default truth and god

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Default truth values in philosophy. An interesting concept. Here’s how it works.

Stealing “the dragon in my garage” from Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World”, here goes…

I have a dragon in my garage. Great, you say! Show him to me, I’d love to see him! Well, unfortunately, he’s an invisible dragon. That’s ok, you say, I can still touch him, feel the heat from his breath, the air from his wings. Well, no - he’s immaterial, too, and breathes room-temperature air, and so on. In fact, this dragon is fundamentally undetectable by any method, and yet I assert he exists.

What is the appropriate response? Clearly, we say, the dragon does not exist. We can’t prove it at all, but since there is no reason whatsoever to believe he DOES exist, we default by saying that it does not. If some evidence pops up - a proof that such dragons cannot exist, or a way in which the dragon becomes observable - we will change our minds, but until then, it is clear that we should not believe in this dragon.

This is also partially behind we don’t believe in Santa, or unicorns, or in beings that live in the Earth’s core. None of these ideas are impossible at all, either logically or physically. We will be able to genetically engineer unicorns in the future, and someone probably will. But we have no reason to believe in these entities, and so we don’t. If someone published a paper, with evidence, about the beings in the Earth’s core, we’d say, “well, that’s fucked up!” and believe it. But until then we won’t, and that’s well justified.

Thus, there are issues in philosophy where, when we don’t have justification one way or another, we resort to a default truth value. Matters of existence seem to be the best example of this - in order to believe something exists, we need evidence. To be 100% sure that something cannot exist, we need evidence too - but to say “hmm, there’s no evidence either way. I won’t believe in it until evidence presents itself.” is perfectly acceptable, and does not require justification. It is simply a weakly-held belief based on a default circumstance.

I don’t believe in any god because there is no evidence, either empirical or logical. If someone can show me evidence I will change my mind.

2

there is evidence of god and his existence is logical, you have come up with the conclusion in front of your face rather than challenging your self satisfactory beleif, logically god has more probability of existing than not.

oh and i would ask teh person how they know a dragon exists in their garage if its undetectable, he couldnt have detected it, and there for he simply is making it up, its impossible to beleive something exists without any evidence wat so ever but it isnt impossible to want for it to exist.

3

::sigh:: Look, I’m perfectly willing to have this conversation - just look at what I’ve said before being antagonistic, ok?

I’m not wallowing self-satisfactorily in my belief. I’m talking about something which I think is generally a lot more new and interesting than the issue of god, namely default truth values. However, I’m perfectly willing to talk about god. So what is this evidence of god’s existence? If it really is logical, you should be able to explain it, and I’m perfectly willing to change my mind if I find I’ve been wrong.

Sure, I would also believe he was just making it up. But this is all pretty irrelevant to the point I was making, except when you say “it’s impossible to believe something exists without any evidence”, which was exactly the point I was trying to make.

4

Oni, show us the "good evidence " for gods existance.

5

yeah oni… tell us what’s the evidence 4 god…
:evilfun:

6

Good “evidence”?

Or, “good reason”?

7
  • I’ll quote myself [size=84]- [slightly edited] -[/size] from an earlier post I made elsewhere *

So what are you Twiffy, an atheist (with a blind faith) or (much smarter) an agnostic…?

8

Personally, I do believe in existence of a god. I noticed that most people think of god when they talk about the concept as the Christian/monotheistic god. However, there may be some kind of supreme force, not supreme being, that makes the world going. I used to not believe in a god, but then I found a sort of proof through logical thinking which satisfied me, so I changed my mind about the whole concept.

9

Atheism is much the better standpoint. Now, there are a myriad of definitions tossed about for “atheist” and “agnostic”, but the ones that fit the best, societally and practically, are these.

Atheists don’t believe in a god.

Agnostics don’t believe there’s enough information to make an informed decision.

Theists believe in a god.

Under these definitions, atheism is the only reasonable standpoint. It’s not to say that god definitely does not exist - that’s the unjustified “strong” version of atheism. But theism is clearly out, and so is agnosticism, simply because lack of evidence is evidence for the lack, and because of default truth values. It’s interesting that those who profess agnosticism about god don’t profess agnosticism about Santa Claus, or about the huge turtle on which the earth rests. It’s because their position is hypocritical.

Regardless of what name you choose to use, the correct position to take is this: “although I can’t prove god doesn’t exist, I see no reason to believe in him, and thus I do not believe in a god.”

10

CrazyTurtle - I’m interested to hear this logical argument of yours. If I can refute it, will you change your mind? (FYI, if I can’t refute it, I WILL change my mind.)

11

=D>

12

Pantheism – is atheist? Or what? :laughing:

13

no evidence?

Love is proof of the soul. For when you feel love it comes from outside you. Well you say, “the brain fools you into think your actually feeling love when all your feeling is the touch of someone who stimulates a certain section of the brain.” Well, then ain’t we got it all figured out, I says…

no matter what mood your in, you can still feel love, showing it is an involintary responce.

There is no love hormone gland. Yet their is endorphins for feelings of happiness,… but not joy and contentness… the spiritual side of happiness.

The soul is an energy independent of matter,… but merely charges matter. The brains different sections and chemical energies respond differently to different spiritual energies. Depression is the lack of hope with secondary reactions in the brain. It is because there is no other way things can be the way they are unless it is. take for instance ghosts. Thety are intangable. Yet they give off light. They charge the matter they pass through with the side effects of light and elctromagnetic disturbances witch is caused by electrons witch are made of photons. But lets not talk about the damned. Lets talk about you.

The soul is independent of matter. Space and time are a side effect of matter. God exsistists outside of space and time. Yet our soul is stuck in and out of space and time,… with DNA as our souls key energy tieing us to our bodies. Thus we have to close our eyes and meditate to pray.

…
the only ill logic is to say that I know it all. You say You know what God is and isn’t. Yet your just a man with overintellectualization blocking him from seeing it all.

14

“Blocking him from seeing it all”

This is a complex subject.^

Allot of things that flow through the universe are “blocked”, due to their relevance to our survival. When life gets easier physically, we then gain an oppertunity to develop and widen our minds more, learning about what is not relative to our individual, physical existence.

This “narrow mindedness”, like everything else we may or maynot have, is a form of self-preservation, and an indirect will to live: A fallable, incomplete understanding of self-actuation.

In the same way that not all men or women can draw a detailed sketch or painting, few men or women can begin to sense what “God” is, and they only sense a tiny part of a vast composite force. The ability is difficult, and underdeveloped. It’s not that “there is no God”, it’s that “there is no ability to gain and control God”, so, in the materialistic sense of the word, “God” is relatively useless. Unlike a cup of milk, a persons material body cannot take in, digest and assimilate “God”… not really.

[I’m talking about a collective of higher dimensional forces, not some big, wacked out Jew who made Satan & cariokie barzz.]

15

This is amusing, but at the same time completely flawed. Why?.. Because I know for A FACT that it was my parents putting the prezzies under the tree.

Anyway, as I have already mentioned, I tend to reject all spiritual beliefs which involve a SINGLE ALL-POWERFUL BEING of any kind.

Consciousness is made of electricity is it not…? - [ An electroencephalograph is used to confirm brain death ]

FACT: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

So what’s wrong with believing in some kind of ’ Spirit Realm ', a realm without a leader/ruler of any kind, where everyone is equal. Perhaps it’s only a brief transitional abode on the path to reincarnation…? It can’t be ruled out.

If this form of scientific belief gives someone hope, and they are not handing over any money to some ORGANISATION [christians for example], then what’s wrong with that…?

16

Ridiculous. You should think these things through before putting down a knee-jerk response. Of course you know that for a fact. And we know for a fact that stars are big balls of gas, and not points in the heaven fixed on crystal spheres. All of the reasons we had to believe in Santa as children are gone, and all the reasons we had to believe in god as ignorant nomads are also gone. Understand?

No, it is not. Consciousness in our brains stems from multiply-connected neurons, and those neurons use electricity to communicate. But yes, our consciousness involves electricity.

Technically also wrong - energy can be converted into matter (and is, all the time), and small amounts of energy can also leave this universe, never to return.

You’re trying to validate this using physics, but physics is really what condemns ideas like this. There’s this little thing called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which says that all organization, be it in the form of matter or energy, will decay entirely with time. This prohibits eternal life forms (e.g. god, souls) and eternal structures (spirit realms). Everything has to die.

Lastly, you say “it can’t be ruled out”. It’s true, I can’t disprove it. Maybe there’s a realm that is the exception to the 2nd Law. But the biggest reason not to believe in it is this: there isn’t the slightest bit of reason TO believe in it, and if there is no reason to believe in something, like the dragon in my garage, then you shouldn’t believe at all.

If this is something that gives you hope, you should ignore what I’m saying and keep believing. But if you’re trying to know what is true and what isn’t, you should change your beliefs, unless you have much better arguments and evidence than what you’ve presented here.

17

I understand what you’re saying but I certainly don’t agree with it. Sure, a lot of the reasons we had to believe in an afterlife [size=84][ please don’t use the word god when responding to me ] [/size]are gone. A lot, but not all.

Well I kinda knew that, the full phrase/law being, " Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another." Anyway matter is a form of energy, any thing will burn given high enough temperatures or pressure. But how can energy leave the universe ?.. Surely that’s just a theory, right…? Got any examples ?

This could well be true, but in the case of reincarnation there would be no reason for spirits to live on without any hosts. Where does that leave you ?

It seems you believe that any form of spiritual belief (however mild) leads to intelectual/scientific laziness.

Isn’t science a religion ? Filled with holes.

Every newly found answer reveals several new questions. The result ?.. Insanity.

18

hey crazyturttle, i want to hear your logical argument , please!! :blush:

19

If you can give me any reasons I can’t shoot down, I will gladly change my view on the situation. I’d like for there to be an afterlife as much as anybody.

Well, evolution is also “just a theory”. In science, the term “theory” does not at all mean “unproven” or “debatable”. There are many examples of this. The fact that small amounts of energy can leave (or even enter) the universe is based on the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, and it’s this mechanism that is responsible for the fact that black holes evaporate over time (Hawking radiation).

Maybe you mistake the full force of what I’m saying. There is no such thing as spirits / souls. There is no evidence for reincarnation, and plenty of evidence against it. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prohibits the existence of such things as immortal souls. Even more so, no form of energy that we currently know of can remain coherent. Think of a bunch of heat in outer space - it will spread out and vanish very quickly. Same thing with electrical charge, or a bunch of photons - energy generally doesn’t stay together, and when it does, it’s very tenuous - it can be broken apart with remarkable ease. How can you explain souls in the face of this? You have to resort to saying “there are things science can’t explain” - which, to the best of our knowledge, isn’t true.

Sure, this leaves me as mortal. Sucks! But just because I WANT to have an immortal soul doesn’t relate in the slightest to whether or not I DO have an immortal soul. I’d like to be rich, too, but that doesn’t mean that I am, and that “physics can’t explain how I’m rich even though it’s pretty clear that I’m not”.

No. A lot of people here will say it is, but they’re wrong. People like to jump on the fact that science rests on unprovable assumptions just like religion. That’s pretty meaningless - EVERYTHING rests on unprovable assumptions, and that’s not a criteria you can use to differentiate between different methods of explanations. The important thing is that science rests on the unprovable assumptions of empiricism and practicality. Whatever works and produces testable results is good - whatever doesn’t provide testable results or good explanations is bad. Religion doesn’t work this way in the slightest. In fact, many religions explicitly advocate believing in something BECAUSE it has no evidence for it (Christianity’s “faith”). I appreciate that you may not be religious or Christian, but spirituality, philosophically, is no better. It may be socially better (less of the organized mindlessness), but it is on no better metaphysical grounds.

Not at all. Maybe we’ll be asking questions forever - but we’ll always be smarter and more knowledgable than before, able to DO more things than before! Asking questions is fundamental to human nature and to science. The only thing that really discourages the asking of questions is, well, religion.

20

I don’t believe in any god because there is no evidence, either empirical or logical. If someone can show me evidence I will change my mind.

If you imagine for one moment to reduce everything here on earth or the universe to its purest form, we have the atom, it is the building block of matter including you. maybe the atom is reducible to subatoms and maybe the subatoms can be reduced also. I likened the atom to God. In the beginning was the word…