What kind of evidence would prove god ?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

HHobo wrote: »

This is a picture perfect example of what I was referring to. A theory supported by a mountains of evidence, easily falsifiable yet has never been falsified and we are admonished by the religious that it isn't a proven fact

it was a point of semantics in the face of what turns out to be satire

and we should be much more reserved in accepting it and how robust isn't synonymous with true...etc.

Er.. there are millons of Christians who believe in the principle ToE. 40% or so of US scientists believe in God and presumably in ToE also. There isn't a requirement to separate the two it would seem - except in the heads of some who suppose a conflict.

The next sentence out of their mouth might well some invocation of the characteristics, preferences or intentions of a mythical being.

No problem in that once you grasp the nature of the discussion. Which you evidently haven't ..

They do this with seemingly no clue as to how much of a monumental, jaw-dropping, double standard it is.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you go back and look at what I wrote again you'll see that I wasn't attempting to prove anything.

You're really not getting the point of this conversation at all.

You posted a rather daft post.
I satiruzed it (heavy-handedly, in case you wouldn't notice that it was satire).
You didn't notice the satire and instead posted something unrelated containing some howling class-errors.
I gave up satire and posted straight. Twice.
Oldrnwisr posted straight too.
You missed the satire again.
And again.

Honestly, this is like some weird mixture of Kafka and Mr Bean.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

No problem in that once you grasp the nature of the discussion. Which you evidently haven't ..

Whoosh.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

fatmammycat wrote: »

No, but if you don't believe the theory of evolution to be true, what do you consider true and what do you base your thinking on?

I've no opinion on the truth* or othewise of ToE (although clearly I don't hold the philosophical position of some who reckon they can use ToE it to exclude God). I've no problem with it being a very well supported theory and the very best explanation of how it all came about that has been come up with.

Then again, I don't see how the average person (or even the above average person) could conclude ToE true other than by believing scientists when they say it is. Any old idiot can grasp the simplistic mechanics of random mutation providing options + natural selection sifting out those options. But whether such a thing could actually work in practice would take professional expertise.

Indeed, you'd have to wonder whether a scientist in one field would be capable of understanding for himself, the science of evolution in another field such would be the complexities involved.


I certainly don't hold to Creationism as commonly presented (i.e. bonkers American fundamentalism)


-

Which is off the point. The point was that ToE is open to demolition.



* in the sense that it happened as ToE says rather than some other way.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

robindch wrote: »

Whoosh.

Indeed. Leave satire to satirists and stick to what you know best:popcorn-throwing.

oldrnwisr

antiskeptic wrote: »

The context is ToE, not evolution

Sorry for being a bit obtuse here but: ToE ????

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's Robin you need to be telling that. It's was his contention that evolution is proven true which is the 'driving mechanism for this discussion-ette

No. It is plain that Robin was parodying your position using evolution. You misinterpreted that though, either deliberately or innocently and given your response I'll bet deliberately.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've no problem with true for all practical purposes (a.k.a. tentatively true). That's different to true.

Only in the sense that certain terms in science have meanings which differ from their colloquial meanings. Everything that we call true is only true to a degree and then is only true for as long as it conforms to observation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The worst thing here is actually you're having jumped in with both feet before taking the time to read the discussion upstream.

If you don't believe me (on the matter of evolution) then quote what I've said and object to it.

Look, let's not kid ourselves here. You have already made your position on evolution quite clear on boards. Here and here for example.

Someone who starts a post with "evolution is a theory" is either being deliberately argumentative or is trying to use it as an argument against evolution. Either way I object to it.

And for the record, what I said stands, you haven't the first clue how the scientific method works, because if you did you wouldn't have made a claim such as this:

antiskeptic wrote: »

1) Accepting the scientific solution to a small puzzle (how life is the way it is) means throwing a spanner in the works of a larger puzzle (the biblical story of God's dealing with and plans for mankind. In short, the larger puzzle works better without evolution and since evolution is but a small spanner, it can be part-dispensed with.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The weakness lies less in the theory and more in the philosophy that supposes a scientific theory (any scientific theory) potentially capable of explaining everything.

Who claimed that? You are the one with the worldview that, for you, explains everything. So you expect that any alternative should also be able to do the same. Evolution explains how the diversity of life that we observe originated. It does not explain how life got started or the universe got started, neither of which are impediments to the theory. Nothing in what you've said here or anywhere else adds up to even a tiny weakness in the theory of evolution.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

robindch wrote: »

I satiruzed it (heavy-handedly, in case you wouldn't notice that it was satire).

No doubt you've a view of your posting quality and that may or may not be accurate in the main.

To me however, you're a popcorn-thrower (for that is all I ever see you do) who hasn't a track record (in discussion with me) to warrant being taken on anything but face value.

Satirists have to earn their stripes. You ain't..

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then again, I don't see how the average person (or even the above average person) could conclude ToE true other than by believing scientists when they say it is. Any old idiot can grasp the simplistic mechanics of random mutation providing options + natural selection sifting out those options.
But whether such a thing could actually work in practice would take professional expertise.

Indeed, you'd have to wonder whether a scientist in one field would be capable of understanding for himself, the science of evolution in another field such would be the complexities involved.

You seem to be painting the ToE as some monstrously complex theory. As you say yourself, any old idiot can see how evolution is pretty much inevitable when you have inheritance, selection, and replication. The nitty gritty details of exactly how it works can be complicated, but the basic concept isn't hard to grasp.

You can understand that cooling water turns it from liquid to solid without having to understand that sometimes the result will be snowflakes. The theory that water below 0C will become solid doesn't alter. Similarly you can easily understand the basic thrust of evolution without knowing the finer details.

The implications of the ToE, though, seem to be the real problem for opponents, so they resort to nit-picking about the theory itself, rather than deal with the implications head on.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Satirists have to earn their stripes. You ain't..

Well, do drop by some of the other threads in A+A sometime

The post you should reply to is this one:

• "Proving" does not happen in the physical world. "Proofs" are done in maths only.
• A fact isn't "true". A fact is a data points whose credibility is sufficiently high that it's provisionally accepted as accurate and therefore, effectively axiomatic, subject to subsequent revision, should it become necessary in the light of further exploration.
• A theory is an explicative, predictive framework for a series of facts. It is not some idiotic notion plucked out of the air and given a thin air of respectability by referring to it as a "theory".
• You can't "prove" a "theory" "true". Ye gods. This is such a fundamental and dreadful misunderstanding of all three terms, that it makes my head hurt.

Do you accept that you have a defective understanding of what "true", "proof", "prove", "theory" and "fact" all mean in the context in which you used them?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Sorry for being a bit obtuse here but: ToE ????

Theory of Evolution. As opposed to observable evolution which wouldn't in itself explain how it all come to be.

No. It is plain that Robin was parodying your position using evolution. You misinterpreted that though, either deliberately or innocently and given your response I'll bet deliberately

Se my response to Robin above. It might be plain to him or you but this is discussion forum world and it's not hard to be misunderstood.

Only in the sense that certain terms in science have meanings which differ from their colloquial meanings. Everything that we call true is only true to a degree and then is only true for as long as it conforms to observation.

Is that statement true?

Is truth as you define it?

Is (or would) God be capable of demonstrating objective truth

Look, let's not kid ourselves here. You have already made your position on evolution quite clear on boards. Here and here for example.

Perhaps you could point out where I'm differing largely with what I've said there? I can think there is more to all this that meets the naturalistic eye whilst at the same time accept that as a scientific explanation, ToE is the very best there is.

Someone who starts a post with "evolution is a theory" is either being deliberately argumentative or is trying to use it as an argument against evolution. Either way I object to it.

And I would object to the just so stories dangling from the theory. There's a different between demonstrating that morality is a product of evolution and supposing that morality is a product of evolution just because evolution is a robust theory.

And for the record, what I said stands, you haven't the first clue how the scientific method works, because if you did you wouldn't have made a claim such as this:

"Accepting the scientific solution to a small puzzle (how life is the way it is) means throwing a spanner in the works of a larger puzzle (the biblical story of God's dealing with and plans for mankind. In short, the larger puzzle works better without evolution and since evolution is but a small spanner, it can be part-dispensed with."

What I said makes no comment about scientific method. It says how I approach the bigger puzzle I see presented before me.

Who claimed that? You are the one with the worldview that, for you, explains everything. So you expect that any alternative should also be able to do the same. Evolution explains how the diversity of life that we observe originated. It does not explain how life got started or the universe got started, neither of which are impediments to the theory. Nothing in what you've said here or anywhere else adds up to even a tiny weakness in the theory of evolution.

Robin was suggesting morality the product of evolution. I'd warrant that a just so story would ensue were he asked to elaborate.

HHobo

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can believe what you like but have no basis to appeal to those wronging you if they believe different. They feel right is being done where you feel wrong is being done. Your objections cancel each others out.

This describes an a-moral system, not a moral one.
Otherwise the complaint is identical to "You think God wants X, he doesn't, he wants Y". These two believers can't agree on what god wants, therefore their positions cancel out.

In the case of the believers arguing amounst themselves, there can disagreement about what is moral and what isn't even when there is a loosely agreed moral framework. The vast majority of people agree on about basic moral tennets to which they add their own subjective moral fudging. This is not equivalent to a moral vacuum.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no such thing as subjective morality as such. There is how much you align with the flavour of God's character (we assign the arbitrary term 'good' to represent what that flavour is). If aligning with his character then you are also doing 'good' and if not then you are doing 'bad'.

The fact that you call 'bad' good is neither here nor there.

God is objectively good only in the sense that his character's flavour is what it is.

Subjective morality is the name given to what a person (a subjective entity) believes to be moral.

Whatever God beleives to be moral is God's subjective view on what is moral. Subjectivity is automatically entailed if a mind is in operation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God instructs (and has a right to instruct) us as to how we behave towards others he has made. This is different to his rights to behave towards those he has made and who are subject to him

"Broke the law? I can't break the law. I am the law"
-Judge Dredd.....and God.

Maybe parents should be allowed to kill their children if they please.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Neither do I (in the sense that he is faced with choice between good and evil. Per the above: what God does is automatically good simply because 'good' is a word that simply describes the flavour and character of God

God has no reasons behind his morality. It is purely arbitrary. Ok.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Much can be said but suffice to say that folk do things knowing that the outcome won't be good. Heroin anyone?

Sin is even more addictive than heroin

I'm confident that if the guaranteed result of taking heroin was eternal torture, nobody would touch it.
Sin is addictive. No it isn't!

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not the argument.

The argument is that folk a) suppress knowledge that morality is absolute rendering it necessarily subjective b) don't act as if morality is subjective thereby contradicting the conclusion of a)

Cognitive dissonance is the internet discussion forum term for it.

Most people think their opinions are an accurate reflection of reality. If they didn't, they wouldn't hold those opinions. This is not equivalent to thinking that their opinions are facts.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was speaking of the houseowner feeling wronged when the burglar isn't restrain by the houseowners morality.

It's a pretty useless thing to feel wronged when no one has wronged you (from their perspective).

This argument holds equally for someone who believes in God and his moral commands.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The argument isn't attempting to prove a position. Instead, it suggests what would be the case IF God exists. Conclusions drawn in that manner can be uncomfortable for the atheist position.

Witness post 19

Yeah, if Shiva does actually exist, there might be trouble!

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

robindch wrote: »

"Proving" does not happen in the physical world. "Proofs" are done in maths only.

I said as much in pointing out that you couldn't prove ToE

A fact isn't "true".

I didn't say it was. I said theories aren't proven to be fact or true. The emphasis was on what you (satirically) were saying had been done: proving

A theory is an explicative, predictive framework for a series of facts. It is not some idiotic notion plucked out of the air and given a thin air of respectability by referring to it as a "theory".

Relevance?

You can't "prove" a "theory" "true". Ye gods. This is such a fundamental and dreadful misunderstanding of all three terms, that it makes my head hurt.

Already addressed: the problem stems from my not picking up your satire.

Do you accept that you have a defective understanding of what "true", "proof", "prove", "theory" and "fact" all mean in the context in which you used them?

Got it yet?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I said as much in pointing out that you couldn't prove ToE

Nope. You appear to think that biologists believe that it is both provable and proved. I pointed out that this is a class-error. You're now switching horses mid-race.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I didn't say it was. I said theories aren't proven to be fact or true. The emphasis was on what you (satirically) were saying had been done: proving

And both oldrandwisr and I have pointed out that no theory can be proven, nor can it be "true" in the religious sense you appear to use the word.

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote:

A theory is an explicative, predictive framework for a series of facts. It is not some idiotic notion plucked out of the air and given a thin air of respectability by referring to it as a "theory".

Relevance?

You don't know what a theory is. I'm trying to explain it to you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Already addressed: the problem stems from my not picking up your satire.

Fair enough. But you still don't really appear to understand what the words "theory", "true", "prove", "proof" and "fact" mean in a scientific context, nor do you appear to understand how to use them.

From the point of view of having a discussion, you're doing the equivalent of showing up in a Rugby forum and complaining that the ball isn't shaped like a soccer ball.

oldrnwisr

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is that statement true?

Is truth as you define it?

Is (or would) God be capable of demonstrating objective truth

You see, this is exactly what I pointed out in my last post. You are conflating the usage of truth as applied in mathematics and logic with that as applied in experimental science.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps you could point out where I'm differing largely with what I've said there? I can think there is more to all this that meets the naturalistic eye whilst at the same time accept that as a scientific explanation, ToE is the very best there is.

Well, firstly, you mention in the second post I linked to that you're not an "evolutionist" and yet you still think that natural selection is the best explanation available. So which is it?

Secondly, what I was pointing out in that post is that you don't accept evolution as your previous posts demonstrate so your original coment to Robin was really just arguing in bad faith.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And I would object to the just so stories dangling from the theory. There's a different between demonstrating that morality is a product of evolution and supposing that morality is a product of evolution just because evolution is a robust theory.

The evolution of morality or more specifically the development of morality as a product of natural selection is not a just-so story. It is a demonstrable phenomenon which is well-supported by evidence. Like this for example:

Books

The Origins of Virtue

Adaptation and Natural Selection

The Moral Landscape


Research

The evolution of reciprocal altruism

Fairness vs. reason in the ultimatum game

Five rules for the evolution of cooperation

The evolution of the golden rule

Volunteering as Red Queen mechanism in public goods games"


There should be enough there to illustrate my point but if not I'll happily post more. Morality is an emergent property of civilisation. It is not handed down by some external lawgiver, neither is it based on subjective feelings like your awful strawman. There's no just-so story just solid science.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I said makes no comment about scientific method. It says how I approach the bigger puzzle I see presented before me.

Of course it does. What you are saying in that comment is that, however well founded the theory of evolution might be and supported by evidence, since it doesn't fit within the larger framework of your biblical worldview, it should be discarded. That's as unscientific as it's possible to be. Despite your eagerness to distance yourself from American-style creationists, one can't help but see the similarities in your positions:

Answers in Genesis wrote:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

robindch wrote: »

Nope. You appear to think that biologists believe that it is both provable and proved.

You, (albeit in satirical mode) were first to claim it was proven. There's been no mention made of biologists by me at any point.

I (reading you at face value) point out that it ToE wasn't proveable.

You (now out of satire mode) agree that it isn't proveable.

I pointed out that this is a class-error. You're now switching horses mid-race.

Au cointreau Robiny. You agree with my counter as to what cannot be done with evolution. And now hop out of satire mode..


Your move..

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder

Apologies for not reading the 34 pages, but what kind of evidence/proof should we be asking for, any examples ?

Dades

That was kinda the question.

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder

Indeed, but what's the answer ?

Geomy

You won't get it here,it would be easier to extract DNA from a fossel of a shell imbedded in a lump of stone on top of Croagh Patrick

pauldla

34 pages on and we're still working it out. It's got something to do with the number 19, apparently.

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder

Yeah but I'm interested in what rational atheists would consider as proper evidence / proof, not crazy theists

Peregrinus

Well, the poll results above tell us that the favoured evidence is "Scientific physical evidence validated by scientific experts", which 59% of respondents would accept.

Of course, the poll results don't tell us which of the respondents are rational atheists and which are crazy theists (or for that matter, which are crazy atheists and which are rational theists). But they do name all the respondents, so if you want to turn the thread into a complete trollfest you could go through the names and pronounce yourself on who is a rational atheist and who is not.

(Alternatively, you could take the view that anyone who would accept scientific physical evidence to prove metaphysical claims is necessarily not entirely rational.)

HHobo

Peregrinus wrote: »

(Alternatively, you could take the view that anyone who would accept scientific physical evidence to prove metaphysical claims is necessarily not entirely rational.)

This is true to some extent. However, I don't think anyone is suggesting that scientific evidence would "prove" beyond a doubt in the mathematical sense that metaphysical claims are true. If a guy appears claiming to be Jesus, starts resuscitating people who've been dead for years, cures cancer and all other ailments reliably in 100% of cases, is very handy to have at a party for his wine provisioning abilities etc. etc. If this guy is able to defy any phsyical law at will, it wouldn't prove his claims were true but it would be relevant and relatively persuasive evidence. It might well be enough to persuade many atheists that the biblical narrative in general is true. It might "prove" it to them in the "sufficent for us to accept the claim as true" sense, which I would guess was the OP's intent.

Lelantos

HHobo wrote: »

This is true to some extent. However, I don't think anyone is suggesting that scientific evidence would "prove" beyond a doubt in the mathematical sense that metaphysical claims are true. If a guy appears claiming to be Jesus, starts resuscitating people who've been dead for years, cures cancer and all other ailments reliably in 100% of cases, is very handy to have at a party for his wine provisioning abilities etc. etc. If this guy is able to defy any phsyical law at will, it wouldn't prove his claims were true but it would be relevant and relatively persuasive evidence. It might well be enough to persuade many atheists that the biblical narrative in general is true. It might "prove" it to them in the "sufficent for us to accept the claim as true" sense, which I would guess was the OP's intent.

It may also prove the existence of vastly superior intelligent extra terrestrial life though

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

You, (albeit in satirical mode) were first to claim it was proven. There's been no mention made of biologists by me at any point. I (reading you at face value) point out that it ToE wasn't proveable. You (now out of satire mode) agree that it isn't proveable. Au cointreau Robiny. You agree with my counter as to what cannot be done with evolution. And now hop out of satire mode.

Your move.

I think we should agree on the game we're playing first since I've no idea what you're trying to convey by the above.

I'm playing the dialectic. What are you playing?

HHobo

robindch wrote: »

I think we should agree on the game we're playing first since I've no idea what you're trying to convey by the above.

I'm playing the dialectic. What are you playing?

I think you are both playing "ooh snap!"

pauldla

robindch wrote: »

I think we should agree on the game we're playing first since I've no idea what you're trying to convey by the above.

I'm playing the dialectic. What are you playing?

There are times I think we'd be better off playing the scalextric.:pac:

seamus

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder wrote: »

Yeah but I'm interested in what rational atheists would consider as proper evidence / proof, not crazy theists

I think the only conclusion that has been reached from this thread is that it is impossible to define what evidence is required until someone defines what "God" is.

So far nobody seems to be able to provide any coherent definition of "God".

Peregrinus

Lelantos wrote: »

It may also prove the existence of vastly superior intelligent extra terrestrial life though

That's my point. If I demonstrate to you the reality of a phenomenon which you can't explain by by reference to natural causes, you might be tempted to concede that, yes, this must be supernatural. But in fact the extreme likelihood is that the cause are natural; you just haven't identified or understood them.

So, for example, the reality of bolts of lightning is easily demonstrated, and for a long time they were ascribed to supernatural causes, but when scientific knowledge and technology were sufficiently advanced, we identified a natural cause. Similarly, if I turned water into wine, you might not be able to explain the phenomenon that you had witnessed, but that wouldn't mean it was supernatural; it could equally be natural but not yet understood.

HHobo

seamus wrote: »

I think the only conclusion that has been reached from this thread is that it is impossible to define what evidence is required until someone defines what "God" is.

So far nobody seems to be able to provide any coherent definition of "God".

For the purposes of this discussion, just assume the God in question is Yahweh.
It doesn't really matter which of the personal God's you pick. This was the question asked by the OP.

Definitionally that would be something like:

Ominpotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator of the universe. Timeless, spaceless, person-god (as in possesing a discrete mind).

This God may or may not be an interventionist and may or may not act on intercessory prayer. Assume that this entity is responsible for at least one of the monotheistic holy books and conforms to one of these narratives.