I don't get it...

[powder]

I am not religious, though I grew up with the RC indoctrination.  I would say that I am an agnostic.  

 

below is a quote from the description of Stef's book on Aethism.  I don't get it.  I don't reject the possibility of fairies or goblins.  how the heck should I know?  history has shown that there are lots of things discovered all the time that defy what we imagine possible.  

 

I admit that for now I am only curious about the issue, not engaged enough to read a book about it but can you atheists explain to me what is irrational about not claiming to know whether something you have no way of verifying is 'real' or not.  

 

It is not rational to even entertain the possibility of the existence of irrational entities. We do not accept agnosticism about unicorns, fairies, square circles, pixies on the proposition that two and two make five – why do we create a special exception in the realm of deities? Surely it is because the social cost of rejecting God's is far higher than the social cost of rejecting goblins.

 

 

[Kevin Beal]

below is a quote from the description of Stef's book on Aethism.  I don't get it.  I don't reject the possibility of fairies or goblins.  how the heck should I know?  history has shown that there are lots of things discovered all the time that defy what we imagine possible. 

Okay, then just move the goalpost to something that you do reject the possibility of: ghosts? Square circles? Married bachelors?

 

The point is not the particular thing you are rejecting, but that we don't apply these same crazy standards for proof that we do for gods for anything else. We don't say that you can't say that Santa isn't real because on another planet they may have figured out the whole flying reindeer thing. We don't say that the tooth fairy could be real, and that it's actually an act of arrogance to say that the tooth fairy is for sure not real.

 

There is no real reason why gods should be held to these silly standards that say that we need to look under every single rock in the universe simultaneously in order to positively conclude that no gods exist. This standard for proof makes no sense.

 

There are lots of other reasons that the existence of gods creates serious (insurmountable) logical problems. But that one point is, I think, the most effective. Because if you say that Santa may be real (for the sake of consistency) then you kinda look pretty silly and we kinda get that it doesn't really matter what story you come up with, there is no Santa Claus.

 

This debate with Stef is pretty interesting, I think:

[Lians]

I don't reject the possibility of fairies or goblins.  how the heck should I know?  history has shown that there are lots of things discovered all the time that defy what we imagine possible.

 

You can fill the large void of human knowledge with just about anything you can imagine. I don't know why you would want to do that, but hey, it's your life. There are only two exceptions. You can't put self-contradictory beings (all-powerful and all-knowing) and/or entities that violate our scientific knowledge of the universe (consciousness without matter) in the unknown. To accept the existence of such beings is to reject the reality that you're living in.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Then you have to be agnostic about everything including being agnostic. How the heck would you KNOW that you don't know how the heck you would know goblins don't exist? How would YOU know the logic you're using is valid? Apply agnosticism consistently and everything falls apart.

[Hannibal]

Okay, then just move the goalpost to something that you do reject the possibility of: ghosts? Square circles? Married bachelors?

 

 

Those last two are bad examples, because they are logical impossibilities, which is an entirely different thing altogether. Not to be picky - just mentioned it because making that mistake invalidates (insofar as an argument is concerned) the rest of what you wrote.

 

 

 

 

To the OP - as other have mentioned, it's not about proving that something doesn't exist. It's about not supposing that something does exist unless there is a reason to. Your whole life as a human being revolves around your rational ability to discern the realities of nature in which you exist. You might suppose that there is a monster hiding in the fridge, but you don't let that stop you from eating because it's sufficiently unlikely that it is rational to suppose that there is NOT monster hiding in the fridge. 

 

If you agree with that above paragraph (please let me know if you don't - i'd be shocked), then you MUST see how you MUST also concede that it is irrational to believe in god. 

 

You say that you don't disbelieve in fairies, but you don't make any kind of consideration to fairies which has any effect on your life (I assume). If your views on God are the same, then it's really just a form of mental masturbation - you're suggesting that it's wrong to presume the non-existance of a thing which you act entirely as if it doesn't exist.

[Kevin Beal]

Those last two are bad examples, because they are logical impossibilities, which is an entirely different thing altogether. Not to be picky - just mentioned it because making that mistake invalidates (insofar as an argument is concerned) the rest of what you wrote.

Those are the same kinds of examples given in the book. One is even in the quoted text. Gods are logical impossibilities also, but that wasn't my point. My only point was that we need to have rational standards for proof. And we don't have to turn over every rock in the universe to say that santa doesn't exist either. I think you may have missed the point.

[Hannibal]

Those are the same kinds of examples given in the book. One is even in the quoted text. Gods are logical impossibilities also, but that wasn't my point. My only point was that we need to have rational standards for proof. And we don't have to turn over every rock in the universe to say that santa doesn't exist either. I think you may have missed the point.

 

I get the point. My point is that dismissing "square circles" and "married bachelors" is not the same thing as not having " to turn over every rock in the universe to say that santa doesn't exist"; especially when the OP is asking why it's irrational to disbelieve in improbable things.  They are two entirely different and incomparable ideas, and if they are used as examples in the book in the same context, then they are also very bad example there. 

 

To suggest that because the OP doesn't believe in square circles and therefore shouldn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster, is a non sequitur; and I'm not convinced that using logical fallacies to encourage logical and reasoned thinking is the best approach.

[Guest darkskyabove]

I must second Hannibal, as far as the critique of application. As much as I understand Kevin's sentiment, the difference could be between "understanding" and "logical consistency". I am using "understanding" in a more casual sense, as in: the logical framework is not, necessarily, well-defined, but, the overall gist can be processed. I would submit that the OP is operating on the "understanding" level.

 

Applying logical consistency requires a high level of information and integrity. It is not the most common mode of human communication. As Hannibal pointed out, logical consistency is not the most effective form of communication when used in a more casual, "understanding-oriented", format.

 

To claim a "square circle" is a logical inconsistency (contradiction; and we all know contradictions don't exist: check your premises! Thank you, Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum). By definition, circles have intrinsic properties that squares do not have, thus, a contradiction. In a more casual sense: it is impossible. To claim that "a gremlin lives in my computer and causes random crashes" is not a logical inconsistency, but is highly improbable. The specific differences between improbability and impossibility is a can of worms for another day. (Note to self: start thread on the differences between improbability and impossibility. Relevance to philosophy: extremely high.)

 

As to the OP's statement: "how the heck should I know?"

 

1. Do you want to know?

2. If so, what are you willing to do in the effort to find out?

3. Are you willing to put aside all preconceptions, and start fresh?

 

If the answers are: yes, whatever it takes, and yes; then, welcome to the human race! Now the work begins: research, research, and more research. There are no easy answers.

[Hannibal]

I must second Hannibal, as far as the critique of application. As much as I understand Kevin's sentiment, the difference could be between "understanding" and "logical consistency". I am using "understanding" in a more casual sense, as in: the logical framework is not, necessarily, well-defined, but, the overall gist can be processed. I would submit that the OP is operating on the "understanding" level.

 

Applying logical consistency requires a high level of information and integrity. It is not the most common mode of human communication. As Hannibal pointed out, logical consistency is not the most effective form of communication when used in a more casual, "understanding-oriented", format.

 

To claim a "square circle" is a logical inconsistency (contradiction; and we all know contradictions don't exist: check your premises! Thank you, Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum). By definition, circles have intrinsic properties that squares do not have, thus, a contradiction. In a more casual sense: it is impossible. To claim that "a gremlin lives in my computer and causes random crashes" is not a logical inconsistency, but is highly improbable. The specific differences between improbability and impossibility is a can of worms for another day. (Note to self: start thread on the differences between improbability and impossibility. Relevance to philosophy: extremely high.)

 

As to the OP's statement: "how the heck should I know?"

 

1. Do you want to know?

2. If so, what are you willing to do in the effort to find out?

3. Are you willing to put aside all preconceptions, and start fresh?

 

If the answers are: yes, whatever it takes, and yes; then, welcome to the human race! Now the work begins: research, research, and more research. There are no easy answers.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What Kevin wrote was exactly right, except for those 2 examples (imo). It might seem picky but for someone struggling to understand why we don't need to prove a negative (and why we cannot), those little inconsistencies could cause confusion. I'm happy to be called out too, because by little fixes here and there the overall quality of the message is improved.

 

Very pleased to see another (I assume) Ayn Rand fan too!

[Kevin Beal]

I get the point. My point is that dismissing "square circles" and "married bachelors" is not the same thing as not having " to turn over every rock in the universe to say that santa doesn't exist"; especially when the OP is asking why it's irrational to disbelieve in improbable things

No, you said that I invalidated my own point by comparing the two, and I'm telling that that they are comparable in exactly the respect that you don't have to look under every rock in the universe to conclude for certain that there is no santa claus and that there are no square circles. I'm not wrong about that.

 

It may be conceivably possible that there is a santa claus somewhere (maybe), but he just simply does not exist. Gods are impossible in the sense that a square circle is impossible, but even if they weren't, they still don't exist and I'm certain of it.

 

I would encourage you not to make this distinction, especially when it comes to gods. All it's going to do is have people say "well all knowing and all powerful can be justified by considering X" and suddenly because (ostensibly) it's not a logical contradiction, therefor their god exists!

 

This distinction is not important when it comes to gods, and I don't believe it's ever going to be productive to entertain that. I specifically worded my post with this in consideration.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Kevin, a major point, so far, is: why is the validity of gods treated differently than the validity of santa claus? Are you saying that this doesn't matter? (Quote: "This distinction is not important when it comes to gods, and I don't believe it's ever going to be productive to entertain that.")

[Kevin Beal]

Kevin, a major point, so far, is: why is the validity of gods treated differently than the validity of santa claus? Are you saying that this doesn't matter? (Quote: "This distinction is not important when it comes to gods, and I don't believe it's ever going to be productive to entertain that.")

I honestly don't understand what you are asking me. If the question is why do people treat it differently, then I think that Stef answers it in the quote in the OP:

 

 

 

Surely it is because the social cost of rejecting God's is far higher than the social cost of rejecting goblins.

 

What I'm saying doesn't matter is whether or not gods are square circles or goblins. We can reject the god proposition far sooner than the point at which we establish that gods are square circles. By making that the standard of proof, we are doing what the kinds of agnostics in the book do by having irrational standards.

[powder]

My Mother in Law just sent me this one:

 

A Kindergarten teacher was observing her classroom of children while they were drawing. She would occasionally walk around to see each child's work. 
As she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked what the drawing was. 
The girl replied, 'I'm drawing God.'
The teacher paused and said, 'But no one knows what God looks like.' 
Without missing a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl replied, 'They will in a minute.'

You can fill the large void of human knowledge with just about anything you can imagine. I don't know why you would want to do that, but hey, it's your life. There are only two exceptions. You can't put self-contradictory beings (all-powerful and all-knowing) and/or entities that violate our scientific knowledge of the universe (consciousness without matter) in the unknown. To accept the existence of such beings is to reject the reality that you're living in.

I am not interested in filling any void with anything.  I don't care about things I don't know about or don't affect my life, be they goblins or gods or purple spaghetti dragons.  I don't accept the existence of anything I cannot verify with my own experience, I won't discount the possibility that they don't exist is all, so I don't know how your comments relate to my question.  

Kevin, I listened to the video debates you posted while I was painting.  They were good.  The whole of Stef's argument is based on a presumed and agreed upon definition of what 'god' is, and if we accept that definition, then the logical conclusion must follow.  

 

I don't accept any definitions of god, so I have no rational train of thought to adhere to.  The square circles and married bachelor examples are different because I can accept a definition of those that everyone who speaks english and understands the words will readily accept.  Ghosts?  I don't have an acceptable definition for that and for me to argue that they do not exist I would have to get everyone to agree with my definition.  does that make sense?  

Those last two are bad examples, because they are logical impossibilities, which is an entirely different thing altogether. Not to be picky - just mentioned it because making that mistake invalidates (insofar as an argument is concerned) the rest of what you wrote.

 

 

 

 

To the OP - as other have mentioned, it's not about proving that something doesn't exist. It's about not supposing that something does exist unless there is a reason to. Your whole life as a human being revolves around your rational ability to discern the realities of nature in which you exist. You might suppose that there is a monster hiding in the fridge, but you don't let that stop you from eating because it's sufficiently unlikely that it is rational to suppose that there is NOT monster hiding in the fridge. 

 

If you agree with that above paragraph (please let me know if you don't - i'd be shocked), then you MUST see how you MUST also concede that it is irrational to believe in god. 

 

Right on.  I agree with the paragraph about not supposing or believing that something exists unless there is a reason to, evidence.  I don't think it is a good idea to choose to believe in anything that you cannot prove, that only leads to well, we know what religious and political belief systems are capable of.  

 

So you are saying it is irrational to believe in something you cannot prove or experience?  If so, how does that negate the possibility of something existing outside of our perception and experience?  Like planets to the ancients?  

 

You say that you don't disbelieve in fairies, but you don't make any kind of consideration to fairies which has any effect on your life (I assume). If your views on God are the same, then it's really just a form of mental masturbation - you're suggesting that it's wrong to presume the non-existance of a thing which you act entirely as if it doesn't exist.

 

If someone told me about the existence of something that I cannot verify with my own experience I would not choose to believe it does not exist or consider it irrational to believe in such a thing any more than I would choose to believe in it.  they are both a waste of energy as far as I can tell.  why would I argue for the non-existence of fairies?  and I know some people who do believe in them.  I still don't get it.  Keep workin' on me here.   

[Kevin Beal]

Kevin, I listened to the video debates you posted while I was painting.  They were good.  The whole of Stef's argument is based on a presumed and agreed upon definition of what 'god' is, and if we accept that definition, they the logical conclusion must follow.  I don't accept any definitions of god, so I have no rational train of thought to adhere to.  The square circles and married bachelor examples are fine because I can accept a definition of those.  Ghosts?  I don't have an acceptable definition for that and for me to discount the possibility that they exist I would have to get everyone to agree with my definition.  does that make sense?  

I think I understand what you are saying, but then how can you call yourself an agnostic? Agnostic about what?

 

What did you think about Stef's arguments around the fact that you have to accept a few necessary things in order to even talk about gods? Like we're not talking about bunnies or tomatoes or anything like that.

 

P.S. I love your avatar.

[Guest darkskyabove]

I honestly don't understand what you are asking me. If the question is why do people treat it differently, then I think that Stef answers it in the quote in the OP:

 

What I'm saying doesn't matter is whether or not gods are square circles or goblins. We can reject the god proposition far sooner than the point at which we establish that gods are square circles. By making that the standard of proof, we are doing what the kinds of agnostics in the book do by having irrational standards.

 #1: You say you don't understand my question, then you simply re-iterate the cause of the question. "It doesn't matter" is rarely an adequate response; and when it is, it must be backed up by reasons.

#2: Referring to what Stef said is an "appeal to authority" (logical fallacy). I don't care what Stef, or any one else, said; the question is about what you said.

#3: Is it acceptable to apply a certain "standard of proof" because that's what someone else does?

 

None of this is meant as attack on your character. I can only process the words that are displayed.

[Kevin Beal]

#1: You say you don't understand my question, then you simply re-iterate the cause of the question. "It doesn't matter" is rarely an adequate response; and when it is, it must be backed up by reasons.

#2: Referring to what Stef said is an "appeal to authority" (logical fallacy). I don't care what Stef, or any one else, said; the question is about what you said.

#3: Is it acceptable to apply a certain "standard of proof" because that's what someone else does?

1) I wrote quite a bit more than "it doesn't matter". (i.e. because the practical result is the same: gods do not exist). And to add to what I already said, it doesn't matter because we're talking about what the meaning of the quote was, which is around why people use different standards for proof for gods than they do goblins. Whether or not gods are a square circle or they are goblins doesn't have anything to do with that because agnostics (typically) do reject the existence of goblins, ghosts etc.

 

2) I didn't say that it's true why people use different standards for gods than they do goblins because Stef said it. I said that I agreed with Stef. It was not an argument, nor an appeal to authority. And even if it were, I'm not against the appeal to authority. I think it's often a very effective and reasonable argument to make. It's not a fallacy in the same way that something like the fallacy of composition is a fallacy, it's just not proof.

 

3) What standard of proof have I given? I was calling into question the standard of proof that says that in order to say gods don't exist, you have to overturn every rock in the universe simultaneously (or whatever similar standard). That's what the agnosticism described in the book is all about and the basis of this standard is that there isn't any.

 

Does that help?

[Guest darkskyabove]

Does that help?

 

 Yes. I tend to take the written word more literally than some. As I posted earlier in this thread, I try to distinguish between "conversation" and "rigorous debate". I'm reasonably sure I understand your comments and the OP in terms of conversation. If you re-examine my contrarian posts from the point of view of a "rigorous debate" nanny, you should see where I took exception to certain statements. Sometimes context can be the difference between agreement and disagreement.

 

Final quibble ( ): I am "one of those" who tries to adhere to the idea that this is a philosophy, not an opinion, forum. Am I 100% consistent? No. Do I expect everyone to hold this standard? No. Do I misjudge the use of conversation vs. rigor? All the damn time. (None of which is to imply that you, or anyone else, lacks rigor.)

[powder]

I think I understand what you are saying, but then how can you call yourself an agnostic? Agnostic about what?

 

What did you think about Stef's arguments around the fact that you have to accept a few necessary things in order to even talk about gods? Like we're not talking about bunnies or tomatoes or anything like that.

 

P.S. I love your avatar.

Ha!  good one.  I can call myself an agnostic because I only accept my own definition, that being:  "I don't know and I don't care".  I am certainly open to considering other more widely accepted definitions, but then I would likely not want to call myself an agnostic anymore if they didn't suit me.  

 

Sure, I agree with Stef that if you are going to talk about something or debate its validity you have to have an agreed upon definition, which is why he started out the debate by proposing one, I just didn't think there was any reason for me to accept it. I will be happy to discuss 'god' but on a case by case basis given the agreed upon definitions at hand.  

 

thanks, the avatar is a pic of one of our fluffy cats, his name is Powder and he has no interest in philosophy.  

[Kevin Beal]

I can call myself an agnostic because I only accept my own definition, that being:  "I don't know and I don't care".  

Don't know and don't care about what?

[Lians]

I am not interested in filling any void with anything.  I don't care about things I don't know about or don't affect my life, be they goblins or gods or purple spaghetti dragons.  I don't accept the existence of anything I cannot verify with my own experience, I won't discount the possibility that they don't exist is all, so I don't know how your comments relate to my question.  

 

Where you don't have empirical knowledge, you put in the possibility of existence. That's perfectly fine, but there are limitations to this approach. I outlined them in the core part of my previous post. The part that you ignored. I don't need to verify that the inhabitants of Omicron Persei 8 have developed consciousness without matter. I don't even admit the possibility of such a thing because the idea goes against the laws of our universe.

[powder]

You can fill the large void of human knowledge with just about anything you can imagine. I don't know why you would want to do that, but hey, it's your life. There are only two exceptions. You can't put self-contradictory beings (all-powerful and all-knowing) and/or entities that violate our scientific knowledge of the universe (consciousness without matter) in the unknown. To accept the existence of such beings is to reject the reality that you're living in.

 

Where you don't have empirical knowledge, you put in the possibility of existence. That's perfectly fine, but there are limitations to this approach. I outlined them in the core part of my previous post. The part that you ignored. I don't need to verify that the inhabitants of Omicron Persei 8 have developed consciousness without matter. I don't even admit the possibility of such a thing because the idea goes against the laws of our universe.

I did not ignore that part of your post I simply don't agree with it.  I don't see how there can be any imposed limitations or exceptions to my idea of accepting the possibility of existence of whatever, there are limitations to the understanding of science and the laws of the universe however.  

 

In my view, accepting the possibility of something existing is not tantamount to rejecting the reality that I live in  - there is a lot about the 'reality' that we live in that we do not understand or are even aware of.  

[Flake]

Ha!  good one.  I can call myself an agnostic because I only accept my own definition, that being:  "I don't know and I don't care".  I am certainly open to considering other more widely accepted definitions, but then I would likely not want to call myself an agnostic anymore if they didn't suit me.  

 

Sure, I agree with Stef that if you are going to talk about something or debate its validity you have to have an agreed upon definition, which is why he started out the debate by proposing one, I just didn't think there was any reason for me to accept it. I will be happy to discuss 'god' but on a case by case basis given the agreed upon definitions at hand.  

 

thanks, the avatar is a pic of one of our fluffy cats, his name is Powder and he has no interest in philosophy.  

Your position would more accurately be described as ignosticism. Which brings up the point you are making here, that there is no way to nail down the definition, meaning that debating its existence is meaningless in the philosophical sense.

[Wesley]

In my view, accepting the possibility of something existing is not tantamount to rejecting the reality that I live in.

Unless that thing rises and falls at the same time.

 

Or is a square circle.

 

Or has consciousness without material form.

 

Or is omnipotent and omniscient.

 

Or that living things come from somewhere except for god.

 

Or the most complex thing can exist without evolution.

 

Or basically any logical contradiction of terms or ideas that define existence as impossible in reality.

[Lians]

I did not ignore that part of your post I simply don't agree with it.  I don't see how there can be any imposed limitations or exceptions to my idea of accepting the possibility of existence of whatever, there are limitations to the understanding of science and the laws of the universe however.

 

There are limitations if you care about the truth. If you don't, I don't see why we should continue discussing this. This is a philosophy board after all.

Unless that thing rises and falls at the same time.

 

Or is a square circle.

 

Or has consciousness without material form.

 

Or is omnipotent and omniscient.

 

Or that living things come from somewhere except for god.

 

Or the most complex thing can exist without evolution.

 

Or basically any logical contradiction of terms or ideas that define existence as impossible in reality.

 

Logic is illogical. I knew it!

[powder]

Lians, by 'truth' in this context I assume you mean the laws of the known universe as we understand it at the present time.  If you want to talk about 'truth' and 'reality' then you will need to define it for me.  Just like I say that if you want to talk about 'god' you need to have an agreed upon definition.  

 

Unless that thing rises and falls at the same time.

 

Or is a square circle.

 

Or has consciousness without material form.

 

Or is omnipotent and omniscient.

 

Or that living things come from somewhere except for god.

 

Or the most complex thing can exist without evolution.

 

Or basically any logical contradiction of terms or ideas that define existence as impossible in reality.

not that same, those things have a universally (mostly) agreed upon definition in our reality as we understand it.  

 

Your position would more accurately be described as ignosticism. Which brings up the point you are making here, that there is no way to nail down the definition, meaning that debating its existence is meaningless in the philosophical sense.

I'll buy that.  thanks Flake.  

[Lians]

Lians, by 'truth' in this context I assume you mean the laws of the known universe as we understand it at the present time.  If you want to talk about 'truth' and 'reality' then you will need to define it for me.  Just like I say that if you want to talk about 'god' you need to have an agreed upon definition.  

 

I see... If I don't provide a definition this means there's a possibility of what I'm saying being true. I'll take that!

[powder]

I see... If I don't provide a definition this means there's a possibility of what I'm saying being true. I'll take that!

you got it!

[Lians]

you got it!

 

That's a wonderful approach! Statists will never be able to prove that I'm wrong! Mwahahaha!

[powder]

So, viruses did not exist before we were able to detect and measure them empirically, is that how this logic works?  

That's a wonderful approach! Statists will never be able to prove that I'm wrong! Mwahahaha!

yeah, except that I don't think you cannot have a debate without an agreed upon definition...

[Hannibal]

Quoting now without having read further yet - forgive me if already properly addressed:

 

 

So you are saying it is irrational to believe in something you cannot prove or experience?  If so, how does that negate the possibility of something existing outside of our perception and experience?  Like planets to the ancients?  

 

I'm not saying that it's irrational to believe in something unless you can prove or [directly] experience it. What I am saying is that it is irrational to believe in something without any reason to, just like the monster in the fridge.

 

So what I'm saying is that I cannot prove that there is no monster in the fridge without looking inside the fridge.

The chances of there being a monster in the fridge, though, are so slim that it is rational to suppose that there is NOT a monster in the fridge. For the same reason it is IRRATIONAL to suppose that there is.

 

I still can't prove that there isn't a monster in the fridge, and if we suppose that it's an invisible monster then even looking inside won't help. Now its very similar to the God question - what is the difference between our invisible fridge monster and God? I can't prove that either do not exist, yet it is entirely irrational of me to believe that they do. 

 

I assume that as you agreed with my fridge monster example before, you have no choice but to agree with it again now after it's been shown to be exactly the same as God ?

 

 

So to go back to your question quoted, nothing here negates the possibility; and anyone who tells you it does is wrong. This is the difference between santa claus and a square circle. Santa claus cannot possibly be proven to not exist, whereas a square circle does not exist, by definition.

 

But do you need absolute proof that something doesn't exist? You certainly don't live your life like that (which is the original point). If you did live like that you wouldn't be able to function as a human being in the world, and I would dare say that you'd be insane because you'd have no way of discerning what is and is (so very probably) not real.

[JamesP]

So, viruses did not exist before we were able to detect and measure them empirically, is that how this logic works?

If in the days prior to the understanding of disease and viruses, you had suggested that perhaps there are things too tiny to be seen that cause certain diseases, you would do well to be greeted with skepticism if you had no way to verify this. However, a particle that is too small to be seen is not contradictory to what we know of the world. It may be difficult to comprehend, but it is not inherently contradictory. The theory of God is self-contradictory. There is no point in suspending belief about this entity.The concept of God is not even wrong. It is a no-thing. It lacks existence. Reality is not contradictory. Things that exist in reality inherit this troublesome attribute.

[powder]

Quoting now without having read further yet - forgive me if already properly addressed:

 

 

I'm not saying that it's irrational to believe in something unless you can prove or [directly] experience it. What I am saying is that it is irrational to believe in something without any reason to, just like the monster in the fridge.

 

So what I'm saying is that I cannot prove that there is no monster in the fridge without looking inside the fridge.

The chances of there being a monster in the fridge, though, are so slim that it is rational to suppose that there is NOT a monster in the fridge. For the same reason it is IRRATIONAL to suppose that there is.

 

I still can't prove that there isn't a monster in the fridge, and if we suppose that it's an invisible monster then even looking inside won't help. Now its very similar to the God question - what is the difference between our invisible fridge monster and God? I can't prove that either do not exist, yet it is entirely irrational of me to believe that they do. 

 

I assume that as you agreed with my fridge monster example before, you have no choice but to agree with it again now after it's been shown to be exactly the same as God ?

 

 

So to go back to your question quoted, nothing here negates the possibility; and anyone who tells you it does is wrong. This is the difference between santa claus and a square circle. Santa claus cannot possibly be proven to not exist, whereas a square circle does not exist, by definition.

 

But do you need absolute proof that something doesn't exist? You certainly don't live your life like that (which is the original point). If you did live like that you wouldn't be able to function as a human being in the world, and I would dare say that you'd be insane because you'd have no way of discerning what is and is (so very probably) not real.

Very well said Hannibal.  Thanks for your perspective.  I had missed that somewhat in your first post - esp your statement:  "What I am saying is that it is irrational to believe in something without any reason to, just like the monster in the fridge."  I just don't know if I am comfortable with the word "irrational", perhaps unreasonable works better for me, since there is no compelling reason or evidence to suppose god exists it is the same as the monster in the fridge.  Got it.  

If in the days prior to the understanding of disease and viruses, you had suggested that perhaps there are things too tiny to be seen that cause certain diseases, you would do well to be greeted with skepticism if you had no way to verify this.

 

Skepticism is the product of a healthy and inquisitive mind, that is not the same as condemnation and disbelief.  

 

However, a particle that is too small to be seen is not contradictory to what we know of the world. It may be difficult to comprehend, but it is not inherently contradictory.

 

It was not consistent with the understanding of the world at the time, that is the point of my example.  The theory of God is self-contradictory. There is no point in suspending belief about this entity.

 

You would have to define what theory of God you are referring to before I could consider this.  The concept of God is not even wrong. It is a no-thing. It lacks existence. Reality is not contradictory. Things that exist in reality inherit this troublesome attribute.

 

[Lians]

Guys, don't get sucked in. This is a guy who comes to a philosophy board and says this:

 

Lians, by 'truth' in this context I assume you mean the laws of the known universe as we understand it at the present time.  If you want to talk about 'truth' and 'reality' then you will need to define it for me.  Just like I say that if you want to talk about 'god' you need to have an agreed upon definition.

 

And in the same post continues on to say this:

 

not that same, those things have a universally (mostly) agreed upon definition in our reality as we understand it.

[Guest darkskyabove]

A similar issue has been addressed, by me, in another thread:

 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37268-peter-joseph-is-not-happy-with-stef/page-3#entry341845

 

He/she has been warned about trolling.

[powder]

Guys, don't get sucked in. This is a guy who comes to a philosophy board and says this:

 

 

And in the same post continues on to say this:

looks like you and darkskyabove are the philosophy police around here.  I am new to this sort of discussion as may seem obvious to you guys.  Perhaps I am missing something very key to this philosophy thing.  

 

So Lians, the definition of a circle and 'god' fit into the same category of truth somehow?  Since everyone can agree on what a circle is and almost no one on a definition of god, I am not sure what to think, really.  and I am not being difficult, I am interested in learning.