what does it mean to say "i know god doesn't exist"? (on the nature of evidence, proof, and knowing)
this topic is one i'm posting here because it is currently ongoing in chat where discussing weighty topics in bits and pieces with 24 character (or whatever the limit is) limits while trying to follow and respond to 5 posters at once is exceedingly difficult. furthermore, because it is a common misunderstanding both among atheists and theists and atheists themselves, i'd like the discussion to be up for everyone to be able to engage in, refer to, and read rather than only be open to people who happen to be in chat right now.
Sid Knight is of the position that it is wrong to say "i know gods don't exist" because we don't have 100% proof that gods in fact do not exist. if i have the gist of what he's saying (he won't start a post in the forum but i'm hoping he'll respond once the post is up), he believes that what each person refers to as proof is, essentially, just each person's opinion and, as such, has equal validity as an epistemic statement. Sid still refers to himself as an atheist- despite being unwilling to say that gods don't exist- but only in the sense that he is not a theist, therefore an atheist. he says that he doesn't believe that gods exist, making the distinction between believing that gods don't exist and saying he knows they don't.
as i said, since Sid refuses to post the topic here for discussion, i'm posting this here with what i hope is an accurate summation of his position. if i have misrepresented his position then i offer my apologies in advance and hope that he will clear up any misunderstanding. my response will be posted below shortly.
Sid Knight is of the position that it is wrong to say "i know gods don't exist" because we don't have 100% proof that gods in fact do not exist. if i have the gist of what he's saying (he won't start a post in the forum but i'm hoping he'll respond once the post is up), he believes that what each person refers to as proof is, essentially, just each person's opinion and, as such, has equal validity as an epistemic statement. Sid still refers to himself as an atheist- despite being unwilling to say that gods don't exist- but only in the sense that he is not a theist, therefore an atheist. he says that he doesn't believe that gods exist, making the distinction between believing that gods don't exist and saying he knows they don't.
as i said, since Sid refuses to post the topic here for discussion, i'm posting this here with what i hope is an accurate summation of his position. if i have misrepresented his position then i offer my apologies in advance and hope that he will clear up any misunderstanding. my response will be posted below shortly.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Sid Knight on -
You are saying things for me that i did not say and you did not ask to use my name in this. I will be reporting you to TA
thank you
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on -
Nelson Is an extremely capable moderator of Think Atheist. As am I, I see no wrong doing on his part.
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on -
that avenue is open to you of course. the other moderators are certainly here for you and if they believe that i acted improperly i know they'll let me know. if that turns out to be the case i assure you i'll edit your name from my posts and change all references to you to "a member of the community". the point seems moot though as you have already posted below thereby identifying yourself even if i hadn't referred to you by name initially.
-
Permalink Reply by Sid Knight on
-
For one, YOU dont know and I dont know that god DOESNT exist, WE only BELIEVE it. Whatever so called "proof" you have is your own opinion nothing more! Just as theist have their proof that is enough for them. There is NO set way to prove or not prove something. We all pick and choose what we accept as proof of something, nothing more. The true definition of Atheist is, not being theist nothing more
!http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+atheist&FORM=DTP...
All I did was say that you can not prove there is no god. Your proof is not my proof. Anyone who assumes just because they have not been given proof of something that it can't be real is a fool and arrogant! You try to force your way of thinking and believing (or non believing) on me and then say I am wrong for not agreeing with you. That is wrong. You are no better then forceful theist trying to push their idea of what is and isn't on others. Then you use my name (when you could have said "a person who will remain un-named") That is "proof" you are personally attacking ME. That is NOT what this place is for. Sorry if I don't follow YOUR exact line of thinking. But that does not give you a right to use my name or attack me personally. You have been reported about this. You THEIST!
-
Permalink Reply by Sid Knight on
-
misquoted me by saying i said something i did not
-
Permalink Reply by elaine kilshaw on -
I agree. Why bother to wonder whether there is a god anyway. Is he all good and loves us all, I think not. I believe while we are debating this, which of course is good because we can, a child dies every second, a child is abused e very few minutes, sometimes by their own families, so is the question important whether there is a god or not but to what we can do for those unspoken for.
If there was one good god perhaps we could all believe in a god.
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on
-
Sid is confused and this confusion has him perilously close to solipsism and well within the bounds of absurd postmodern notions of our inability to speak about what is true or false, the difference between opinion and knowledge, and the difference between possibility and probability.
first of all, he's attacking a strawman when, in chat, he said that atheists claim to know to 100% that gods don't exist. only a tiny insignificant minority do claim such a thing. certainly he's right to point out that that position is no more justified than is the theists position claiming to know to 100% certainty that gods do exist. a key difference is, of course, that an atheist may say that they are 100% sure that Yahweh doesn't exist while still not 100% certain that all gods do not exist. many atheists recognize the difference here and will indeed say that they are 100% certain that Yahweh doesn't exist.
but the biggest problem is with this notion that we are never justified in saying that we know something unless we have 100% proof. proofs are for mathematicians and photographers. Sid ignores the shading of probability that we all use to say that we know something. in light of the fact that there's no evidence for gods in general, that our scientific knowledge, that is, evidence from the sciences, leaves us extremely skeptical of the claims of religion, the probability of a god's existence is judged to be infinitesimally small. as such, we say that we know that gods do not exist. to argue that this statement isn't valid is to misunderstand the way we use the word "know". why does the word exist if not to describe a statement that we are so sure is probably true that we no longer can accurately describe said statement as an opinion or a belief? who would argue that a belief isn't as epistemically secure as something we say we know?
Sid is left in a position where he can't claim to know anything, given his definition of "know", unless, as he says, he's actually seen it. does he know that we evolved from a common ancestor with chimps despite the fact that he didn't see it? he would say no. does he know that Pluto revolves around the Sun? he would have to say no since no one's actually ever seen Pluto go 'round the Sun- Pluto's orbital period is 248 earth years but we only discovered it in 1915; our ability to say we know that Pluto orbits the Sun is based on inference based in turn on evidence. does he know that he's actually sitting at his computer? he would say that he does because he can see himself sitting there but once you refuse to say that you know something unless you've seen it, casting aside inference based on evidence and the shading of probability, why then isn't it just as valid to question whether or not he's actually seeing what his eyes tell him he is or that his brain is properly perceiving the information that his eyes are sending? why isn't it then valid to question whether or not he's in some sort of Matrix type environment where his perception is ordered for him by some sort of higher intelligence?
the fact is, i'm perfectly comfortable and justified, given the state of our evidence currently, in saying that i know gods don't exist in the same way that i'm comfortable and justified saying that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist. to be sure, and maybe this is another misunderstanding of Sid's, that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive, i am, strictly speaking, agnostic on the question of both, but what i'm not going to do is reserve judgment, ignore the probability, just because i haven't ruled out the possibility.
i know gods don't exist.
-
Permalink Reply by Sid Knight on
-
You can't know god doesnt exist you believe it. Nothing more
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on
-
you can't know that you just typed that post. maybe you were just created out of thin air with all your memories in place such that you think that you posted it. nothing more.
once you ignore probability you're left with absurdity.
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on
-
agreed. but you wouldn't say you believe that gods don't exist as opposed to saying you know that gods don't exist. your level of certainty on the question is better than "believe" would adequately describe.
-
Permalink Reply by Reggie on -
We can't know anything in the sense that you use"know". When people write "know", they are usually using it in a colloquial sense. It does not mean that they are stating absolute knowledge. What in reality can a human know absolutely, anyhow? It is silly to assume this stance from anyone except in pedantic conversation.
Otherwise, it could be said that we can't know that Sid does not molest children. We can't know that Sid is not a robot from another galaxy. We can't know that Sid is not God Himself! We can't know these things absolutely. But does this mean we should treat them with some form of legitimacy, that we must qualify our statements about our "knowledge" of these things, and always tiptoe through the garden for fear of crushing the fairies that might live at the bottom of it? Sid, you seem to argue that these things are all on equal footing with things we can infer with evidence. Is that, in fact, what you are arguing? And if not, what is the difference or differences?
-
Permalink Reply by Reggie on
-
And I hasten to add that the fact that we can't know that Sid does not molest children is a completely agreeable (and shocking) thing to say, the difference between pedophiles and gods and intergalactic robots is that we are reasonably certain that pedophiles exist. Therefore, the probability of Sid being one is greater by orders of magnitude than the other choices. And probability is what matters and what some others keep pointing out to Sid.
But the real problem, if Sid is even arguing this, is that it seems that what is being said is that without absolute knowledge, we can't have anything useful to say at all. But if we follow that logic and what Sid seems to be saying, we don't even have to go to an extreme to show it's faults. Simply put, Sid is telling Nelson that he can't have absolute knowledge about a god. In the process, Sid seems to be claiming he has absolute knowledge that Nelson does not have this absolute knowledge, not even considering that Nelson might be the very god that Sid claims we can't know, which in turn grants Nelson absolute knowledge. If no one can state things with reasonable certitude, then why even argue that? Why have an opinion on it at all, because you are just as likely to be wrong about it as the other person is to be right.
Sid is swimming in the solipsistic end of the pool.
What's new today
Events
Forum
America - "Love It or Leave It"
Started by Ed in Small Talk. Last reply by Keith Murphy 47 minutes ago. 28 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
The Republicans accelerate their downward spiral
Posted by Unseen on June 19, 2013 at 1:26pm 4 Comments 0 Likes
Videos
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
