Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-10-2013 12:30pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are dozens of arguments out there and there are folk capable of arguing you into the dust

If you say so. I am not seeing either of them. Much less so on this thread. By all means bring them (the arguments, or those people) to bear on this thread. I am all ears. I hope they do better than yourself.

Alas I fear you might be one of those people I just mentioned in a post above when I wrote:

Yes indeed. Lots of people SAY that. However when you actually ask them to adumbrate their evidence, argument, data or reasoning then the men and the boys get instantly seperated.

I tell you 100% honestly now. If I had 1 euro for every theist who told me they think there is a god because there is evidence for it I would be rich. If I had ANOTHER euro for every one of those people who then managed to find some way to not actually tell me what that evidence actually is.... I would be exactly.... to the very euro.... twice as rich.

Saying there is evidence for a position and actually presenting it are such massively different things that I can not decide if I feel despair or mirth and the number of people who clearly think merely referring to the quantity of evidence at their disposal is a substitute for actually presenting any of it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Even when the finest minds on both sides get together, there's no Judge to declare victory. So how do you propose to settle things?

I am not in a debate or a fight or a competition that needs settling. I am merely asking if anyone has any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends credence to the claim there is a god that I can consider or learn.

If you have none then that's fine. Say so. If you have some, I remain all ears.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would have thought it an individual matter: a person is either convinced by the evidence, argument, interpretation of same. Or they are not. There is no absolute court of appeal in this matter

Exactly. But if people constantly and consistently refuse to present said evidence... and I have been perenially unable to find any myself.... then how can I "consider" or "interpret" it? I can not consider what I simply have not god.

It is like saying "I would have thought it an individual matter: a person will either eat his dinner or not". But if you do not give that person food and they can not for some reason find any themselves then how can they eat it or not? They simply have nothing to eat.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Until it is extraordinarily founded, it doesn't raise your position above mine.

For the third time I have to point out I have not expressed a position. So your constant need to talk about whether one is "above" another is meaningless to me. I am merely considering the proposition that a god exists as that is what the thread is about.

My ability to consider a proposition X is not in any way dependent on my having (or not) a counter proposition Y.

antiskeptic · 01-10-2013 12:58pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you say so. I am not seeing either of them. Much less so on this thread. By all means bring them (the arguments, or those people) to bear on this thread. I am all ears.

I'm speaking of a level of argument which would be beyond the capability of one who inhabits an internet discussion forum. I'm speaking about myself as much as I am you here.

If you rate your ability to operate at headier intellectual heights - where we're not dealing with back of cornflake packet simplifications of the arguments, then I'm sure you've demonstrated this somewhere. At headier heights that is.

Failing that I'll assume your intellectual bark is worse that it's bite.

Yes indeed. Lots of people SAY that. However when you actually ask them to adumbrate their evidence, argument, data or reasoning then the men and the boys get instantly seperated.

Do they? And the objective court which has established this is?

What do you say to those who have examined that which you reject and conclude other than you? Can you turn down the hubris for a moment and suppose that at least some of those who conclude other than you possess far more smarts than you and are far better equipped to evaluate the full depth of the arguments posited?

Or do you suppose a priori that they necessarily have a motivation to conclude as they do which overrides their otherwise high grade critical facilties?

In which case you really do have problems.

Lapis lazuli · 01-10-2013 2:07pm

I happened across this intresting dicussion on an internet search, I hope people don't mind if I join in.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have not, to date, been shown a shred of evidence, argument, data OR reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the idea that a non-human intelligence is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.

In the intrests of brevity, presumably to date you have ruled out anything theists commonly consider as evidence for God, i.e. scriptures, other believers encounters with God, their sprituality, experiences, visions, healings etc., as not being evidence. It is true to say, that if you rule all of that out as being evidence, then there is no evidence.

It's fair to ask for evidence that you will accept, but it's also equally fair to ask for an example of what type of evidence you would consider as evidence.

Is it strictly scientific evidence you seek ? If so, what sort of scientific evidence would prove a spirit/entity was in fact God ? Can you give any examples ? What scientific tests could be carried out ?

If it's not strictly scientific evidence you seek, can you give examples of what evidence might sway your belief/non belief ?

E.g. Let's say God really did appear in front of you, cured the sick, and raised people from the dead. That in itself might be sufficient for some people, but others could still be skeptical that he was in fact God, so what type of evidence would you ask him to provide that he was God, and not just some superior alien lifeform/spirit with vastly superior abilities ? At some stage presumably faith would have to come into it.

My family say they love me. Either they love me or they don't, and I believe that they do. Though strictly speaking, if I apply strict enough criteria, I have no actual evidence that they do.

i.e. there is no evidence, that they have provided me with to date, that someone who does not love me, but claims they do, could equally do.

Science is wonderful, but it won't provide evidence for everything in life. It's the physical how, not the why.

Brian Shanahan · 01-10-2013 7:59pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

That remains to be seen. By means of argumentation.

Well you keep trying to make out that the absense of god is the extraordinary claim needing proof. This despite the god hypothesis being the single most extraordinary claim in the history of, well, everything, and the non-existence of god hypothesis being about as extraordinary as the non-existence of the celestial teapot hypothesis, or the "universe is not a chrysanthemum origami folded in ninteen dimensions" hypothesis.

So yeah, you obviously don't understand the phrase.

Virgil° · 01-10-2013 8:29pm

i.e. there is no evidence, that they have provided me with to date, that someone who does not love me but claims they do, could equally do..

Science can provide evidence for pretty much everything that humans can know.
Chemistry , biology and neuroscience CAN tell you if someone loves you. It has a biological basis. Many theists simply don't like the idea that we can explain love in such terms. As though not being written like a cosmic song into our undying souls somehow demeans the thing.

If at some stage someone discovered something that science has not yet discovered: Great! Science is changeable , we can add this new method to the scientific processes already at our disposal.
There is no reason that we can't. I love this attempt to shoehorn faith into the modicum of doubt that we may have because we can't prove something to an absolute certainty.
We can't prove beyond all doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow ,ergo faith? :rolleyes:

The faith that theists use to arrive at conclusion that the entire universe was fashioned by a deity is utterly incomparable to the "faith" that i have that the sun will rise or that evolution is true, they can't be conflated.

PS. I wouldn't advise repeating the quoted text to your loved ones.

Brian Shanahan · 01-10-2013 8:47pm

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

In the intrests of brevity, presumably to date you have ruled out anything theists commonly consider as evidence for God, i.e. scriptures, other believers encounters with God, their sprituality, experiences, visions, healings etc., as not being evidence.

I'll go through these quickly to show why they are not evidence:

Scripture: "The bible is the word of god" "Why?" "Because it says so" "Why do you believe what it says?" "Because it is the word of god." Circular reasoning is not evidence, you have to provide a source independent of the claim to furnish evidence.

Other people's "encounters" & "experiences": I'm lumping these two together as I can't seeany difference. 2% of US citizens report being anally probed by aliens. Does that mean that we accept that there are millions of ET rapists with their own symbian machines? No we don't. There are lots of explanations for this phenomenon that are far less implausible than the existence of god, for example, read up on Sleep Paralysis.

Spirituality: I'm sorry but how a person feels is evidence of nothing but the fact that that person can experience emotion. Next thing you'll be telling me is that my anger is proof of the existence of Mars (the Roman god of war, not the planet - a decent telescope and check of wikipedia for the coordinates will prove that).

Visions: A common thread for deistic visions is that the participants are on hallucogenic susbstances, are sleep deprived (which has a very similar effect) or both. And the fact that any prophecy from a religious vision is either horrifically bad or so vague as to mean anything is another nail in their coffin as evidence.

Faith healing: is no better than placebo. Bad and all as big pharma is it is still infinitely better than something with no evidence.

Evidence which I will accept is scientific evidence, Rational Wiki has a whole series of articles of its components, which are adherence to the scientific method, falsifiability and reproducibility. Nothing you've mentioned above satisifies those criteria.

antiskeptic · 01-10-2013 9:22pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well you keep trying to make out that the absense of god is the extraordinary claim needing proof.

You should try paying a little more attention to what is actually being discussed. Claims as to the origin of the Universe (however that might have come about) are extraordinary. Whether Goddidit (the theists). Or Godknowswhatdidit (the atheists).

He who demands extraordinary evidence is beholden himself when talking of this subject, whether me claiming Goddidit or Nozz or you claiming Godknowswhatdidit.

You got it now?

This despite the god hypothesis being the single most extraordinary claim in the history of, well, everything,

Something coming from nothing strikes me as a tad more extraordinary a claim than the existence of a supernatural being. As a basic concept, there is no difficulty in the latter: it doesn't defy logic, rationality, reasonableness that there be such a being. As someone once wrote:

"Don't let the cosmologists fool you on this. They'll say 'first there was nothing, then there was a quantum flutter..' and before you know it they are off pulling entire galaxies from their quantum hat"

Quite!

So yeah, you obviously don't understand the phrase.

Hopefully you're back on track as to where the discussion has come from. You've been arguing against an argument not made by me.

Lapis lazuli · 02-10-2013 10:53am

Virgil° wrote: »

Science can provide evidence for pretty much everything that humans can know.
Chemistry , biology and neuroscience CAN tell you if someone loves you.

That's intresting, so if I take all my loved ones in for testing, how will science definately prove that each one of them, do or don't love me ? Because at the minute, strictly speaking, I have no evidence either way.

Virgil° wrote: »

PS. I wouldn't advise repeating the quoted text to your loved ones.

Indeed, the notion would be absurd to most people.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'll go through these quickly to show why they are not evidence:

As I stated in my post, if you rule out anything a theist considers as evidence, then there is no evidence.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Evidence which I will accept is scientific evidence, Rational Wiki has a whole series of articles of its components, which are adherence to the scientific method, falsifiability and reproducibility. Nothing you've mentioned above satisifies those criteria.

Good. So can you give any real life examples of what evidence you would accept for the existence of God ? E.g. would God appearing in front of you be enough evidence ? Or what further tests / experiments would you carry out to obtain evidence it was God ?

Virgil° · 02-10-2013 12:46pm

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

That's intresting, so if I take all my loved ones in for testing

Look up "Biological basis of love" There are studies linked therein on how you would test this.

how will science definately prove that each one of them, do or don't love me ?

This only shows that you skimmed over my post and didn't read it. You can't definitely prove, to 100% certainty, anything.
This does not however give you permission to put God in the same realm of probability as the sun rising or gravity.

Lapis lazuli · 02-10-2013 1:05pm

Virgil° wrote: »

Look up "Biological basis of love" There are studies linked therein on how you would test this.

I have, but can you explain for me if I take them in for testing, how will science give me enough evidence to make a firm decision either way ?

Virgil° wrote: »

You can't definitely prove, to 100% certainty, anything.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure about that claim.

If I shook hands with you on Grafton Street and stated that I'm not in America right now, I think it would prove that I wasn't. If I then said that I had a hole in my shoe and then showed you the hole, I think that would prove that I had a hole in my shoe.

antiskeptic · 02-10-2013 1:08pm

Virgil° wrote: »

Look up "Biological basis of love" There are studies linked therein on how you would test this.

You mean to say you can test someone who prpfesses to love you to see if they are lying?

Could you define love whilst your at it? (C.S. Lewis defines at least 4 kinds. There may be more)

This only shows that you skimmed over my post and didn't read it. You can't definitely prove, to 100% certainty, anything.

With what certainty could you demonstrate a person isn't lying when they profess to love someone?

Virgil° · 02-10-2013 1:44pm

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

I have, but can you explain for me if I take them in for testing, how will science give me enough evidence to make a firm decision either way ?

If you've looked at the papers about magnetic resonance imaging and chemical changes in a person, coupled with all the usual actions and subtle behvioural changes that you would expect of a person in love you could be reasonably confident of it.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure about that claim.

If I shook hands with you on Grafton Street and stated that I'm not in America right now, I think it would prove that I wasn't. If I then said that I had a hole in my shoe and then showed you the hole, I think that would prove that I had a hole in my shoe.

But then how would you prove this with certainty to me? To use your own words. In what way would you prove this was you standing in grafton street and not someone who looks like you or is disguised as you couldn't do? Maybe the shoe just appears to have a hole? The possibilities are endless. Which is why you can't prove it 100%. Same as everything else, ever.

The problem here is that you're trying to conflate an infinitesimally small leap of "faith" that I make about your shoehole, with the enormous leap of faith required to believe that God exists and created the Universe.
You're using all this "how can we be sure of love" nonsense because there isn't as exact an hypothesis for it as there is for say electromagnetism or gravity.

I could just as easily say: Prove to me the brain is responsible for dreams, no?, ergo there's a pink unicorn running around on mars.
Its essentially a tedious god of the gaps.

We can't be sure of this -> we can't be sure of anything -> God

You can use this logic for anything.

Lapis lazuli · 02-10-2013 2:17pm

Virgil° wrote: »

If you've looked at the papers about magnetic resonance imaging and chemical changes in a person, coupled with all the usual actions and subtle behvioural changes that you would expect of a person in love you could be reasonably confident of it.

But then how would you prove this with certainty to me? To use your own words. In what way would you prove this was you standing in grafton street and not someone who looks like you or is disguised as you couldn't do? Maybe the shoe just appears to have a hole? The possibilities are endless. Which is why you can't prove it 100%. Same as everything else, ever.

The problem here is that you're trying to conflate an infinitesimally small leap of "faith" that I make about your shoehole, with the enormous leap of faith required to believe that God exists and created the Universe.
You're using all this "how can we be sure of love" nonsense because there isn't as exact an hypothesis for it as there is for say electromagnetism or gravity.

I could just as easily say: Prove to me the brain is responsible for dreams, no?, ergo there's a pink unicorn running around on mars.
Its essentially a tedious god of the gaps.

We can't be sure of this -> we can't be sure of anything -> God

You can use this logic for anything.

I asked you to show, as you claimed, that you can demonstrate with certainity if someone loves you or not, you haven't

I asked you to prove your claim that nothing can be proved 100 %, you haven't.

This rest is you arguing with a strawman, and arguing with claims I didn't make.

Morbert · 02-10-2013 2:26pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You should try paying a little more attention to what is actually being discussed. Claims as to the origin of the Universe (however that might have come about) are extraordinary. Whether Goddidit (the theists). Or Godknowswhatdidit (the atheists).

He who demands extraordinary evidence is beholden himself when talking of this subject, whether me claiming Goddidit or Nozz or you claiming Godknowswhatdidit.

You got it now?

Something coming from nothing strikes me as a tad more extraordinary a claim than the existence of a supernatural being. As a basic concept, there is no difficulty in the latter: it doesn't defy logic, rationality, reasonableness that there be such a being. As someone once wrote:

"Don't let the cosmologists fool you on this. They'll say 'first there was nothing, then there was a quantum flutter..' and before you know it they are off pulling entire galaxies from their quantum hat"

Quite!

I'll ignore the horribly misleading and inaccurate quote about quantum gravity for the moment and address the more important points of this argument. (Incidentally, "something from nothing" an integral part of a lot of literature in theology.)

We humans do not know why there is something rather than nothing. All scientific theories will ultimately be empirical. But atheists reject the notion that this is a mark in favour of theism, or that "Because God made it." is an answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

I often repeat a mantra in this forum: If you are asking a "why" question, you have to be using a framework where you allow some things to be true, otherwise you are perpetually asking why. We can still ask why there is something rather than nothing, only now "something" includes God.

So the existence of things is just as big a puzzle in the theistic worldview as it is in the atheistic worldview, and therefore has little relevance in debates over whether or not there is evidence for God.

Virgil° · 02-10-2013 2:39pm

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

I asked you to show, as you claimed, that you can demonstrate with certainity if someone loves you or not, you haven't

My entire point is that this cannot be done.

I asked you to prove your claim that nothing can be proved 100 %, you haven't.

You didn't actually ask anything of the sort. But even if you had, unless i go through everything we know about the universe, EVERYTHING, and then show how its not 100% certain how do you suggest i do this?

Scientifically speaking things do not get "proven". They get weighted with evidence and become a hypothesis unless some test demonstrates otherwise.

This rest is you arguing with a strawman, and arguing with claims I didn't make.

Then pray tell what the point of your "how do i know someone loves me" rambling nonsense is?

Lapis lazuli · 02-10-2013 2:48pm

From

Virgil° wrote: »

Chemistry , biology and neuroscience CAN tell you if someone loves you

To

Virgil° wrote: »

My entire point is that this cannot be done.

Then pray tell what the point of your "how do i know someone loves me" rambling nonsense is?

Hmmmm. What's the point indeed.

Virgil° · 02-10-2013 3:04pm

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

Hmmmm. What's the point indeed.

If you want to translate "tell" as "prove 100%" to further your argument then go ahead. I won't be humouring that kind of pedantry though.

If that's all you have then you're running on fumes at this stage.

Morbert · 02-10-2013 3:07pm

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

Hmmmm. What's the point indeed.

If I may interject.

Most atheists are empiricists. We would say there is evidence when a person loves someone. We would say there is no evidence for God.

Lapis lazuli · 02-10-2013 3:30pm

Morbert wrote: »

If I may interject.

Most atheists are empiricists. We would say there is evidence when a person loves someone. We would say there is no evidence for God.

and in either case, if you rule out evidence as evidence then there is none.

Out of intrest, can you give any examples of evidence you would accept for God ?

Brian Shanahan · 02-10-2013 3:31pm

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

Good. So can you give any real life examples of what evidence you would accept for the existence of God ? E.g. would God appearing in front of you be enough evidence ? Or what further tests / experiments would you carry out to obtain evidence it was God ?

Show me evidence which has been tested reproduced and critiqued in a scientific manner, published in a recognised journal and subject to proper double blind methods of scrutiny.

This is the same level of evidence which I accept for any scientific hypothesis (though in quite a lot of cases I may need help with the technical stuff, I'm an interested amateur).

antiskeptic · 02-10-2013 3:35pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Show me evidence which has been tested reproduced and critiqued in a scientific manner, published in a recognised journal and subject to proper double blind methods of scrutiny.

This is the same level of evidence which I accept for any scientific hypothesis (though in quite a lot of cases I may need help with the technical stuff, I'm an interested amateur).

So you would accept as true, the existence of God if it were demonstrated so?

Question: assuming God has been demonstrated to you so and you are convinced of his existence, who would you say was the ultimate Designer of the means whereby you could be convinced of God's existence.

Hint: I don't mean the people who gradually discovered and refined the method (a.k.a. the fathers of Science). I mean the person who made it possible that you could know things this way.

Brian Shanahan · 02-10-2013 3:45pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

So you would accept as true, the existence of God if it were demonstrated so?

Question: assuming God has been demonstrated to you so and you are convinced of his existence, who would you say was the ultimate Designer of the means whereby you could be convinced of God's existence.

Hint: I don't mean the people who gradually discovered and refined the method (a.k.a. the fathers of Science). I mean the person who made it possible that you could know things this way.

a) the christian god definitely does not exist, in the physical universe there is no possibility of him existing.

b) even if something which could be called god or the original urge did exist, it doesn't necessarily follow that that being created humanity. Humanity was created through the process of evolution, which has one single purpose, the propogation of the genome.

Therefore I don't accept that I was made the way I am because of what some god wanted, even if it (the god) were demonstrated to be true, as evolution had no requirement nor any need for a god. And I am a product of evolution.

And one final thing, if it were demonstrated conclusively through proper evidence that there were such a being, I would still not believe. I would accept the veracity of the "god theory" as I do with any other scientifically proven (or accepted) theory. Belief only occurs when there is insufficient evidence for, (e.g. a deistic non-interfering god), or when evidence is against the hypothesis (e.g. YHWH).

Morbert · 02-10-2013 3:57pm

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

and in either case, if you rule out evidence as evidence then there is none.

Out of intrest, can you give any examples of evidence you would accept for God ?

An amputee being healed at Lourdes.

Lapis lazuli · 02-10-2013 4:50pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Show me evidence which has been tested reproduced and critiqued in a scientific manner, published in a recognised journal and subject to proper double blind methods of scrutiny.

This is the same level of evidence which I accept for any scientific hypothesis (though in quite a lot of cases I may need help with the technical stuff, I'm an interested amateur).

Yes, but can you give and example as Morbert has done, and explain why that would be evidence for God that you would accept ?

Lapis lazuli · 02-10-2013 4:51pm

Morbert wrote: »

An amputee being healed at Lourdes.

Good, but how would you know that God done it, and therefore how would it be evidence for God ?

antiskeptic · 02-10-2013 5:36pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

a) the christian god definitely does not exist, in the physical universe there is no possibility of him existing.

So Jesus as God incarnate (from whence chilli con carne and carnivore - it suddenly struck me) cannot exist or have existed?

Could you tell me how you arrive at this conclusion?

b) even if something which could be called god or the original urge did exist, it doesn't necessarily follow that that being created humanity. Humanity was created through the process of evolution, which has one single purpose, the propogation of the genome.

Therefore I don't accept that I was made the way I am because of what some god wanted, even if it (the god) were demonstrated to be true, as evolution had no requirement nor any need for a god. And I am a product of evolution.

Forgive me if you don't sound desparate. If God exists it's a game changer - you aren't in a position to say what elements of you are the product of blind evolution, which elements are the product of directed evolution and which elements of you aren't the product of evolution at all.

Don't confuse a well founded theory with Absolute Truth On All Points.

And one final thing, if it were demonstrated conclusively through proper evidence that there were such a being, I would still not believe. I would accept the veracity of the "god theory" as I do with any other scientifically proven (or accepted) theory.

Lets suppose you believe God exists in the same way that you believe the computer screen you're looking at right now exists - because he has been demonstrated to that extent to your satisfaction. By all means call your believing the screen in front of you exists, a tentative belief, one subject to future reevaluation.

And so back to the question:

God demonstrates his existence to your satisfaction and demonstrates to your satisfaction that you aren't the product of thoroughly blind evolution. Who would be the Designer of this method of knowing things in which you place so much faith?

antiskeptic · 02-10-2013 5:37pm

Morbert wrote: »

An amputee being healed at Lourdes.

So someone cured of back pain and flung backwards by an invisible force on The God Channel won't suffice then ?

Morbert · 02-10-2013 6:31pm

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

Good, but how would you know that God done it, and therefore how would it be evidence for God ?

It of course wouldn't be impeccable, deductive proof of God. But it would still be evidence insofar as it would affirm a belief in God.

Morbert · 02-10-2013 6:33pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

So someone cured of back pain and flung backwards by an invisible force on The God Channel won't suffice then ?

You mean like these "enthusiasts"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a54iqEr1flQ

tommy2bad · 02-10-2013 6:34pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

a) the christian god definitely does not exist, in the physical universe there is no possibility of him existing.
So it the description of God as described in the
Judeo Christian tradition that you don't believe in?
b) even if something which could be called god or the original urge did exist, it doesn't necessarily follow that that being created humanity. Humanity was created through the process of evolution, which has one single purpose, the propogation of the genome.
I don't think evolution has a purpose!
Therefore I don't accept that I was made the way I am because of what some god wanted, even if it (the god) were demonstrated to be true, as evolution had no requirement nor any need for a god. And I am a product of evolution.
Are you sure it God you reject or the notion that you need God?
And one final thing, if it were demonstrated conclusively through proper evidence that there were such a being, I would still not believe. I would accept the veracity of the "god theory" as I do with any other scientifically proven (or accepted) theory. Belief only occurs when there is insufficient evidence for, (e.g. a deistic non-interfering god), or when evidence is against the hypothesis (e.g. YHWH).

Stubborn this one is !

Lapis lazuli · 02-10-2013 7:00pm

Morbert wrote: »

It of course wouldn't be impeccable, deductive proof of God. But it would still be evidence insofar as it would affirm a belief in God.

It's only evidence if you change the definition of evidence back to something that affirms your belief in God.

And what evidence would you have that God did it ? Surely, as an atheist you'd have to have better evidence than that ?

tommy2bad · 02-10-2013 7:06pm

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

It's only evidence if you change the definition of evidence back to something that affirms your belief in God.

And what evidence would you have that God did it ? Surely, as an atheist you'd have to have better evidence than that ?

Hell as a believer I wouldn't believe that God caused an amputated limb to grow back. It's so out of character and lets tell the truth doing it once would be cruel. He would need to be doing that stuff all the time to be any use as superman.

Morbert · 02-10-2013 7:31pm

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

It's only evidence if you change the definition of evidence back to something that affirms your belief in God.

And what evidence would you have that God did it ? Surely, as an atheist you'd have to have better evidence than that ?

Perhaps it is because I have joined the conversation halfway through, but I really don't see the controversy in saying God would be evidenced by a person taking a pilgrimage, praying to God to have their limbs returned, and having their limbs returned.

Would that be sufficient evidence for me? I can't pretend I would immediately convert upon hearing the news. But it would certainly raise serious doubts about my atheism. It certainly would be enough if I was the one who lost a limb and was cured.

Morbert · 02-10-2013 7:33pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hell as a believer I wouldn't believe that God caused an amputated limb to grow back. It's so out of character and lets tell the truth doing it once would be cruel. He would need to be doing that stuff all the time to be any use as superman.

What is your opinion of those who take pilgrimages to pray for cures to ailments? Do you believe is is hubris?

tommy2bad · 02-10-2013 7:39pm

Morbert wrote: »

What is your opinion of those who take pilgrimages to pray for cures to ailments? Do you believe is is hubris?

I used to think they were deluded fools (or just went for a dayout

)
Then as happens it came to my door. I learned that most people don't go looking for a miracle, they go in hope of coming to terms with what aills them. My mistake was assuming that the 'cure' they sought was physical when it was spiritual.
They would be delighted if it turned out to be a physical cure but that would be a bonus.

Lapis lazuli · 02-10-2013 7:41pm

Morbert wrote: »

Perhaps it is because I have joined the conversation halfway through, but I really don't see the controversy in saying God would be evidenced by a person taking a pilgrimage, praying to God to have their limbs returned, and having their limbs returned.

Would that be sufficient evidence for me? I can't pretend I would immediately convert upon hearing the news. But it would certainly raise serious doubts about my atheism. It certainly would be enough if I was the one who lost a limb and was cured.

It still wouldn't be evidence that God did it.
Fair enough if that's what would make you believe in God, you might be more spirtual than I thought, but if you came back from Lourdes claiming God did it, many atheists would scoff at it being evidence for God. It's only one step beyond other cures that have occured in Lourdes over the years.

antiskeptic · 02-10-2013 8:27pm

Morbert wrote: »

You mean like these "enthusiasts"?

Bonkers huh...

That's one advantage of being a believer: knowing that all that will be dealt with one day. The naturalist can only hope Evolution doesn't keep selecting for this...

Certainly 'Bad Benny Hinn' hasn't done too badly survival-wise

Brian Shanahan · 02-10-2013 10:27pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

So Jesus as God incarnate (from whence chilli con carne and carnivore - it suddenly struck me) cannot exist or have existed?

Could you tell me how you arrive at this conclusion?

Jesus as god incarnate cannot exist because the conditions of godhood as set out in the bible are physically impossible (an omnipotent being existing outside the universe, the sum total of reality), and logically impossible (you cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient). Simples.

Forgive me if you don't sound desparate.

I don't. End of story there.

If God exists it's a game changer - you aren't in a position to say what elements of you are the product of blind evolution, which elements are the product of directed evolution and which elements of you aren't the product of evolution at all.

The functions of my brain, which create my consciousness, are a result of the evolutionary process. Regarding "god" being a game changer, that is a baseless speculation because a) we don't know the qualities of any putative god, and b) we don't know how it would interract with the rest of reality.

Don't confuse a well founded theory with Absolute Truth On All Points.

I can say back to you with far more relevance to the discussion, "don't confuse speculation without evidence as absolute truth".

Oh, and in science a well founded theory is as close as one gets to absolute truth. But then again, unlike religion, science is about finding out stuff, not proclaiming what is reality and vigourously suppressing dissent ("Eppur si muove").

Lets suppose you believe God exists in the same way that you believe the computer screen you're looking at right now exists

I don't believe my computer screen exists. It exists. There is no possible position for me to believe my computer screen exists.

- because he has been demonstrated to that extent to your satisfaction. By all means call your believing the screen in front of you exists, a tentative belief, one subject to future reevaluation.

And so back to the question:

God demonstrates his existence to your satisfaction and demonstrates to your satisfaction that you aren't the product of thoroughly blind evolution. Who would be the Designer of this method of knowing things in which you place so much faith?

Evolution exists. Strange as it may seem to you, I have no faith in evolution, nor do I need to have same. It is pointless to posit questions about a reality in which it doesn't exist, because if it didn't we wouldn't be here.

Antiskeptic, I am not going to answer the same question over and over again. In my last two posts in this thread I gave clear consise and logical replies to your one repeated question. If you still have problems with my answers I suggest you read the scientific literature on cosmological physics and evolution, and think about the definitions of omnipotence and omnisience.

Sorry for the delay in getting back, was delayed by helping out at bingo.

Brian Shanahan · 02-10-2013 10:30pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Stubborn this one is !

Hey you think something is true despite all the evidence saying it is false. I don't think you can call me stubborn.

tommy2bad · 02-10-2013 11:03pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Hey you think something is true despite all the evidence saying it is false. I don't think you can call me stubborn.

I never said I believed despite all the evidence that it's false. Don't assume your evidence is all the evidence.
You otoh said even if their was proof you wouldn't believe. Now that's clinging to faith despite the evidence.

antiskeptic · 02-10-2013 11:38pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Jesus as god incarnate cannot exist because the conditions of godhood as set out in the bible are physically impossible (an omnipotent being existing outside the universe, the sum total of reality),

This doesn't make a lick of sense.

Having scanned through your response..

Antiskeptic, I am not going to answer the same question over and over again. In my last two posts in this thread I gave clear consise and logical replies to your one repeated question.

..it'd be best we leave it Brian. Sometimes the chemistry ain't there

Morbert · 03-10-2013 2:44pm

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

It still wouldn't be evidence that God did it.
Fair enough if that's what would make you believe in God, you might be more spirtual than I thought, but if you came back from Lourdes claiming God did it, many atheists would scoff at it being evidence for God. It's only one step beyond other cures that have occured in Lourdes over the years.

But people aren't cured at Lourdes. The number of natural recoveries from serious illnesses per person is the same for those who don't go to Lourdes as those who do. These natural recoveries are perfectly consistent with medical science.

That's why healing an amputee would be a genuine miracle. It has never happened.

Lapis lazuli · 03-10-2013 3:22pm

Morbert wrote: »

But people aren't cured at Lourdes. The number of natural recoveries from serious illnesses per person is the same for those who don't go to Lourdes as those who do. These natural recoveries are perfectly consistent with medical science.

But no one is claiming all natural recoveries are only as a result of God's intervention, or that God only heals Catholics who visit Lourdes.

Morbert wrote: »

That's why healing an amputee would be a genuine miracle.

You still haven't explained why it would be evidence that God exists or that God did it.

Morbert · 03-10-2013 3:59pm

But no one is claiming all natural recoveries are only as a result of God's intervention, or that God only heals Catholics who visit Lourdes.

That is neither here nor there. The point is what we observe in the people who travel to Lourdes is not evidence of God, as it is perfectly consistent with the atheist worldview. An amputee being healed through prayer is not consistent with the atheist worldview, and would be evidence for God.

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

You still haven't explained why it would be evidence that God exists or that God did it.

Can I save some time and assume the point you are making is that all atheists are anti-realist solipsists since they aren't convinced by what you consider to be evidence for God, and would therefore latch onto any possibility to contrive doubt for any piece of evidence submitted to them?

A healed amputee is evidence of God in the same way an aeroplane is evidence of an atmosphere. It is possible to make up a complicated alternative explanation, but atheists are reasonable people, and would be happy to accept evidence of God.

Lapis lazuli · 03-10-2013 6:49pm

Morbert wrote: »

An amputee being healed through prayer is not consistent with the atheist worldview, and would be evidence for God.

but you haven't explained why it would be evidence.

Morbert wrote: »

Can I save some time and assume the point you are making is that all atheists are anti-realist solipsists since they aren't convinced by what you consider to be evidence for God, and would therefore latch onto any possibility to contrive doubt for any piece of evidence submitted to them?

A healed amputee is evidence of God in the same way an aeroplane is evidence of an atmosphere. It is possible to make up a complicated alternative explanation, but atheists are reasonable people, and would be happy to accept evidence of God.

I don't believe atheists are homogenous, or have anything in common in particular other than their non belief. Some become theists without miracles, some may only become theists after a miracle, some may never become theists, and so forth.

What we're discussing, is what you would consider evidence, and why it is evidence. You've answered what you would consider evidence, but not why it's evidence.

An aeroplane is held up by the atmosphere because of aerodynamics.

What i'm interested in is how, as an atheist, did you get from . . . an amputee being cured > God must have done it > that's evidence for God

My point being is that equally someone could jump from . . . amputee cured > a powerful alien must have done it > that's evidence for aliens.

Why in your case is it evidence for God instead ?

antiskeptic · 03-10-2013 10:30pm

Morbert wrote: »

But people aren't cured at Lourdes. The number of natural recoveries from serious illnesses per person is the same for those who don't go to Lourdes as those who do.

I remember reading something about the number of U.S. Marines who could be expected to die in a typical non-war year whilst back at base in the U.S. It wasn't all that different to the numbers dying in Eye-raq per year

The drama of Iraq makes the killing somehow more notable. So too perhaps, Lourdes.

antiskeptic · 03-10-2013 10:32pm

Morbert wrote: »

A healed amputee is evidence of God in the same way an aeroplane is evidence of an atmosphere. It is possible to make up a complicated alternative explanation, but atheists are reasonable people, and would be happy to accept evidence of God.

Is Brian Shanahan in da House?

antiskeptic · 03-10-2013 10:56pm

Morbert wrote:

Can I save some time and assume the point you are making is that all atheists are anti-realist solipsists

Morbert has a point...

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

My point being is that equally someone could jump from . . . amputee cured > a powerful alien must have done it > that's evidence for aliens. Why in your case is it evidence for God instead ?

Considering what a primitive civilization would make of the iphone (assuming you've got a signal), Lapis lazuli has a point...

How to resolve?

Turtwig · 04-10-2013 12:37am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is Brian Shanahan in da House?

Err not sure what your aim or intention is with this post but on the face of it it seems a little unnecessarily flippant and personal.:)

Virgil° · 04-10-2013 12:49am

antiskeptic wrote: »

How to resolve?

I think the problem here is that we are being asked what sort of evidence is acceptable for something that has yet to be defined with any properties. Which obviously makes it impossible to pin down.

You can take any miracle you like, anything at all but seeing as how we don't actually have any properties of the deity we're looking for the "miracles" could be attributed to a limitless list of things.

a)Fortunately for the atheist, nothing of the sort has EVER been reliably documented
or reproduced.

b) If you want to weigh his existence with evidence, give us the property first,God is a green blob and can spell "Yahweh" in the sky with neutron stars, as a crazy example. If a green blob then shows up with stars in tow reproducibly and as predicted we'll work under the reasonable assumption that your deity exists until shown otherwise.

By the same logic we don't question that sunlight comes from the sun any more. Because we know the properties of the sun and we reasonably assume based on these that sunlight comes from it. What would then be the point in allowing such arguments as: "Sunlight could actually be evidence for a giant alien lightbulb instead!"?. You just end up tumbling down a rabbit hole of not really being able to know anything. Which is what I expect lapis is attempting to do whether he/she realises it or not. We can't really know anything with evidence -> god.

If you're trying to get us to lay out a set of acceptable evidence for something that is not of this universe and has no known properties then by definition it cannot be evidenced to be there and you're asking the impossible.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments