|
Post by goz on Mar 26, 2018 21:17:12 GMT
Well, the choice is in the option of listening to the information, researching it further, and comparing which one made the most sense. if any of those parts aren't done, then it isn't really knowledge we are basing our views on and then you would be correct that choice is what matters. After that, it would be difficult to impossible to pretend one option is the same as the other. At that point choice is removed from the equation as a result of the knowledge gained. But my premise is that you cannot have enough knowledge to know. There is no proof therefore it is all about your choice to interpret the evidence that way. Surely, if there is not enough knowledge to know, the default option should be the more conservative 'lack of belief in God'? If you are standing on the edge of a pond, you can't see the bottom and you have no way of gauging the depth, the sensible choice is NOT to dive in head first. Yes, you have a choice, however of the two options available, the 'active' one is the most risky. That is why atheists just have an absence in the belief in God.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 27, 2018 20:12:28 GMT
But my premise is that you cannot have enough knowledge to know. There is no proof therefore it is all about your choice to interpret the evidence that way. Surely, if there is not enough knowledge to know, the default option should be the more conservative 'lack of belief in God'? If you are standing on the edge of a pond, you can't see the bottom and you have no way of gauging the depth, the sensible choice is NOT to dive in head first. Yes, you have a choice, however of the two options available, the 'active' one is the most risky. That is why atheists just have an absence in the belief in God. Bad analogy, that woudl be joining the church, I am talking about deciding existence, in your analogy it is about deciding if the pool has a bottom since I can't see it. If there is not enough knowledge to know, no choice is inherently better than the other, the choice must rely on other things.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 27, 2018 22:14:55 GMT
Surely, if there is not enough knowledge to know, the default option should be the more conservative 'lack of belief in God'? If you are standing on the edge of a pond, you can't see the bottom and you have no way of gauging the depth, the sensible choice is NOT to dive in head first. Yes, you have a choice, however of the two options available, the 'active' one is the most risky. That is why atheists just have an absence in the belief in God. Bad analogy, that woudl be joining the church, I am talking about deciding existence, in your analogy it is about deciding if the pool has a bottom since I can't see it. If there is not enough knowledge to know, no choice is inherently better than the other, the choice must rely on other things. Like faith? Yet faith is not a 'logical' choice. So what other things as we don't have enough knowledge? No, it has nothing to do with joining a 'church' it has to do with a positive assertion that there is a god without the relevant knowledge to make that decision.
|
|