The Cosmological Argument.

[Voltaire2]

Dates back to at least Aristotle. If you are unfamiliar with it and with why it fails as an alleged proof for the existence of gods, I suggest reading the wiki page here as a start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

[yallerdawg]

1. EVERY philosophical argument...

has a complete and credible "criticism" and dismissal. Every single one of them.

"How do we know" then falls upon which argument you choose to believe, doesn't it?

[Voltaire2]

2. Ok that is a rather naive perspective.

[TwistOneUp]

3. Heard this quote on Criminal Minds

For the non-believer, no proof is possible;
For the believer, no proof is necessary.

[Voltaire2]

4. belief and non belief are not equivalent positions.

The default position for any claim is that it is false until demonstrated otherwise.

Construct a hypothesis that requires the existence of a supernatural entity, a deity, and let’s examine the test data and see if the hypothesis holds water. Meanwhile there is no compelling reason to believe that gods exist.

[TwistOneUp]

9. Rebuttal

> The default position for any claim is that it is false until demonstrated otherwise.

If we're talking logic, I agree. Otherwise, maybe.

> Construct a hypothesis that requires the existence of a supernatural entity, a deity, and let’s examine the test data and see if the hypothesis holds water.

If the hypothesis is true, then *everybody* would have to follow the dogma of that deity. I'm too old to have to report to someone...

> Meanwhile there is no compelling reason to believe that gods exist.

Now that is an interesting statement! Personally, I find that a person's belief begins at some watershed moment, when they are emotionally moved or overwhelmed. For them, it *maybe* is not so much a reason as a need.

I waver between non-believer and "kinda" believer. Depends where my head is at the time... As a logician, belief would run contrary to that thought process. As an emotional human, I can believe.

Never a dull moment! Lol

[Voltaire2]

11. Ah I see that you are using belief as

shorthand for “belief in gods.

There is a reason why it is called “a leap of faith”. The default position is non-belief.

[Mariana]

5. That's a cute quote, but really, it's false.

Most non-believers would promptly change their minds if compelling evidence came to light.

[TwistOneUp]

6. If compelling evidence came to mind...

I agree, but: if the "compelling evidence" was proven to be true, then it would no longer be a belief - it would be fact.

And if the compelling evidence could not be proven one way or the other, it would still be a belief.

[Mariana]

7. It would not be faith.

Is that what you meant to say? Do you think it's impossible to believe things that have been proven to be true? That doesn't make any sense.

[TwistOneUp]

8. Yes, thanks

It's not impossible to believe in facts, it's irrelevant.

Belief only comes into play when there are no facts to support an assertion or a hypothesis. If something is a fact then that thing exists whether or not one believes in it.

Thus, belief in something that exists is irrelevant.

I do not need to believe in gravity, or in nuclear weapons. They exist, their existence is a fact, and they exist whether or not I "believe" in them.

Thus, belief is superseded by reality.

If any of this infringes on your dogma, I apologize. I'm not trying to offend you. Perhaps we're arguing semantics.

[Mariana]

10. I have no dogma.

I'm just trying to be clear, and make sure we understand each other.

Definition of belief, in the way I am using it, from Merriam-Webster:

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon, especially when based on examination of evidence

Definition of faith, in this context:

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

So, faith requires belief, but belief does not require faith.

Moving on ...

That quote is a nice little dig at non-believers, implying they are so closed-minded they'll stubbornly continue to disbelieve a particular deity is real no matter what evidence may be produced in favor of the existence of that deity. I have already explained why that is false.

I don't consider belief to be irrelevant. Laws and policies are made based on the beliefs of the officials in power. When the beliefs they're basing those decisions on conflict with reality, it leads to very serious problems.

[TwistOneUp]

12. I looked up the exact quote

It is:

For those who believe, no proof is necessary
For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
--Stuart Chase

What I find interesting is other people's reactions to the quote.

We could continue to discuss / argue our positions on this quote and it's "implications" as far as they may exist, but it seems to me a bit pedantic.

Thanks for all of your comments!

[Iggo]

13. For those who don't believe, proof can change that. Proof is definitely possible.

[trotsky]

14. Still prejudiced against non-believers.

Show me evidence, and I'll believe. Pretty simple.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

15. I disagree. I don't believe that unicorns exist.

Put a unicorn in front of me and a biologist that confirms it isn't just a horse with a horn implant, but actually whatever species we would call the unicorn, and I'd believe. Pretty simple.

Apply that to gods (which seem to have become the focal point of this discussion) and it would be the same thing.