Is it irrational to believe that no God or god(s) exist?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 128
#31
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I am unaware of any evidence for any god(s) other than testimonial and I have just given you testimonial evidence of the garage spirit by telling you about it.

As for speculation well it is just speculation. You do not know that there is a spirit realm or how interesting any part of it would be. In any case the garage spirit seems content there as he continues holding up my garage without complaint. 

Is not the miracle of the standing garage enough?
#32
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok so is it ir isn't it?
It would likely be irrational to believe in something.

Topic's author
#33
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Even Matt Dillahunty from the atheist experience TV show agrees that the "fine-tuned universe" is evidence for God. His only caveat is that it is not "sufficient" evidence for God.

Speculation, yes.

The standing garage is explained by physics.

#34
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
What is the difference between this belief and a belief in god(s)
#35
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
My garage standing is evidence just not sufficient evidence. Please explain the real difference here.

#36
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
As content is concerned, one is whatever "god(s)" comprises of, and one is whatever "this" is.  So far as the nature of belief, I do not speculate a difference.
#37
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
So believing in a garage spirit is equally rational to believing in god(s) then.
#38
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
No.  If both are irrational, then it follows that we cannot ascribe a rational value.  Why would we suggest that anything can be equally rational to begin with?
Topic's author
#39
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Explain how it is evidence.
#40
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
If a spirit is holding up my garage my garage is standing then the two things are correlated in the same way that fine tuning correlates with the possible existence of some god(s). It is evidence insufficiently just like fine tuning. If you disagree please point out the logical flaw in my argument.

#41
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
If it us rational to believe in a god based on insufficient evidence then it is rational to believe in anything based on insufficient evidence. If on the other hand insufficient evidence does not warrant rational belief then believing in some god(s) based on insufficient evidence is irrational. I apologize if the use of the term equal has made this concept difficult for you to grasp.
Topic's author
#42
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Well how does a standing garage indicate the existence of a being who is holding it together? You haven't established that part.

#43
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
What is (in)sufficient evidence?  Believing in something whether it be a rational concept or not, is not shown to be rational, so far as we are concerned.
#44
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7

Definition of "proof" courtesy merriam-webster...


"the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"


You can present irrefutable evidence to a fool, and all they have to do is stubbornly refuse to admit they are wrong. They can keep going "Ha ha, I see no proof!" And not be lying.






#45
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Well how does a standing garage indicate the existence of a being who is holding it together? You haven't established that part.
How does this differ from using a standing universe as evidence for a being outside it? I fail to see the difference.

#46
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
What is (in)sufficient evidence?  Believing in something whether it be a rational concept or not, is not shown to be rational, so far as we are concerned.
Insufficient evidence is not enough evidence to support rational acceptance. You ate correct aboit belief however. No rationality is required though I truly hope to only believe in those things which are rationally justified.

Topic's author
#47
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not seeing the comparison. Nobody uses a standing universe as evidence for God. Some examples of real arguments include first cause, Kalam, argument from fine-tuning, etc.



#48
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Allow me to elucidate. Your main objection to my faux claim of a garage spirit is not with my explanation but with the existence of alternative explanations which do not necessitate the existence of a being which is completely unverifiable. This is also one of my main objections to the actual claims of theists when using evidences like fine tuning or the very fact that the universe exists at all.
Topic's author
#49
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
It is not a matter of whether an alternative explanation exists, it's a matter of which is the best explanation. My main objection to your claim of a garage spirit is that you haven't explained how a standing garage is indicative of a being who is holding it together.
#50
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
My main objection to your claim that some unverifiable god(s) provide the best explanation is that you have not explained what makes it better than any other of a myriad of alternative unverifiable hypotheses. 

You said a naturalistic explanation would seem to be the most probable in the case of the existence of standing garages. My question then is why would the existence of the universe not most likely be explained naturalistically?

My main objection to your claim that belief in god(s) is "more rational" is the apparent double standard. Perhaps you could reconcile that for me but so far you have not done so to my satisfaction.
Topic's author
#51
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
It depends on what data you're seeking to explain. 

You are drawing comparisons between apples and oranges. Observing the laws of physics does not provide credence to the view that "nature is all there is." Nor is there equivalence between physics and the origins of the universe, where the laws of physics were broken down. 

It's all about the explanatory power of competing explanations. The laws of physics apply throughout the universe and various aspects of the garage build, like how much weight it can hold, and if it will stand, is predicted by its component parts. This indicates there is nothing special about garages where a being would be required to hold them together.
#52
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
What about the universe requires a deity? Unless you can answer that what is "required" to hold a garage together is largely immaterial in comparing the two.

Topic's author
#53
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
By "required" I don't mean logically necessary, I mean the best explanation to sufficiently explain the data in question.

#54
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
And again I ask what makes the idea of a non physical conciousness (something we have no evidence for) a better explanation then any other cause or simply a lack of cause (since as you said the laws of physics would have broken down).
Topic's author
#55
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Evidence indicates the physical universe expanded from a point of infinite density. This suggests a non-physical cause. The only plausible candidate for something causally efficacious and non-physical is consciousness.

#56
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Evidence indicates the physical universe expanded from a point of infinite density. This suggests a non-physical cause.
How does this suggest any particular cause over another and why would this "non physical cause" necessarily be any god(s) or even a concious force? Please logically justify this leap from "some cause" to "some god(s)".
The only plausible candidate for something causally efficacious and non-physical is consciousness.
What is your evidence that conciousness even can exist without a physical brain? Is this just more conjecture?

Topic's author
#57
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Well consciousness being the only plausible candidate for something causally efficacious and non-physical to have caused the singularity is evidence that consciousness can exist without a physical brain.

Prima facie, people perceive themselves to have souls that are independent from their brain. 

Out of body experiences and near death experiences where the person leaves their body and has "realer than real" experiences.

Qualia. 

The irreducibility of consciousness to physical components.

The fundamentality of consciousness is indicated through recent breakthroughs in quantum mechanics.


#58
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Well consciousness being the only plausible candidate for something causally efficacious and non-physical to have caused the singularity
I do not accept your first premise. Since your argument hinges on it perhaps you should justify it more than conjecture/personal opinion before we move on.

Topic's author
#59
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you dispute that consciousness is plausibly non-physical or do you dispute that consciousness is plausibly efficacious? This objection seems trivial since an audience at large would accept these premises prima facie.
#60
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I dispute that we have any evidence to suggest that conciousness can or does exist in the absence of physical organic brains (if indeed it exists at all) that it seems to be an emergent quality of matter not the other way around and also that the number of people that accept something, prima facie or otherwise, is immaterial unless your intention is to commit an argument from popularity fallacy.