IS THIS CORRECT? Weak atheism

[Tspk91]

Agnosticism is the true rational stance. Though atheism is much more reasonable than theism, the possibility that god exists does exist. So agnosticism in the sense of weak atheism is based in that probabilities. Still, even if strictly im an agnostic, I call myself an atheist. As with mathematic limits, the possibilities of a real god, are nearly to zero, so I can approximate and say that they are zero. A lot of atheist are in fact like that. The question is, why is no god, more probable than god?

Strip off of the world every belief, or unproved idea. Every one of them that isnt scientifically proven. Then you would have the world as we can understand it. Now, this is world A. Now, this world with a supossed toilet orbiting neptunus would be world B. That would be unneccesary, so we come to think that we are in world A, for sure, because we dont have any proof pointing out that we are in world B. But of course, world A and world B have both the same probabilities of being the true one.

How many different worlds there could be? If you take all the possibilities and all the more bizarre worlds you can imagine, the number is surely infinite. So, for now, a universe with a God is equally possible as an universe without a God. Scientific reasoning might make people think that the latter is the one correct, and the search for ultimate answers and first cause can make people think in the first. Every universe would be equally probable.

But now, analysing the concept of god, it is inherently infinite. If he is infinite in every parameter, he has to be in perfect order (an infinite one). So that infinite quantity of parameters have to be in perfect order (also, if he is omniscient, he has to contain all the parameters of the known world in his conceptual structure, which are infinite, and in perfect order...)

Perfect order implies that, of the multiple orders of a number of things, they have to be in one specific order. If you altered the gods order, it wouldnt be god anymore. If you take two concepts with two parameters each, any order of them will be equally possible. But if you take two concepts, one with two parameters, and the other with one thousand parameters, finding a specific order of the latter concept will be very difficult in comparison with the first concept, as there are a lot of more combinations possible with a thousand parameters.

So, of the may worlds possible, some have more parameters, and some less. Our universe without beliefs would be the simplest, because we cant eliminate what we already know, but we can forget what we believe. If you add anything, you are adding some parameters, and in the order that makes that thing. The more parameters it has, the less probable that universe exists (universes with an equal number of parameters are equally possible, in any order).

In a world with God added to it, to the infinite parameters of the world, you have added another infinity. The number of parameters of such a world would be certainly infinite, but of a bigger infinite than the simplest world given our knowledge. It would be infinite+infinite. Though both are infinite, in one of the universes there are more parameters than in the other, for example the ones that are implicit in god essence.

That infinite+infinite parameters world, as it is in perfect order, has to be less probable than the one of only infinite parameters. So a world without god is more possible than a world with god.

This in no way disproves God, religion or anything, because it may be that God is neccesary for the world to exist, so we should take that as the simplest world; but who knows that? (besides some "enlightened" people)

Agnosticism is like statistics applied to the beliefs.

Sorry for my english

[hellheaven1987]

...

I always have a question; does the exist of God actually concern us?? With or without God is nothing different to our morality and personality - no one tries to live sololy because of God, so why its existence ever bother us??

[Tspk91]

First, because we are bored. Some people also say that it is because they want to get answers about the nature of the universe, and to be certain about some things, but that has been always secondary .

Really, i want to know if the "theory" in the first post is wrong.

[hellheaven1987]

Well, my personal view is that Agnosticism is not weak atheism (or there would not be two names), but rather a neutral stander who either don't care or don't have enough mind to take a stand. The best to explain this attitude is during a president election, when there are right-wing and left-wing voters but a large amount of voters are more neutral.

Either way, it really depends on which way you are viewing religion - do you view it from spiritual way (which in extreme we can see some red-neck theist), or in more scientific way (which is extreme we see atheist - but then when you step into atheist it is basically not science).

[Lord Romanus III]

Well, my personal view is that Agnosticism is not weak atheism (or there would not be two names), but rather a neutral stander who either don't care or don't have enough mind to take a stand.

Agnosticism is a stance in itself. By saying that you are implying that one has to be close minded to the other idea regardless of rational thought? Then again, that is your personal view so it may be pointless to bother debating, correct? I mean, they should just make an ignorant decision that they can neither prove is disprove?



@OP

I had this argument just the other day too. I like how you 'splained stuff, lol. A worthy read.

[hellheaven1987]

Agnosticism is a stance in itself. By saying that you are implying that one has to be close minded to the other idea regardless of rational thought? Then again, that is your personal view so it may be pointless to bother debating, correct? I mean, they should just make an ignorant decision that they can neither prove is disprove?

A stand to say "Hmmm... I am not sure whether there is God or not..."??

That is an irresponsible working attitude, I have to point out.

A question only has "yes" or "no" in scienific way, since Atheist and Theist want to discuss the existence of God in scientific way there is no "unsure" answer.

[Avendiel]

Well, "strong atheists" think they do have arguments (dealing with omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) that show that god is impossible, incoherent, contradictory, whatever. That the idea doesn't even make sense. They would say that what the theist is saying is actually more like the idea of a world with a round square orbiting Neptune than one with a toilet there. For them, it's not a question of probability.

Likewise, there are many theists who will try to convince you that god is either necessary or impossible (with the difference that they'll prefer you to pick necessary).

I'm not saying that Agnosticism wouldn't be a rational choice if they were right (after all, something can be either necessary or impossible and still be unknown or even unknowable) but it might not be the only such choice and even if it were it wouldnt be for the probabilistic reasons you're giving.

Now I'm not sure whether I agree with those people and buy their arguments, and I'm not saying you should either, but if you're going to say something like "Agnosticism is the true rational stance" you should at least try to find and address the arguments of people like that.

[IrishHitman]

Agnosticism is the true rational stance. Though atheism is much more reasonable than theism, the possibility that god exists does exist. So agnosticism in the sense of weak atheism is based in that probabilities. Still, even if strictly im an agnostic, I call myself an atheist.

Believe it or not, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
In fact, I would say most Western atheists are weak atheists if acknowledging a tiny amount of agnosticism about God's existence is the parametre of definition.

[Taiji]

My answer is 'N/A'. I don't see how your view can be labeled correct or incorrect for anyone else, though it might be. But you seem to have a similar view to me, if that's of any comfort

[Copperknickers II]

Logically, atheism is correct. Without evidence for the existance of God, one must conclude that God does not exist.

Scientifically (ie following the scientific method without applying Occam's razor), the correct answer to 'Does God exist' is 'we are not currently able to deduce whether God does or does not exist, so He remains a hypothesis with little or no evidence to support Him'. We may also conclude that He has no measurable impact on our lives so it is acceptable to conclude that He does not exist and accordingly continue living as if He does not, perhaps with a slightly altruistic outlook just to be on the safe side.

[Arch-hereticK]

Logically, atheism is correct. Without evidence for the existance of God, one must conclude that God does not exist.

Scientifically (ie following the scientific method without applying Occam's razor), the correct answer to 'Does God exist' is 'we are not currently able to deduce whether God does or does not exist, so He remains a hypothesis with little or no evidence to support Him'. We may also conclude that He has no measurable impact on our lives so it is acceptable to conclude that He does not exist and accordingly continue living as if He does not, perhaps with a slightly altruistic outlook just to be on the safe side.

Well there's no evidence YET. The assumtion that God doesn't exist is just that, an assumtion.


But atheism is not a belief that there is no God, if you think that you are retarded.
Atheism is the lack of a belief is Gods, which in fact includes agnostics, anti-theists, buddhists(most of them) and of course nihilists.

Just so people know antitheists are the ones whose stance is that there are no Gods, as opposed to atheists who just don't believe in them but don't refute the possibility of their existence.

So yeah atheism is the more logical in a way.

[IrishHitman]

Well there's no evidence YET. The assumtion that God doesn't exist is just that, an assumtion.

The assumption is heavily backed by masses of evidence.....
We cannot assume that God exists because we think we have made a false assumption that he doesn't exist, for absolutely no reason.

[Arch-hereticK]

The assumption is heavily backed by masses of evidence.....
We cannot assume that God exists because we think we have made a false assumption that he doesn't exist, for absolutely no reason.

There's conclusive evidence huh?

[Tigrul]

I believe that it is irrational to believe in the existence of deity and that it is irrational to believe in the inexistence of deity.

I consider myself atheist because, given the world I've grown up in, I find it more important to emphasize that I DON'T believe in deity. I consider this stance to be weak atheism, whereas I consider strong atheism to be the belief that there is no deity. If you choose to call this agnoticism, it's entirely your choice. I can not say that agnosticism is foreign to my non-belief, because admitting not knowing is an important part of my atheism.

@Copperknickers
Lose the "little to" from the "little to no evidence" and you've got yourself the good sentence. All proof publicly presented so far is either personal evidence, which we can't verify in any way, we can't verify the honesty of the claimant, we can't verify that the claimant wasn't hallucinating etc or, the proof which is not personal, is almost undoubtedly illogical. In my experience, the most frequent error committed is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

[Denny Crane!]

Ughh... if we are to consider that everything has a stronger probability of existing than not existing then we are acknowleding we must be ambivelent about every possible idea under the sun, welcome to the stage Godel and a world of infinite possibility that is stupendously stupid.

[Nietzsche]

Ughh... if we are to consider that everything has a stronger probability of existing than not existing then we are acknowleding we must be ambivelent about every possible idea under the sun, welcome to the stage Godel and a world of infinite possibility that is stupendously stupid.

Hehe... Isn't science pretty much postulated on the definition of such probabilities as they approach mathematical certainty? Science, it seems, is Authority of Induction, which is, in my eyes, a slight variant to statistical modeling and, in your words, "stupendously stupid."

[Bartzy]

I like pie. (Yes)
It is possible that I like pie. (Maybe)
I don't like pie. (No)

Now, if Maybe is Agnostic, and No is Atheist. Is Maybe a Weak No? Well perhaps we can define Maybe as a possible outcome of Yes or No. Does that mean that Maybe is a Weak Yes?

Well if Both 'Weak Yes' and 'Weak No' are put together then we have a normal strength Maybe. It has to be in its own category.

And yes, I have had a pie just now...

[Denny Crane!]

Hehe... Isn't science pretty much postulated on the definition of such probabilities as they approach mathematical certainty? Science, it seems, is Authority of Induction, which is, in my eyes, a slight variant to statistical modeling and, in your words, "stupendously stupid."

The principles of inductive knowledge allow you to accept a negative meaning that you can believe God doesn't exist, I've got a post on that somewhere I'll find it.

[Ummon]

The principles of inductive knowledge allow you to accept a negative meaning that you can believe God doesn't exist, I've got a post on that somewhere I'll find it.

You should, so that it can be easily refuted.

[Denny Crane!]

Hehe... Isn't science pretty much postulated on the definition of such probabilities as they approach mathematical certainty? Science, it seems, is Authority of Induction, which is, in my eyes, a slight variant to statistical modeling and, in your words, "stupendously stupid."

You should, so that it can be easily refuted.

Funny you didn't at the time. And I'm fairly certain you'd have seen it.