How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[snex]

and once again both comradeSAL and delorted1 repeat the SAME ****ING LIE about atheism that has been addressed for thousands of years by self-proclaimed atheists.

when you two idiots stop lying about what atheists claim to believe, then we can have a fruitful discussion. until then, go **** yourselves.

 

[Deleted member]

Classy, snex.

 

[Surri-Sama]

No it's not, and this is where you make a mistake. If the burden of proof's on our side, we could debate endlessly if I had an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Can you disprove this claim?

I don't think so, Tim.

care to explane or are you just going to leave me here o.o;;

 

[snex]

care to explane or are you just going to leave me here o.o;;

the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. atheists and theists all observe the same things, so to say something other than those observed things exists and influences reality is a claim. therefore, it is up to the theists to demonstrate that their claim has merit; the atheists are not required to disprove it.

think of it like "innocent until proven guilty." a defendant in a criminal case does not need to present any evidence or make any case. he has a presumption of innocence. it is the prosecution that *must* make the case.

similarly, all unobserved propositions are "innocent [of being true] until proven guilty." if it were the opposite, you would be required to believe thousands of religions until you could disprove them (and also cF's invisible unicorn). all theists want to obey the burden of proof when it comes to other religions, but as soon as you turn it on them, they want to ignore it.

 

[ComradeSAL]

similarly, all unobserved propositions are "innocent [of being true] until proven guilty." if it were the opposite, you would be required to believe thousands of religions until you could disprove them (and also cF's invisible unicorn). all theists want to obey the burden of proof when it comes to other religions, but as soon as you turn it on them, they want to ignore it.

No, you wouldn't be required to believe them. I'm not saying that all things are true until proven false. I'm saying they are unverified either way. If you assume nothing, there is no burden of proof, period.

 

[Surri-Sama]

the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. atheists and theists all observe the same things, so to say something other than those observed things exists and influences reality is a claim. therefore, it is up to the theists to demonstrate that their claim has merit; the atheists are not required to disprove it.

think of it like "innocent until proven guilty." a defendant in a criminal case does not need to present any evidence or make any case. he has a presumption of innocence. it is the prosecution that *must* make the case.

similarly, all unobserved propositions are "innocent [of being true] until proven guilty." if it were the opposite, you would be required to believe thousands of religions until you could disprove them (and also cF's invisible unicorn). all theists want to obey the burden of proof when it comes to other religions, but as soon as you turn it on them, they want to ignore it.

that part isnt pointed at me only the "i dont think so tim" , and its obvious you guys didnt really read what i put down

 

[ComradeSAL]

that part isnt pointed at me only the "i dont think so tim" , and its obvious you guys didnt really read what i put down

To be honest your post didn't make a lot of sense. I highly doubt that 99% of the world population believe that time will end.

 

[AltF4]

1) At what point did this thread turn into semantic bickering about what the definitions of "theory" or "atheism" are? Just decide or agree on a definition and move on.

2) Sirhc: Don't try that whole "universe was created, and matter cannot be created nor destroyed" crap. I've gone at great length to dispel that common argument.

3) The burden of proof clearly lies in the hands of a theist, not a non-theist. (Not necessarily atheist) I can't imagine how anyone could argue otherwise. How could someone possibly justify the statement "Christianity is true unless you can prove it wrong". Or insert any religion in place of Christianity. It's just absurd and scientifically backwards.

 

[ComradeSAL]

@AltF4:

I'm not saying that the burden of proof falls on the non-believers. I'm saying that, without any assumptions (in particular without assuming that observations correlate to what is "true" and Occam's Razor), there is no burden of proof. There are just two unverified statements.

 

[AltF4]

While that is strictly a correct statement, it's still misleading at best. You're trying to make any random religious belief sound just as reasonable as all of science and accumulated human knowledge. This is absurd.

Let me give you the low down:

When you go into a debate, there are several assumed things you must accept beforehand.
1) The axioms of logic are true.
2) The axioms of mathematics are true.
3) Causality is true.

In order to even have a debate, all of these must be assumed. Yes, assumed. It is impossible to prove any of them. So do not come in here and spout some kind of 'universal doubt' nonsense like you just got out of your philosophy 101 class. You are not debating by doing so, you're just trying to make your own beliefs look less absurd by attempting to bring down all of science. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work.

 

[ComradeSAL]

In the interest of honesty, I made a last minute edit that you might not have noticed. It was before you posted, but most likely you were typing up your reply at the time. I changed, "in particular without assuming that observations correlate to what is 'true'" to "in particular without assuming that observations correlate to what is 'true' and Occam's Razor."

So if you do not agree with my edited post, please say so.

I realize that we have to make assumptions on certain things for logical debate, but we do not have to assume that Occam's Razor is the correct version of truth, or that science is asympotically approaching truth. These are bold claims - much bolder than "the axioms of logic are true."

EDIT: Also, my position is agnosticism. I am arguing primarily to see if I should strengthen my position from agnosticism to atheism. Interestingly enough, my majors in college were physics and mathematics.

 

[AltF4]

Of course science is approaching truth! That's what it does, that's how it's defined! Whether or not is asymptotic is debatable perhaps, but irrelevant.

Look back at human history. You're trying to tell me that we as a species know less about the world now than we did in 5000 BC? That's absurd. Science is the process by which we gain knowledge about the world. That's what it is.

The fact that it is POSSIBLE to obtain knowledge from observation is assumed. It's called causality.

Furthermore, why do you put so much emphasis into Occam's Razor? I see a lot of non-scientists use this term in a sort of demeaning way. As if it's some kind of natural law that we adhere to for no good reason. This could not be further than the truth. Occam's Razor is nothing more than a good philosophy: try to keep unnecessary crap out of your theories. If you have something that works, don't go adding other things on top of it.

That isn't anything that needs to be assumed or proven. It's not even a statement, just a piece of advice. It's not even necessarily true all the time. So just let go of it.

 

[RDK]

SAL, even if you don't accept casuality, "proven" (so far) science still maintains as a better alternative to blind belief. This is dictated by Occam's Razor itself, which you seem to be flaunting around without knowing the real meaing of it for some reason, as if it has some relevance to the proposition of a Creator.

In other words, a theory with facts, no matter how abstract they may be, is always better than a theory loaded with assumptions (I.E., that the universe was created).

Not sure what your initial point was in bringing up Occam's Razor, but whaterver.

 

[ComradeSAL]

OK, fair enough, I won't mention Occam's Razor anymore. I was using it in the sense that Red Darkstar Kirby was using, but you guys are right to point out that if God does exist, then assuming him would be necessary, and Occam's Razor only applies to unnecessary beliefs.

@AltF4:

Snex and CF have been arguing against the idea that science approaches truth for quite some time now, so it's nice to see some agreement on this matter.

We know more about the world now than we did 1000 years ago in the sense that we can predict future observations with greater accuracy now. However, in terms of the existence of God - no, I don't think we are necessarily any closer to finding an answer than we were 1000 years ago. In the (unlikely) instance that God exists, we might have actually regressed on this issue.

@RedDarkstarKirby:

Well, what I've been trying to say is that everyone holds blind beliefs (causality is just an easy example), so dismissing other people's belief in the existence of God for this reason is not enough.

 

[cF=)]

Well, what I've been trying to say is that everyone holds blind beliefs (causality is just an easy example), so dismissing other people's belief in the existence of God for this reason is not enough.

I think even after 20 pages of debate, you would still repeat this same crap over and over again. I'm done, else I'll be smashing my head on a wall and I don't want to personally hurt myself after such stupid claims.

No grudges though, you had a hard position to defend. However, you failed at it.

 

[Surri-Sama]

2) Sirhc: Don't try that whole "universe was created, and matter cannot be created nor destroyed" crap. I've gone at great length to dispel that common argument.

err what arguement im actually arguing both sides you peopel seem bent on being right though...at all costs, even makign up things that dont exist o.o;;

 

[ComradeSAL]

I think even after 20 pages of debate, you would still repeat this same crap over and over again. I'm done, else I'll be smashing my head on a wall and I don't want to personally hurt myself after such stupid claims.

No grudges though, you had a hard position to defend. However, you failed at it.

I repeated myself because unlike you and Snex, RedDarkStar/AltF4 have acknowledged that we have blind beliefs, and so the argument is valid against them.

For you and Snex, my position is still that if you truly do not have blind beliefs, then you can't make value statements on belief systems. You can only say that all of them suck.

But Yes, I hope there are no hard feelings.

 

[snex]

For you and Snex, my position is still that if you truly do not have blind beliefs, then you can't make value statements on belief systems. You can only say that all of them suck.

and this position is WRONG. the only way you have tried to support it is by LYING about what i think. if you have to resort to LYING about your opponent, you have lost the debate.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I hardly call them comparable. Talk about a failure of an analogy.

It's not even an analogy. It's a logical consequence of a classification system. And it is 100% apt. Atheism doesn't assert anything. It's the lack of assertion of existence of a deity. If you classify THAT as a theory, then you're required to classify lack of having a hobby as being a hobby in itself. If you want to make the case that that's how we SHOULD look at things, then fine, but you're going to have to explain that you want to use your own definitions of things that you made up to everyone else.

Do you see what I'm saying? When looking at something like views on God, which is a topic that has absolutely no evidence that decisively proves either side, both NEED to be considered as theories. If they aren't, then we have a debate that is one-sided, and that's how it usually ends up. And really, it's pathetic. How come we don't have a thread that is called, "How Can Anyone NOT Believe in God?"?

I see what you're saying, you're just wrong. The only people who NEED to consider atheism as a theory are theists who want to put religion and science on the same level. It's one sided because you have an obligation to defend your assertion, and atheists didn't make any in the first place. As others have said before me, you might as well say I have a theory about the invisible pink unicorn, and require me to put belief in it on the same level as skepticism of it.

When you realize that your lack of belief is still a belief, or a GUESS at how the world was created, we can have a debate. But for now, there are too many stubborn atheists and too many ignorant theists. It's really sad.

My lack of belief in a deity is independent of my "guess" as to how the world was created. I don't believe in a deity because there is nothing scientific to support the assertion that one exists. It has nothing to do with the fact that there are lots of other theories (which most theism isn't anyway, since it often goes out of its way to make itself untestable, which is part of the definition of a scientific theory) that try to explain the origin of the universe. Although their successes certainly don't help the cause of theism.

Well, what I've been trying to say is that everyone holds blind beliefs (causality is just an easy example), so dismissing other people's belief in the existence of God for this reason is not enough.

I disagree with you and AltF4 in that I don't think stating causality as a "blind belief" is entirely accurate. I mean strictly speaking, no, you can't ever "prove" it, but that goes for everything that we make observations about. Incidentally I'm also a physics graduate. And anyway, even if other people DO hold blind beliefs, that doesn't suddenly legitimize ANY blind belief.

 

[snex]

Incidentally I'm also a physics graduate.

and thus you should know that even causality isnt an absolute. the most cutting edge branches of physics deal with the very real possibility that causality might not be real on some levels.

but try explaining that to a theist!

 

[yossarian22]

2) Sirhc: Don't try that whole "universe was created, and matter cannot be created nor destroyed" crap. I've gone at great length to dispel that common argument.

It is a perfectly valid argument.
Religion shifts the infinite regression of causality onto a God rather than matter.

3) The burden of proof clearly lies in the hands of a theist, not a non-theist. (Not necessarily atheist) I can't imagine how anyone could argue otherwise. How could someone possibly justify the statement "Christianity is true unless you can prove it wrong". Or insert any religion in place of Christianity. It's just absurd and scientifically backwards.

If one accepts the argument that atheism is the null hypothesis, then yes, burden of proof does lie with the theist. But a theist does not need proof of a deity at all. All a theist needs to offer is a valid argument to believe in god. Burden of proof then shifts back to the atheist position

Of course, it is entirely debatable if atheism is the null position. The wide spread nature of religion allows for one to suggest that theism is the natural position, and therefore the null position.

and this position is WRONG. the only way you have tried to support it is by LYING about what i think. if you have to resort to LYING about your opponent, you have lost the debate.

His position is absolutely correct. Without blind beliefs, you must reject everything. There is no way around it. You have blind belief. You have a blind belief in your own experience at a minimum.

And if you don't, you can't make any statement about a value system because you do not recognize the existence of them, or anything else for that matter.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Thanks, Yossarian. I had basically given up on this discussion from all the flames, so it's nice to see someone that actually agrees with me.

 

[AltF4]

Yossarian:

1) What?! If causality has an infinite regression, then it doesn't need an originator. Since, ya know, it doesn't begin anywhere.

2) Okay then. Share with us this "Valid argument to believe in a god". I would certainly like to hear it.

And did I just hear you say that Theism should be the Null Hypothesis because most people in the world believe it? That's absurd. Truth is not democratic.

 

[Deleted member]

It is a perfectly valid argument.
Religion shifts the infinite regression of causality onto a God rather than matter.


If one accepts the argument that atheism is the null hypothesis, then yes, burden of proof does lie with the theist. But a theist does not need proof of a deity at all. All a theist needs to offer is a valid argument to believe in god. Burden of proof then shifts back to the atheist position

Of course, it is entirely debatable if atheism is the null position. The wide spread nature of religion allows for one to suggest that theism is the natural position, and therefore the null position.

His position is absolutely correct. Without blind beliefs, you must reject everything. There is no way around it. You have blind belief. You have a blind belief in your own experience at a minimum.

And if you don't, you can't make any statement about a value system because you do not recognize the existence of them, or anything else for that matter.

This post is 100% amazing.

 

[yossarian22]

Thanks, Yossarian. I had basically given up on this discussion from all the flames, so it's nice to see someone that actually agrees with me.

I am surprised at how many argue that god concepts are illogical.
Religion vs Logic is a false dichotomy

Yossarian:
1) What?! If causality has an infinite regression, then it doesn't need an originator. Since, ya know, it doesn't begin anywhere.

Thanks for agreeing with me.
That removes the only obstacle a deity has. If causality can regress into matter, there is no valid reason for it to not regress into god

And did I just hear you say that Theism should be the Null Hypothesis because most people in the world believe it?

Well, its more like you read it, but same thing I suppose.

That's absurd. Truth is not democratic.

Of course it is.
Experience is subjective. We get around that trap by suggesting a statement that is inter-subjectively verifiable is an objective statement. The extent of objectivity (and therefore the 'truthiness') of a statement is entirely dependent on who views it. If we were all on LSD, we would have a radically different view of reality. That is why truth can be considered 'democratic'. If everybody thought pigs could fly, then pigs can fly.
Such is the problem with a purely atheistic thought.
I would also like to point out that I never said that theism should be the null, but rather than it could be the null.

2) Okay then. Share with us this "Valid argument to believe in a god". I would certainly like to hear it.

Here is one.
We can avoid the problem of truth and subjectivity by placing faith in a God.
My own opinions about this aside, this reasoning is perfectly valid.

 

[AltF4]

Thanks for agreeing with me.
That removes the only obstacle a deity has. If causality can regress into matter, there is no valid reason for it to not regress into god

What are you even talking about? Causality regressing into matter or god? It doesn't have to regress into anything. It can just regress infinitely.

Of course it is.
Experience is subjective. We get around that trap by suggesting a statement that is inter-subjectively verifiable is an objective statement. The extent of objectivity (and therefore the 'truthiness') of a statement is entirely dependent on who views it. If we were all on LSD, we would have a radically different view of reality. That is why truth can be considered 'democratic'. If everybody thought pigs could fly, then pigs can fly.
Such is the problem with a purely atheistic thought.
I would also like to point out that I never said that theism should be the null, but rather than it could be the null.

Truth is not democratic. Our perception of it can be, our opinions of it can be. But whether we are right or wrong, the truth, is not democratic.

Here is one.
We can avoid the problem of truth and subjectivity by placing faith in a God.
My own opinions about this aside, this reasoning is perfectly valid.

That's neither logical nor an argument. That's just begging the question at its finest. You're saying that a logical argument for the existence of god is that we should just place faith in him?! Is anyone else reading this?

 

[yossarian22]

What are you even talking about? Causality regressing into matter or god? It doesn't have to regress into anything. It can just regress infinitely.

What does it regress into?
A materialist world view states that it regresses into matter.
A theistic world view states that it regresses into god. Infinitely. There are advantages to this system, as it allows us to better explain consciousness.

Truth is not democratic. Our perception of it can be, our opinions of it can be. But whether we are right or wrong, the truth, is not democratic.

There is no qualitative difference between the two.

That's neither logical nor an argument. That's just begging the question at its finest. You're saying that a logical argument for the existence of god is that we should just place faith in him?! Is anyone else reading this?

Ugh...
I figured my comment would be misconstrued as such.

Belief in God can be made just as justifiable as belief in experience because it allows for us to avoid certain pitfalls in consciousness and subjectivity, just as belief in our experience allows us to avoid certain pitfalls in consistency and continuity.
It is, in the end, a belief. All logic grinds down to an assumption. I can create a belief system with God that is as justifiable as belief in your experience. Can you justify that with logic?

In the end, none of our arguments can be fully logical. Language is a giant circle.

 

[AltF4]

-Nothing! Causality needs not regress into anything. It can just keep going back into time asymptotically.

- Don't try to cite universal doubt as a way to rationalize baseless claims. Belief is to be made on the basis of good logical reason. The kind with evidence. If there is not evidence to support your claim, it is without basis.

There is no evidence for the existence of god. Not any.

 

[Deleted member]

Alt, did you not just call reality relative?

If reality can be relative, I see absolutely no reason why evidence can't be.

 

[AltF4]

Relative in the sense that depending on your velocity and position, you can observe different events than others. Not relative in the sense that you can make up whatever you want and claim it to be true on the basis that it's true for you.

The requirement for evidence to be objective is the same thing as saying that it must be repeatable. They're really the same thing. Think of it in terms of needing to be repeatable.

 

[yossarian22]

-Nothing! Causality needs not regress into anything. It can just keep going back into time asymptotically.

Causality regresses into itself.
There is no 'first' hence the idea of regression.
Now what does it regress into?
Where is the beginning?

Every view posits something.
Materialism states that it is matter.
Theism stats that it is god

- Don't try to cite universal doubt as a way to rationalize baseless claims. Belief is to be made on the basis of good logical reason. The kind with evidence. If there is not evidence to support your claim, it is without basis.

There is no evidence for the existence of god. Not any.

I don't need evidence to shift burden of proof. I can use an argument just as easily.
Also, you are arguing from ignorance.

Alt, did you not just call reality relative?

If reality can be relative, I see absolutely no reason why evidence can't be.

I wouldn't go so far as to say evidence.
I would however point out that logic is fair game. The rules of logical arguments we set up are, past a certain point, arbitrary.

 

[snex]

His position is absolutely correct. Without blind beliefs, you must reject everything. There is no way around it. You have blind belief. You have a blind belief in your own experience at a minimum.

And if you don't, you can't make any statement about a value system because you do not recognize the existence of them, or anything else for that matter.

absolute nonsense. the lack of 100% confidence does not equate to 0% confidence. no blind beliefs are ever required to do *anything.*

Every view posits something.
Materialism states that it is matter.
Theism stats that it is god

we observe matter. nobody observes god. show us god.

 

[yossarian22]

absolute nonsense. the lack of 100% confidence does not equate to 0% confidence. no blind beliefs are ever required to do *anything.*

But having any confidence about your experience is blind faith. So you must have blind faith in order to do anything. Otherwise you have nothing.

You can't tell me that x is bad or that y is logical because you do not acknowledge the validity of either.
That is why you have blind belief.
If I punch you in the face, you are not going wonder if I actually punched you in the face and question your experience. You will blindly accept that I did, indeed, punch you in the face and respond accordingly.

we observe matter. nobody observes god. show us god.

Really?
You observe matter? Or do your senses observe what you think is matter? You have basically admitted to having blind faith in your observations.

Furthermore, I don't need to show you god any more than you need to show me an electron. All I need is an argument. That which we cannot directly observe we have no evidence for. We have arguments for them. Why do people accept quantum mechanics or electrons? They are useful tools. A god concept can be made into a useful tool.

And on another note, by accepting the existence of matter, you have basically accepted Pantheism.
That in no way expresses my view of Pantheism (which I feel is nothing more than a superfluous attempt to hold onto a God concepts),

 

[AltF4]

Yossarian:

I don't know your level of education, but you are gravely mistaken on many topics relating to science. I've seen you spew some blatantly misguided at best and flagrantly wrong at worst statements in multiple threads now. Allow me to fill you in:

1) Determinism is dead. It's dead, it's dead, it's dead. It has been for over a hundred years. Quantum Mechanics proved it impossible. If you choose to keep holding on to it, you'll be made fun of in science class, teased in the playground, and picked last in dodge ball. It's taken as seriously as Flat Earth believers. Laplace style determinism is dead.

2) Occam's Razor is not a binding scientific law. It is not a matter of being TRUE or FALSE, it is just a piece of advice and nothing more. It is a rule of thumb. If someone told you "look both ways before crossing the street" that is a piece of good advice. It can be wrong. There just might be a hidden camera game show that's handing out a million dollars to the first person they see crossing without looking.

I see entirely too many non-scientists touting this as some kind of imperative that science requires. It's just a rule of thumb and nothing more. It is wrong in many notable examples. (non-existence of magnetic monopoles)

3) There is no absolute reality. You know when people talk about Einstein and Relativity and how he was such a smart guy? It's because he found a startling fact about the universe itself: there is no single reality. (Well, that and the whole atomic bomb thing)

Take three events, A, B, and C. They must come in a certain order. We can say that A came before B, or that B came before C, but what is "correct"? The truth is that depending on the observer, the ordering of these events can completely change. There is nothing in common that can be "inter-subjectively" verified. Depending on the observer, reality can be TOTALLY different.

If they came together after the events and talked, they would disagree on the ordering of the 3 events, and neither would be wrong! This is because there is not one single "correct" ordering of the events. It depends entirely on your frame of reference.

4) Universal doubt is not a rational argument for anything. It does not make irrational statements less irrational, it does not make rational arguments less rational, it does not make you clever, it makes you sound like you just got out of your philosophy 101 class and are acting like this is something new. It is not.

Universal doubt does in fact make us take a couple key assumptions that we deem to be rational:
-The axioms of logic are true
-The axioms of mathematics are true
-Causality is true

Don't come into the debate hall and try to tell us that science itself is a "blind belief" because we might just be being deceived by Descartes' evil genius.

The debate at hand is not "which ones of us have beliefs"? Because clearly we all do. The debate is about "what beliefs are RATIONAL and based on good reasons".

 

[snex]

But having any confidence about your experience is blind faith. So you must have blind faith in order to do anything. Otherwise you have nothing.

nonsense. blind faith is having a belief with 0% confidence. confidence comes from successful experience.

You can't tell me that x is bad or that y is logical because you do not acknowledge the validity of either.
That is why you have blind belief.
If I punch you in the face, you are not going wonder if I actually punched you in the face and question your experience. You will blindly accept that I did, indeed, punch you in the face and respond accordingly.

how do i have blind belief? i observed the fist, i felt the impact. these are forms of evidence that give certain non-perfect levels of confidence. no blind belief is ever necessary. you repeating yourself doesnt change the fact of the matter.

Really?
You observe matter? Or do your senses observe what you think is matter? You have basically admitted to having blind faith in your observations.

that is what observing matter is. no blind faith is required.

Furthermore, I don't need to show you god any more than you need to show me an electron. All I need is an argument. That which we cannot directly observe we have no evidence for. We have arguments for them. Why do people accept quantum mechanics or electrons? They are useful tools. A god concept can be made into a useful tool.

complete nonsense. you cant form confidence in the existence of electrons by argument. you need OBSERVATIONS. just because you cannot *directly* observe them does not mean you cannot observe them at all. again, you seem to be stuck in this mode of thought where things are either 0% confident or 100%. your ideas are not based on reality.

And on another note, by accepting the existence of matter, you have basically accepted Pantheism.
That in no way expresses my view of Pantheism (which I feel is nothing more than a superfluous attempt to hold onto a God concepts),

more dishonesty from the theist camp. did anybody expect anything less? how about you dont tell me what my position is, smartass?

 

[ComradeSAL]

AlfF4: I've already said this before, but there is no way to pick "rational" assumptions because assumptions cannot be rational by definition. There are only assumptions that you like and that you don't like.

EDIT:

confidence comes from successful experience.

This statement simply cannot be true unless you make an assumption.

 

[AltF4]

Rational assumptions are those that can be tested. Those that can be wrong. Those that can produce useful results.


Rational Assumption: The axioms of logic are true.
Reasons: Without it, nothing makes sense. Up is down, black is white, existence is nothingness. There is no such thing as true or false. This is something that must be assumed for anything to make sense.

Irrational Assumption: The flying spaghetti monster exists.
Reasons: It does not have repeatable tests that can substantiate this claim. It does not provide any additional explaining power over choosing different assumptions.

There are shades of gray. It is not black and white. How rational an assumption is is based on how much support we have for it. Of course no amount of support can prove the assumption, but it can be good enough for us to believe it to be true.

Things that can be proven are great. They're true... it's proven. But things that cannot be proven require a belief. All beliefs are not made equal, however. In the thousands of years mankind has studied mathematics, it has never once been wrong. The axioms of mathematics are therefore a pretty good assumption. The existence of the flying spaghetti monster is a bad assumption.

 

[ComradeSAL]

OK, but by definition an assumption cannot be tested, either. What you are saying is that math is not actually an assumption because it is supported by a deeper assumption that you have (something that is testable and fits with our observation is fact).

Yes, I will agree that an assumption that does not give any useful results is useless (it would insincere not to), but God is certainly useful when it comes to justifying morality and epistemology.

 

[AltF4]

No, an assumption by definition is something that is accepted without proof. Not that it cannot be tested. Math can be tested, we are testing it all the time. It could conceivably fail these tests. Every time you take one thing and add it to another, you're relying on the axioms of math to ensure that you have two objects afterward.

It would be difficult to imagine a world where this is not true, but in principle we cannot prove it to be so. However, thousands of years of experience and not a single inconsistency is a pretty good basis on which to go. Any reasonable person accepts this assumption.


To your second statement: But you're just introducing implicit assumptions with that! When you say that you use god to justify morals, you necessitate that morals need to be justified. In a materialists world, there need be no justification.

 

[ComradeSAL]

OK, fair enough, an assumption is possibly testable. But this is certainly not a necessary criteria for a good assumption. I think we both agree that logic is a good assumption, and we cannot test logic.

Basically there are different levels of assumption. My assumption of math is less fundamental than my assumption that logic is true, but more fundamental than my assumption that the garbage man will come on Tuesday. The less fundamental an assumption, the easier it is to test.

For many philosophers (most notably Soren Kierkegaard) God is an even more fundamental assumption than logic.

Materialism is just another untestable assumption. But yes, if you adopt materialism then there is no need for morality (and, most likely, no need for God either).