody who is not a theist. He doesn't necessarily claim to have proof, but doesn't need any either as he needs no proof in order to not believe in the big pink rabbit.

A agnostic says it is inherently impossible to prove nor disprove the existence of the pink bunnie but is likely to have a preference one way or the other.
 
Top