Battleground God

[gusl]

My original link was rigged. The full game consists of 18 questions. If you tried it, and were disappointed, the fault is mine. Try it again.

Comments

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

It says I got 1 hit, but I disagree:


You've just taken a direct hit!

Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

The actual questions which generated their alledged contradiction were:

10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.

True

14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

True

I responded true to the first, because I think there is a strong argument that the Loch Ness monster does not exist, namely that if it did and they've been trying all these years to find it, then somebody would have found it by now!

I responded true to the second because I think there is also very compelling evidence/arguments that God does not exist. If I didn't think this, I wouldn't be an atheist because I don't accept things on faith.

So where is the contradiction here? I think the problem is that the people who made the test don't realize that searching for something and not finding it is strong evidence that it does not exist.

[jbouwens.livejournal.com]

Maybe you misunderstood the second question. Rephrasing the two questions:

10. In the absence of evidence, it is rational to believe the monster does not exist

14. In the absence of evidence, it is NOT rational to believe God does not exist, but an act of faith instead.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

But the second one is talking about an absence of evidence against God, in which case it would clearly be irrational to be an atheist... there is no way I would be an atheist if there weren't strong evidence and arguments against God. If I thought the evidence was lacking, I would be agnostic.

The first one only mentions that there is an absence of evidence for the Loch Ness monster... that's entirely different than saying there is no evidence against it. Again, if there were no evidence against it, I would not think it rational to disbelieve in the Loch Ness monster.

I think that if I had answered either of these false, I would be contradicting myself and going against my beliefs. Yet somehow, they think that I'm contradicting myself by answering in the same way to both.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

I like the idea is that there is no such thing as "evidence against the existence of X" . The ontological view being that you only accept that things exist to the extent that their existence is needed to explain the universe.

Do you really have evidence against God? What is it?

----

"14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality."

One can answer "true" because of ex falso quodlibet, but you said you believe the antecedent is true.
Or you could interpret the statement as a counterfactual.

As a counterfactual, I would say it's false. Because if there is no evidence/argument against the existence of God, you should use the criterion of the Loch Ness monster: if you can't find God despite years of trying, you should be an atheist (not agnostic).

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

This is something I feel strongly about, and it really distrubs me that other atheists would think this way.

I like the idea is that there is no such thing as "evidence against the existence of X"

That might make sense if the search-space is infinite, but in cases like the Loch Ness monster, where the search-space is finite, I don't see how that could make any sense. If you've explored most of the search space and haven't found what someone claims is there, that's pretty strong evidence against its existence. If you explore ALL the search space and it doesn't turn up, then that's a proof of its non-existence, right? How would that not count as evidence?

But even in the case of an infinite search space, I would strongly disagree. First, there are usually ways of turning an existence claim into a non-existence claim, or vice versa, just by changing the wording. And second, even though it's harder to rule out something that it would take you forever to look in all the possible places where it might be, there are almost always quicker ways to deduce that it doesn't exist. All you need is one observation that contradicts its alledged properties and you've ruled it out. One simple example I can think of in science is the existence of the luminiferous ether... a simple scientific experiment was able to rule out its existence, providing concrete evidence that it does not exist. If it did, that would mean the speed of light isn't absolute, but we can measure it and it is. This is a repeatable experiment anyone can do. How could you count evidence for something but not count equally compelling evidence against it? I see that as completely one-sided and inconsistent.

Do you really have evidence against God? What is it?

Certainly. If there weren't compelling evidence against God, then by definition I would be an agnostic. I think that anyone who calls themselves an atheist but says there isn't any good argument or evidence against God is really an agnostic in atheist's clothing. Either that or they are an atheist for irrational (faith based) reasons, and not any rational reason. As for the particulars of the evidence, it depends on which particular God or gods you're talking about and the specific properties people ascribe to it. Some of the cases are stronger than others. But I think it's safe to say that the evidence against most forms of God that have been proposed is overwhelming and irrefutable. Consider the facts: we know that water can't turn into wine, we know that people can't come back from the dead, we know that prayer has no effect except psychological, and we know that intelligence tends to arise at late times rather than at early times in the evolutionary process. This, among a ton of other things, makes the existence of a superintelligent being near the beginning of the universe extremely unlikely, if not ridiculously unlikely. And that's before you even ascribe self-contradictory properties to it like omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience which makes it completely impossible.

There may be meanings some people have for the word "God" that haven't been entirely ruled out, however I tend to think that those meanings are generally incoherent and illformed conceptually. So I don't think I'd actually admit that they are expressing a meaningful statement in those cases. There may also be uses of the word to mean really intelligent aliens which evolved from simpler life just like us... if so, I have no problem with that, but that's not the type of "God" I'm an atheist about; nor is it consistent with the historical use of the word.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

Or you could interpret the statement as a counterfactual.

Yes, that's exactly how I interpretted it. There are plenty of things which I don't have strong evidence for or against, and in all of those cases I refer to myself as an agnostic. For instance, I'm agnostic as to whether a cure for cancer will exist within my lifetime. I'm agnostic as to whether we'll reach the singularity in the next 50 years or not, etc. It would be irrational for me to claim I believed or disbelieved in these things, as I don't see compelling evidence either way. I do see compelling evidence in the case of God, which is why I call myself an atheist.


If you can't find God despite years of trying, you should be an atheist (not agnostic).

Actually, I don't think that's a good enough reason to be an atheist either. As I mentioned above, in the case of the Loch ness monster, it's a lot smaller search space so exhausting most of it counts as pretty strong evidence. That combined with the other inconsistencies in the way people report the sightings is very convincing. In the case of God, you need something a bit more than just "I've never seen God" to know it doesn't exist. You need a strong compelling argument against it. Fortunately, there are plenty.

[jbouwens.livejournal.com]

This thing is tying my brain in knots! I think you're right, but I can't put my finger on where the authors went wrong.

I think they're comparing apples and oranges, and the two statements can't really be compared the way they do.

[jbouwens.livejournal.com]

You need a strong compelling argument against it. Fortunately, there are plenty.

The only thing I can think of that can prove the non-existence of something is to find an impossibility under the assumption that it does exist.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

Right... and I think many Gods fall into this category. For instance, any God that is supposedly "omniscient" is provably impossible. Knowing your own future is equivalent to solving the halting problem, which has already been proven impossible. So at the very least, any intelligent being must not know some things about itself or its own future.

But more importantly, there's a difference between proving something is absolutely impossible and having evidence that it's not true. If there is a good amount of evidence against a god and not much in favor of that god, then it makes sense to disbelieve in it. Proving it would be a much stronger condition which only happens to apply to some of the more ridiculous gods out there. Most theistic theories can be ruled out not because you can prove them impossible from pure logic, but because if they were true you would expect to see a very different set of observations... for instance, you would expect to see things like prayer affecting things and miracles happening. These are scientifically testable claims and they do not agree with the data... hence they make the theory very unlikely. (But again, this is dependant on what type of god you're imagining.)

[jbouwens.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately this doesn't seem to work to convince religious people their god doesn't exist. In the end they always cop out by

1) Claiming there is loads of scientific evidence that supports the existence of a higher power, such as a study that purportedly showed a measurable effect from praying.
2) Claiming the normal standards of scientific proof and rigor cannot be applied when discussing God.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately this doesn't seem to work to convince religious people their god doesn't exist.

This brings up an interesting point... I've thought for a while that a lot of atheists tend to make the wrong sort of arguments against god; stuff that might help convince more people to give up religion in the short run, but in the long run it's really not true. The biggest one that I think contributes to this is the argument "I can't see God, therefore he doesn't exist... I only believe in things I can see." The problem is, most of my field (theoretical physics) is dedicated to studying things you can't see. (I'm sure there are better examples, but that's the one that comes to mind since I confront it the most. There are all sorts of indirect ways to judge the merits of competing theories and explanations, other than direct observation. I've never actually seen China, but I still believe it's there. Why? Because the alternative would be to believe in a giant global conspiracy, and that's not nearly as powerful or convincing an explanation... it suffers from a lot of problems and inconsistencies that don't add up. It's hard to prove it wrong, but there is still a lot of evidence against it.