Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Applying what you've already said in the matter re belief and faith:

Since the commitment being made (decision to believe) is made because it's considered worth making, the evidence must of course be retrofitted. The decision to believe is leading, not the evidence.

And seeing through the lens of faith (aka trust and hope) is not so much seeing as it is trusting and hoping that the evidence is indeed objectively pointing towards what is believed.

Would that be about right?

That's a kinda forensic approach but sounds about right. End of the day, you have to be true to yourself and what you feel best represents your hopes and aspirations and supports them. A way to live.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

You posit part-substantiated ideas and suppose them carrying more weight than unsubstantiated ideas.

Yes I see a big difference between ideas that are well substantiated, partially substantiated, and not at all substantiated. If there is quite literally nothing at all what so ever that supports a claim someone has made then I do not go around believing that claim. I see nothing wrong with that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your position remains as makey-uppy as mine

What position? I have not expressed one. I have merely discussed how the idea there is a god is unsubstantiated entirely. That is, after all, what the thread is about. So what part of my position is makey uppy given my position is just that the claim there is a god is unsubstantiated?

Once again: We find ourselves in a universe and we do not know how or why. It is an open question. There are many hypothesis being put forward. Some are substantiated. Some have just been plucked out of dark bodily orifices and are not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated. The god claim, or the claim that the universe has only existed for 1 second when it was actually created with everything in the place we now find it, are two examples of people simply making stuff up based on nothing.

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

It might help if believers didn't act with such certainty that their version is the only right one.

Probably. There is a reason why there is over 33,000 branches of Christianity alone, let alone all the other religions people subscribe to outside that category. When people simply make stuff up and declare it to be true then there is no real methodology by which to reconcile those differences.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Lets tell the truth, we chose to believe

Here I am afraid you speak for yourself. For me belief is not a choice. If there is no reason to believe X then I simply do not believe X. I do not choose to believe it, or not. If you gave me an empty box there is absolutely no switch I can flick in my brain to "choose" to believe it full of money for example.

I take it from past conversations with many people on many forums that there does exist people with a credulity so labile that they in fact can choose what to believe. Even where there is a lack of even a modicum of substantiation for the claim.

I am not one of those people. Unless someone can actually provide a shred of even a modicum of evidence, argument, data or reasoning which suggests that a non human intelligence is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe then I am afraid I will continue to be entirely unable to believe such a proposition.

tommy2bad

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Probably. There is a reason why there is over 33,000 branches of Christianity alone, let alone all the other religions people subscribe to outside that category. When people simply make stuff up and declare it to be true then there is no real methodology by which to reconcile those differences.
I don't think they just make stuff up, it's a bit more nuanced than that.


Here I am afraid you speak for yourself. For me belief is not a choice. If there is no reason to believe X then I simply do not believe X. I do not choose to believe it, or not. If you gave me an empty box there is absolutely no switch I can flick in my brain to "choose" to believe it full of money for example.
Oh I only speak for myself, sorry if I hadn't made that clear.
I take it from past conversations with many people on many forums that there does exist people with a credulity so labile that they in fact can choose what to believe. Even where there is a lack of even a modicum of substantiation for the claim.

I am not one of those people. Unless someone can actually provide a shred of even a modicum of evidence, argument, data or reasoning which suggests that a non human intelligence is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe then I am afraid I will continue to be entirely unable to believe such a proposition.

I bet you do make choices in what to believe though, you might chose between capitalism and socialism, or believe in man made climate change or that it's all just a cycle of nature. But 'I believe in that because of the evidence' you say and so dos'e the person who believes the opposite. Nothing comes with absolute proof, we decide on a balance of probality. It's why science call things theory's not facts. Their is a chance that it might be disproved by later evidence.

Belief in God requiring proof? For some the fact that we are here or that anything is here is a sort of proof. God is as likely as big bangs or constant state. After that it all extrapolation from what we experience.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes I see a big difference between ideas that are well substantiated, partially substantiated, and not at all substantiated. If there is quite literally nothing at all what so ever that supports a claim someone has made then I do not go around believing that claim. I see nothing wrong with that.

And the problem that the world isn't behoven to naked empiricism? That there are a myriad of ways of concluding things? And that those arguments can be evaluated and found compelling?

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinarily well susbstantiated hypotheses. Failing one, you've not gotten off the ground.

What position? I have not expressed one.

Krauss' interesting hypothesis. You were supposing yourself in a more advanced position than I weren't you? With what where you advancing yourself?

Brian Shanahan

antiskeptic wrote: »

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinarily well susbstantiated hypotheses.

You keep using that phrase. It does not mean what you think it means.

antiskeptic

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You keep using that phrase. It does not mean what you think it means.

That remains to be seen. By means of argumentation.

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

I bet you do make choices in what to believe though, you might chose between capitalism and socialism, or believe in man made climate change or that it's all just a cycle of nature.

It would be a bet you would lose. On all the topics you have listed the positions I hold (which are off topic for this thread so I will not list them) are held because the evidence available to me suggests they are the best positions to hold. New evidence would, instantly, change my position and indeed some of the subjects you list are places where new evidence comes in often.

However there is an important distinction that your examples gloss over. There either is a god.... or there is not. It is one or the other. I see no way it could be both. When you speak of things like political ideologies however there is no apparent objective right or wrong here. Whatever your subjective political goals are... and they differ from person to person.... then this will dictate which political ideology best suits you.

And the difference between a "Yes no" question and differing paths towards differing subjective goals could hardly be wider. So I do not think you are comparing like with like with the examples you offer here.

tommy2bad wrote: »

But 'I believe in that because of the evidence' you say and so dos'e the person who believes the opposite.

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.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Nothing comes with absolute proof, we decide on a balance of probality.

100% agree. Science is a methodology that at its core acknowledges that nothing is 100% proven ever. We merely do our best to tend towards that goal. To paraphrase Einstein he once said that no number of experiments would ever prove one of his theories true. One single experiment however could prove him entirely wrong.

That conversation however is a distraction from the one where we differentiate between ideas that are heavily substantiated.... and those that are not even remotely substantiated even a tiny bit.

The latter conversation is covered up by the former by many theists. They try to make out that our lack of ability to ever know anything 100% somehow lends credibility to the claim there is a god. They are actually presenting doubt and lack of evidence AS EVIDENCE ITSELF. And as above I am not sure whether humor or despair is the appropriate response to that. Certainly taking it seriously is not the way to go however, and I do not.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Belief in God requiring proof?

I am actually very careful to try not to use the word "proof" in relation to god. Too lofty a goal and too stringent on the theist. The phrase I use often casts a wider net by far. I have written it often but I am happy to write it again. Observe if you will how it is much more lenient than demanding "proof" all the time:

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.

You will observe that nowhere in that sentence do I use the word "proof".

tommy2bad wrote: »

For some the fact that we are here or that anything is here is a sort of proof.

That is why we have phrases like "Begging the question".

tommy2bad wrote: »

God is as likely as big bangs or constant state.

That depends entirely on how you are working out your probabilities. I would love to see your workings and numbers.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

And the problem that the world isn't behoven to naked empiricism? That there are a myriad of ways of concluding things? And that those arguments can be evaluated and found compelling?

As I said in the post above, your words above are EXACTLY why I do not ask for "proof" there is a god, but ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that one feels lends even a modicum of credibility to the claim.

Yet it seems despite that wide and open net the only answer I ever get back EVER is "Well you can not prove there is NOT a god".

Science is the art of evaluating claims. I am not the one who called myself "antiskeptic" as if you are against anyone even being skeptical of claims being put before them. It seems to suggest that the mere virtue of making a claim lends credibility to that claim and you are against people applying any skeptical thought to it. From such heinous notions COMES the idea that one has to prove an unfalsifiable negative such as "Prove there is no god".

antiskeptic wrote: »

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinarily well susbstantiated hypotheses. Failing one, you've not gotten off the ground.

Exactly. And THIS thread is about the claim there is a god. And so far you have not gotten off the ground. Perhaps we agree on something after all.

When I actually make a claim however you are more than permitted, and capable, of asking me what MY substantiation is. I however have not made any claims on this thread. I am just evaluating the claim that the thread is actually about.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said in the post above, your words above are EXACTLY why I do not ask for "proof" there is a god, but ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that one feels lends even a modicum of credibility to the claim.

There are dozens of arguments out there and there are folk capable of arguing you into the dust (through sheer grasp of the finest detail on which the arguments rest). It wouldn't be that they are right necessarily, they'd just be more expert in this field of argumentation than you. Would it be that because they can win their argument you should believe?

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 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

Science is the art of evaluating claims. I am not the one who called myself "antiskeptic" as if you are against anyone even being skeptical of claims being put before them. It seems to suggest that the mere virtue of making a claim lends credibility to that claim and you are against people applying any skeptical thought to it. From such heinous notions COMES the idea that one has to prove an unfalsifiable negative such as "Prove there is no god".

Don't read too much into it. I'm merely pointing out that a hypothesis for something as profound as origins is an "extraordinary claim". Until it is extraordinarily founded, it doesn't raise your position above mine.

Exactly. And THIS thread is about the claim there is a god. And so far you have not gotten off the ground. Perhaps we agree on something after all.

This thread is about a lot of things. I was dealing with the claim that the laws of the universe precluded the possibility of God (Brian Shanahan) and your talking the talk of someone occupying higher ground than one making the bald claim "Goddidit" where it concerns the matter of origin of the Universe.

The discussion is that narrow.

nozzferrahhtoo

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

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

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

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°

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

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

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

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°

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

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

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°

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

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

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°

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

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°

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

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

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

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).