I would say solving this problem is solely the responsibility of the believer. If you are the one claiming something exists, you presumably have a good reason for this that you can point to.
I do not see why we must give special treatment to a claim, simply because it is undisprovable.

I've made no positive claim about belief in terms of existence or non-existence. Where do you think I've done this?

what for: anything

what against: nothing.

at least thats how the theists make it. obv yahweh is unfalsifiable.

imo tho, what for: if yahweh showed up and proved it by means of rigerous scientific investigations.

what against: nothing.

edit: nvm, you said evidence. well, empirical data. such as "do we know that most civilizations have made up stories that deal with deities doing crazy ****?" yup. etc.

Maybe you should try again.

People suggest that evidence for God's existence is the ability to observe beauty.

What COULD count as evidence for God's existence?

What COULD count as evidence against God's existence?

Do you not realize that my position is that it's underdetermined: no such possible evidence exists either way. Therefore, the epistemic position we're in requires us to treat them as equiprobable (or to not assign a probability).

Another good post. Good bye to the unicorn argument!

Are we completely forgetting about the Devil?

Just making sure you're consistent.

this question is nonsense. you first have to define the deity you are talking about. if "god" to you is "everything" then this is kinda different than if "god" to you is Yahweh who sends people to heaven or hell depending on if they obey the bible or not.

but it doesnt matter anyway because even if somone who believes in the latter they will not accept anythign as evidence counting against their deity. its unfalsifiable and therefore utterly meaningless.

So true implications of a hypothesis do not confirm the hypothesis? I always thought "All ravens are black" is confirmed by a black raven (or a green hat lol)

Likewise, "God created the sun" implies that there is a sun. And there is a sun, so doesn't that provide some degree of confirmation? Not very much, of course, as the prior probability of there being a sun was rather high to begin with. No?

You really just don't get it. You pick your definition, I don't care WHAT you pick for defining anything remotely close to the christian god.

Just make your own choice (since it doesn't matter...why can't you understand this?) and tell me what could count as evidence for and evidence against.

Evidence can't beg the question, though. You have to explain why it's evidence for God but not equally good evidence for a contrary (or contradictory) hypothesis...this is the underdetermination problem.

While you may say that "If God is True, then we'd expect the sun to..." whatever...And we observe that the outcome is what may have been predicted, but this is only evidence for God provided that it can't equally explain some contrary hypothesis like not-God and naturalism.

As far as these cultures, I understand that some have a philosophical belief or religious belief that all is dictated, but as far as I have seen they still in practice structure their lives and cultured based on the idea that we can chose to do A or not A.

It is one thing to say that you believe determinism, it is another to live your life based on this belief. Do you never regret decisions? Do you never deliberate? At the heart of peoples lives everyone is living as if they are capable of controlling the outcome of their lives. Whether or not the admit this on a philosophical level inconsequential imo.

Hm..I guess I don't really understand what you're getting at, but couldn't we always (or at least sometimes) think of some contrary or contradictory hypothesis which implies every observed phenomenon the natural sciences explain and thereby undermine the confirmation of the natural sciences?

In the Wittgensteinian sense, yes; but, then you've got the problem of justifying why that hypothesis x +auxilliary hypotheses a,b,c are a better option than hypothesis y that doesn't have a tonne of ad hoc auxilliary hypotheses whose only purpose seems to be to save the tenability of this hypothesis.

The point is that this is DIFFERENT than the global underdeterminism of theory by data (which is what you're pointing to) and the problem of induction in general. This is a local underdeterminism special (but structural) to the question of God.

im not a theist. have jib do it
or why dont you just define what god you believe in. and saying your not a theist isn't fooling anyone.

I'm struggling with distinguishing local from global underdetermination. Does local underdeterminism occur when the hypothesis posits the existence of an entity that cannot be directly observed? (Which is why we have to rely on its implications to confirm/disconfirm it.)

I can't speak for durkadurka, but I think most people believe in free will because it seems the obvious choice and most people around them act as they believe in free will. Further our culture encourages the assumption of free will – which would incorporate your point about the bible.

They are wrong of course, but that is another topic.

Durka -

I'm glad you're taking the time to respond to the RGT atheists, and I hope you're having as much fun responding as I am reading.

This is close but a decent approximation. Yes, it's an underdetermination that is based on the very subject matter itself and not based on something more general like the problem of induction.

Short answer: yes.

We can choose to do A or not A depending on the circumstances. Nobody lives their life with the idea that they can do A or not A under identical conditions.

Of course I regret decisions. Regret follows from determinism. I know that my choices have a deterministic effect on the outcome, so if a particular outcome follows from my actions and a different outcome would have followed from different actions, then I have grounds for regret because I have determined a tragic outcome. Care to tell me how it follows from libertarianism? Try to use logic, please. Frankly, I think you'll need some luck - regret, based on how we understand it, is highly deterministic and is a point in the determinism column.

Deliberation is a process that occurs over time. When you actually make your decision, you're done deliberating. The deliberation is in the past. Thus, if deliberation affects your decision, then your decision is affected by prior factors. Deliberation is a prior factor, and the more it affects your choices the more support determinism has. You are suggesting that actions are not determined based on prior factors and cannot be predicted based on prior factors, so you are arguing that deliberation (which is a prior factor) does not affect choices.

Again, this is a point for determinism.

Yeah, we can control the outcome of our lives. That follows from determinism. We can predict the outcomes based on prior factors. Therefore, we can exert control - if I choose to do A, outcome X will follow. If I choose to do B, outcome Y will follow. Therefore, depending on which outcome I prefer, I choose one of the two actions.

That's a great example of how determinism works. But you say that outcomes are fundamentally unpredictable and are not related to any prior factors. If we "rewind time" and let it go again, then we get a different outcome. That's libertarianism. If libertarianism is valid, then I can have no control - I can't ever know which action I'm going to take, nor can I know what effects my action will have, because unpredictability is fundamental.

I would say that a good definition of "control" is to be able to determine future outcomes with our actions. It's a deterministic concept. Obviously determinists act as though they have control, because control is part of the determinist framework (not part of the libertarian framework).

LOL

Epic fail ITT bud.

I don't think you're responded to me yet, though.

I don't see how you can use terms like "choose" and "deliberate" with much meaning if you assent to the deterministic thesis.

What does it mean to be in "control" of a choice if you believe in determinism? How does this result in responsibility?

Do you think that a tree is responsible for producing offspring? What about waves causing erosion of a cliff?

If not, why not?

If not, why are these things not responsible but a person can be? What is the difference?

Can you explain what your use of "determinism" is?

Hawking's explained it best when he said that even those who do not believe in free will still look both ways when crossing the street....

By the way Jib, how would you act if determinism were true? What would you do in that case?

If you want to present something as evidence that libertarian free will is true, then you need to show me something that would happen in a world with free will, but that would not happen in a deterministic world.

Talking about things that happen in both kinds of worlds can't support your position.

I can say "apples exist, and apples can exist in a deterministic universe, so apples are great evidence for determinism." But I'm not making a point. Because apples can also exist in a libertarian universe. Apples have nothing to do with determinism and libertarianism. Same applies to regret, control, and deliberation. Don't bring up apples, please.

If you want to support your point, sit down and think about how you would act if you learned for a fact, tonight, that the world is deterministic. How would it differ from how you currently act? Etc. And ideally, give some solid logical reasons why your examples make sense in a world with free will and some logical reasons why they don't make sense in a deterministic world.