Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Dubious]

It was secularism that was going to prove increasingly vapid and devoid of means to orient the goals and projects of human societies, and was about to come under heavy critique.

...and yet it is secularism if not outright atheism which continues to out-distance theism in the Western World philosophically and societally. A devolution of theism has been and continues to be the trend if not by overt atheism only but by simple indifference to what religious institutions throughout history have sought to teach and endorse.

This, btw, is not an opinion but a statistic, denounce it as you will.

If a core understanding of god remains, which I believe is probable, it would likely be interpreted as a pure metaphysical concept than one denoted by any antique version of it. It would be a god perspective more in tune with modern cosmology than any old standard of blood atonements the ancients specialized in.

[Will Bouwman]

Some atheists believe there is no god; others don't believe there is one.

I can see you're indicating some difference you perceive there...can you make it explicit?

It's not rocket science: some atheists have a belief that there are no gods. Others do not have a belief that there are gods. It's the difference you express here:

1. Strong, silly Atheism.

2. Weak, reasonable but irrelevant Atheism.

How is the former substantially distinct from the latter, in your view? And which would you regard yourself?

You haven't been paying attention; I have made it abundantly clear that I am what you characterise as weak, reasonable but irrelevant.

It's hard to study something seriously when one's educators begin with the prejudice that it's bound to turn out to be bunk, even before one examines the data.

The educator in question was a deeply religious man. I don't know which monkey house you attended, but your educators failed to teach you not to jump to conclusions.

But to catch up with the present state of scholarship, I would highly recommend The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

Kalam, modal logic, irreducible complexity and some hand waving version of objective morality. You can't polish a turd; the arguments are the same old nonsense; unsound, circumstantial and circular. They are not necessarily wrong, but anyone who chooses to believe, you for instance, makes what amounts to an aesthetic choice: you like the conclusion, therefore you find the arguments compelling. That is arse about tit.

"So what is it you believe about God?"

That it is an underdetermined hypothesis.

You seem to feel this is an important criticism. But I can't quite see why you are thinking that. Maybe you can develop that thought.

It's not a criticism, it's just a fact.

[Immanuel Can]

It was secularism that was going to prove increasingly vapid and devoid of means to orient the goals and projects of human societies, and was about to come under heavy critique.

...and yet it is secularism if not outright atheism which continues to out-distance theism in the Western World philosophically and societally.

Sorry, but statistically, this just isn't true. Religiousness of all kinds remains quite expansive, with some shrinking and some growing; but Atheism is a phenomenon of about 4% of the world's population, and is largely a phenomenon of the West. That's what the CIA statistics say, anyway. And they have no particular reason to be biased.

What you're channelling is a thing called "the secularization hypothesis," which sociologist Peter Berger and others have recently compellingly indicated to be incorrect. It comes from an old mistake: that of assuming that one's immediate surroundings are typical of everywhere. In the rich, materialistic parts of the West, it tends to look very plausible, but on a world scale, completely untrue.

[Immanuel Can]

...I am what you characterise as weak, reasonable but irrelevant.

Thank you. That's what I supposed.

And yet, you still seem to feel you have a basis for telling other people they're wrong to believe in God. Why is that?

It's hard to study something seriously when one's educators begin with the prejudice that it's bound to turn out to be bunk, even before one examines the data.

The educator in question was a deeply religious man.

When one groups unlike things as if they were like, and calls them all "religions," and then supposes the existence of some secular outside to all that, on has already lost the plot.

That it is an underdetermined hypothesis.

You seem to feel this is an important criticism. But I can't quite see why you are thinking that. Maybe you can develop that thought.

It's not a criticism, it's just a fact.

Sorry, that's not clarification. It's just repetition.

All human knowledge is, in the most extended sense, underdetermined. But underdetermined knowledge is not all equal.

For example, I can account for a patient's cancer with two underdetermined hypotheses: cancer cells derived from smoking, and exposure to leprechauns. Now, you'll never be able to prove which is true to an 100% level. Human knowledge can't do that. But I doubt you think they're equal hypotheses. Nor should you.

So what is the relative strength of your skepticism about God, and what gives you that relative strength?

[Will Bouwman]

... you still seem to feel you have a basis for telling other people they're wrong to believe in God. Why is that?

Well, if you could show me what I have said that makes you think that, I will qualify or retract it.

When one groups unlike things as if they were like, and calls them all "religions," and then supposes the existence of some secular outside to all that, on has already lost the plot.

If you could translate that into something other than gibberish, I'll have a stab at responding.

All human knowledge is, in the most extended sense, underdetermined.

No it isn't. As I have said, and you have apparently missed, Parmenides and Descartes gave us knowledge that is absolutely not underdetermined.

But underdetermined knowledge is not all equal.

Being equal is exactly what makes hypotheses underdetermined.

For example, I can account for a patient's cancer with two underdetermined hypotheses: cancer cells derived from smoking, and exposure to leprechauns. Now, you'll never be able to prove which is true to an 100% level. Human knowledge can't do that. But I doubt you think they're equal hypotheses. Nor should you.

Here's the thing: you can get a group of people who smoke and compare them with another that do not. It is not a difficult thing to compare the incidence of cancer. I think you might struggle to find a comparable population whose exposure to leprechauns could make a comparison with smokers and non smokers statistically meaningful.

So what is the relative strength of your skepticism about God, and what gives you that relative strength?

Relative to what?

[Immanuel Can]

... you still seem to feel you have a basis for telling other people they're wrong to believe in God. Why is that?

Well, if you could show me what I have said that makes you think that, I will qualify or retract it.

Oh? So you're not implying that people who believe in God are in any way irrational or unjustified in doing so? But you still personally choose not to, though you'd never tell anybody else what you think they're warranted to believe?

If so, you're a very unusual Atheist. They generally want to give the impression that people who believe in God are "deluded" (Dawkins) or "spoil everything" (Hitchens), or are making "extraordinary claims" (Sagan). But you don't share any of those views?

Just checking.

When one groups unlike things as if they were like, and calls them all "religions," and then supposes the existence of some secular outside to all that, on has already lost the plot.

If you could translate that into something other than gibberish, I'll have a stab at responding.

The very first -- the first -- thing that any credible course in the study of "religion" does is to lay out the huge difficulties in defining the term. There is no singular definition available, and grouping them all as "religions" only blurs two important realizations: one, that they are so substantively different they do not group well, and two, that even secular views are "religious" in some senses of possible definitions.

All human knowledge is, in the most extended sense, underdetermined.

No it isn't. As I have said, and you have apparently missed, Parmenides and Descartes gave us knowledge that is absolutely not underdetermined.

Specifically, what?

But underdetermined knowledge is not all equal.

Being equal is exactly what makes hypotheses underdetermined.

Then nothing could be underdetermined; for there are no exactly equal hypotheses.

For example, I can account for a patient's cancer with two underdetermined hypotheses: cancer cells derived from smoking, and exposure to leprechauns. Now, you'll never be able to prove which is true to an 100% level. Human knowledge can't do that. But I doubt you think they're equal hypotheses. Nor should you.

Here's the thing: you can get a group of people who smoke and compare them with another that do not. It is not a difficult thing to compare the incidence of cancer. I think you might struggle to find a comparable population whose exposure to leprechauns could make a comparison with smokers and non smokers statistically meaningful.

You're only making the same point I've made, but with additional details: that there are criteria which can separate various "underdetermined" hypotheses, so that they are far from equal.

So what is the relative strength of your skepticism about God, and what gives you that relative strength?

Relative to what?

Relative to the opposite hypotheses: namely that a God or gods may exist.

[Will Bouwman]

... you still seem to feel you have a basis for telling other people they're wrong to believe in God. Why is that?

Well, if you could show me what I have said that makes you think that, I will qualify or retract it.

Oh? So you're not implying that people who believe in God are in any way irrational or unjustified in doing so?

Correct. What have I written that makes you think otherwise?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if you could show me what I have said that makes you think that, I will qualify or retract it.

Oh? So you're not implying that people who believe in God are in any way irrational or unjustified in doing so?

Correct. What have I written that makes you think otherwise?

It's usual with Atheists to want to say more than simply, "I choose not to believe." As you can see in the cited cases, they usually want to assert that such belief is wrong-headed, or delusional, or uninformed, or lacks evidence...what they don't want to do is stop short of that, and say, "Well, I just happen to be a person who, at the present moment, doesn't know of any relevant evidence for God."

Is that your stopping point?

[Dubious]

It was secularism that was going to prove increasingly vapid and devoid of means to orient the goals and projects of human societies, and was about to come under heavy critique.

...and yet it is secularism if not outright atheism which continues to out-distance theism in the Western World philosophically and societally.

Sorry, but statistically, this just isn't true. Religiousness of all kinds remains quite expansive, with some shrinking and some growing; but Atheism is a phenomenon of about 4% of the world's population, and is largely a phenomenon of the West. That's what the CIA statistics say, anyway. And they have no particular reason to be biased.

As usual, your posts require correction...aside from the fact that nothing is forever especially as regards human perception and belief systems.

The CIA World Factbook does not maintain a dedicated, centralized essay tracking broader cultural trends like the rise or decline of religion as a unified macro-topic. Instead, it tracks religion strictly as demographic data on a country-by-country basis (listing estimated percentages for major religious groups and "none" or irreligion for each nation).

However, looking at the structural data compiled across Western nations in demographic resources like the Factbook—as well as extensive demographic research from institutions like the Pew Research Center—religion in the West is broadly characterized by a decline in traditional religious affiliation and institutional participation, alongside a corresponding growth in the religiously unaffiliated ("nones").

Key long-term trends captured across Western countries include:

Growth of the Unaffiliated: In many Western countries (particularly in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), the percentage of the population identifying with traditional organized religions has steadily decreased over recent decades, while the population identifying as atheist, agnostic, or "nothing in particular" has grown.

Generational Shifts: Sociological and demographic frameworks often point to a "secular transition" in industrialized Western societies. Data consistently shows that younger generations in the West tend to report lower levels of regular worship attendance and lower personal adherence to organized religion compared to older generations.

Nuances and Plateaus: While the multi-decade trajectory has leaned toward secularization, demographers note that trends can vary or plateau depending on the specific country. Certain regions or demographic segments experience periodic counter-trends, immigration-driven shifts, or localized revivals, but the overarching macro-trend across the Western world remains skewed toward secularization and religious shifting.

Of course, you're going to deny the validity of this even though the shift toward secularization has long been obvious; a trend which doesn't concern itself with any god or denies its very existence as in overt atheism.

[Will Bouwman]

It's usual with Atheists to want to say more than simply, "I choose not to believe." As you can see in the cited cases, they usually want to assert that such belief is wrong-headed, or delusional, or uninformed, or lacks evidence...what they don't want to do is stop short of that, and say, "Well, I just happen to be a person who, at the present moment, doesn't know of any relevant evidence for God."

Is that your stopping point?

No. I know the evidence for God as well as you; I just don't find it as compelling.

[Immanuel Can]

It's usual with Atheists to want to say more than simply, "I choose not to believe." As you can see in the cited cases, they usually want to assert that such belief is wrong-headed, or delusional, or uninformed, or lacks evidence...what they don't want to do is stop short of that, and say, "Well, I just happen to be a person who, at the present moment, doesn't know of any relevant evidence for God."

Is that your stopping point?

No. I know the evidence for God as well as you; I just don't find it as compelling.

I'm certain you don't. If you did, you'd be much less certain, if not convinced the other way already. But as you know, one man's lack of evidence, or his dismissal of whatever evidence another may know, is of no particular moment in deciding whether or not there is a God. It may well be true that you personally don't know one lick of evidence you regard as compelling; that falls well short of implying nobody else does, or that such evidence cannot possibly exist.

That's the problem with your chosen phrase "as well as you." You would have to know what evidence I know, in order to say you knew it "as well." But I can see you don't know what evidence I know, or know it in a way that is credible and compelling. That much is obvious. So...I think you're overreaching. You may not know it, but you are. You've slid from the "I don't know any evidence" level to the "and you can't know any more evidence than I know" level. You've moved from mere agnosticism to more adamant Atheism.

I don't think you can justify that confidence. Rationally, you'll never be able to.

[Immanuel Can]

...religion in the West is broadly characterized by a decline in traditional religious affiliation and institutional participation, alongside a corresponding growth in the religiously unaffiliated ("nones").

I said that. I said you are using your own experience in Western countries to suppose something that is simply not true of the larger world. And that's exactly what the sociological data says, as well.

The West is roughly 15% of the world population. To treat that as indicative of the whole is quite absurd. But you're making exactly the error I pointed out: assuming your own ethos to be indicative of everybody.

If you read what I said, you wouldn't bother to try to refute me by proving me right.

[Will Bouwman]

I know the evidence for God as well as you; I just don't find it as compelling.

I'm certain you don't.

What do you know that you think I don't?

[Immanuel Can]

I know the evidence for God as well as you; I just don't find it as compelling.

I'm certain you don't.

What do you know that you think I don't?

I don't know what you don't know. But I do know there are very compelling arguments for the existence of God, so your own profession that you don't know any answers that bell admirably. Clearly, you don't know those arguments. What you don't know, and why you haven't found those arguments compelling...well, only you can say that.

[Will Bouwman]

...I do know there are very compelling arguments for the existence of God...

Other than the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral? I'm all ears.