Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

antiskeptic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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°

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.