How sure are you of your belief/non-belief in a god?

[Brumerican]

Because billions (or millions I don't have the stats) believe one and nnot the other.

Again, if you told me that a billion people believed this teapot to exist, then I'd probably reserve judgement until I'd investigated it myself, seen some evidence etc. That, in my opinion, would make it the same.

Again, please don't confuse yourself into thinking this is an argument for God existing. It isn't. I don't believe that. It's simply an argument as to why I believe the spaghetti monsterargument to not be a valid one.

The FSM argument is very valid. The general point is in concern to the areas of evidence and making fanciful claims. The amount of people who believe a claim has nothing to do with this particular argument. Its about the importance of evidence when promoting a theory. Without evidence the claims for God existing are exactly the same as claiming the FSM exists. The amount of believers is inconsequential to the argument. It is about evidence not attendance figures.

[Brumerican]

The fallacy of demanding negative proof

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven .

[bickster]

I'd rather people be religions than agnostic, I feel sorry for the fence. At least the fence has convictions

[Stevo985]

Brum, again, I'm not arguing that there is a God. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be Religion that should provide "proof". I don't think you've grasped this.

It's not the claim itself that I am arguing. It is the fact that a person is more likely to want to see evidence before making his or her judgement on something that millions of people believe, than something that one person believes and no-one else.

Your argument is missing the point. You still seem to be trying to prove to me that there isn't a God, when in fact I'm on your side in that respect.

I'm not arguing that X exists because X doesn't exist. I'm arguing that it's reasonable for someone (NOT ME) to assume X MIGHT exist if millions of other people believe it.

I don't know how else I can explain it. If you can't see the difference between the two scenarios than I give up trying to explain myself.

[Xann]

[bickster]

I'm arguing that it's reasonable for someone (NOT ME) to assume X MIGHT exist if millions of other people believe it.

By way of a counter..........why doesn't every support Man Utd? As more people think they are the best team ever than anyone else, all over the world. Is supporting Man Utd right?

[Stevo985]

I'm arguing that it's reasonable for someone (NOT ME) to assume X MIGHT exist if millions of other people believe it.

By way of a counter..........why doesn't every support Man Utd? As more people think they are the best team ever than anyone else, all over the world. Is supporting Man Utd right?

I'm not saying it's right. i'm saying it's more reasonable to think United might be the best team if so many people believe it, as opposed to a team which 1 person believes to be the best.

So assuming I have no other knowledge of football, if you asked me who the best team in the world was, Manchester United or Kettering Town, I would ask for some evidence. You would refuse.

So now I have NO evidence. Just two choices. If you then told me you were the only person in the whole world who believed Kettering Town were the best team in the world, I would probably dismiss your view.

If you then told me that millions/billions of people believed United to be the best team in the world, then I'd probably think to myself "Well that could well be true then". I wouldn't have made a final decision, but I'd be inclined to believe that the millions and millions of people who believeUnited to be the best team in the world MIGHT have a point.

[bickster]

I know what you are saying Ben but what I'm trying to say (badly) is that ............the assumption that the majority of people think A therefore A is more likely to be right, is idiotic, if the sole reason for that logic is that more people think it to be true.

The majority of people can be idiots

[Stevo985]

I completely agree with you. Especially as I believe the majority of people to be wrong.

What I'm saying is that presented with no evidence of either existing, it's more reasonable for someone to think 1 might exiist over the other if there are millions of people supporting its existance.

I'm not saying that should be the final decision, or that it's right to make the assumption that it IS true. Just that it's reasonable for someone to think the majpority MIGHT be onto something. Which I think is the "Agnostic" point of view that was expressed on page 1 (whether that is the correct definition of agnostic or not)

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

The majority of people are idiots.

[bickster]

Ah, gotcha Ben

[Davkaus]

I went for 3. I can't think of any compelling reasoning that could conceivably prove a God, and if it was possible to prove God's existence using pure logic, it'd probably have been done by now.

It would take God, in a gigantic humanoid form, hovering over the Earth for me to reconsider, and frankly, I think in the face of physical proof, as in seeing God with my own eyes, or experiencing some sort of divine activity, I'd be more likely to question my own sanity rather than become a believer.

[leviramsey]

/me sharpens Hume's Fork

[leviramsey]

I'm not voting.

Saying "deity exists" or "deity does not exist" is pure nonsense, being neither analytically true nor based on observation.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

On your point though Ben, if God story was created now and there had previously had been no story of God, noone would believe it in today's world. I reckon if people were told a chimp run the earth and created it whenever the stories of God were told and were drilled into them, they'd believe it and it'd still be around today.

[Brumerican]

I'm not voting.

Saying "deity exists" or "deity does not exist" is pure nonsense, being neither analytically true nor based on observation.

As long as you preface either with "I believe" (which in itself is just another way of saying "IMO") then you can get away with it seems.

[Brumerican]

Oh and SteveO. I know you are not for one second suggesting the existence of God. I read your posts and can see you sway more to the infidel side. If you were getting the vibe that I thought you were, then I am sorry. I just dont see the justification that "More believers" alters the validity of any Bold claim. Any claim should be based on evidence and evidence alone.

A billion people who believe that X is true despite zero supporting evidence.

One Person who believes That Y is true despite Zero supporting evidence.

X and Y both have the same amount of evidence in their favour (Ie = Zero) The fact that X and Y have vastly different amounts of followers its absolutey irrelevant to the truth claims of either proposition.

Without evidence it is perfectly acceptable to treat both claims as equally invalid. I can dismiss the theory of a God just as easily as I can dismiss the theory of the FSM. Neither is a superior theory to the other and neither is granted any more respect than the other and Nor should it. ...Not without evidence.

The whole problem boils down the fact that Most of the planet cannot agree on what counts as valid evidence, but that is a different thing entirely. I hope that clears up my feelings Steve...and to reitterate, I know you are not suggesting God exists.

RAmen.

[leviramsey]

I'm not voting.

Saying "deity exists" or "deity does not exist" is pure nonsense, being neither analytically true nor based on observation.

And I'd further add that there is no observation that can demonstrate anything is true either... science is as nonsensical as religion. So I suppose that makes 2 and 4 doubly nonsensical.

Of course every post in this thread (including mine) are nonsensical.

[Brumerican]

I'm not voting.

Saying "deity exists" or "deity does not exist" is pure nonsense, being neither analytically true nor based on observation.

And I'd further add that there is no observation that can demonstrate anything is true either... science is as nonsensical as religion. So I suppose that makes 2 and 4 doubly nonsensical.

Of course every post in this thread (including mine) are nonsensical.

Bingo. There are no real truths. All concepts are just ideas in the brain. Science however tends to use logic and reasoning which is kind of the opposite to religion. I think the general goal is to back the most sensible concept although you can argue for days about what is sensible ? Is logic trustworthy etc. These are all marvellous discussion points so it really bugs me when people say "Oh FFS another religion thread". These threads are a good sign of intellectual health amongst VTers. I can't see how people can moan when we have a threads such as (Insert name of random inane thread) all over Villatalk. There should be more people joining in with this instead of dismissing it. "Why are we here" is one of the greatest questions we have and has been discussed by the good, the bad and the ugly ever since us humans gained consciousness.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

We are here for the craic.