Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nagirrac wrote: »

Is that not the fundamental problem with these kinds of discussions morbert? The question of belief in God is a metaphysical question. It seems to be frequently confused with epistemology which is bad enough, but also with science which is even worse. Do you not agree that basing a claim that God does not exist on the lack of experimental data is a fundamental error of making a metaphysical conclusion from an epistemological position?

(shortened)

I happen to agree that the atheist position is the default epistemological position for humans as we are all born as atheists, but also think one can be skeptical (based on the lack of physical evidence), and empirical (as all scientists must be), but also embrace a metaphysical standpoint that includes a belief in a creator.

Theirs a point where the metaphysical crosses with the empirical though. Otherwise speculating on the existence of God/gods is pointless. At some point God must have been part of or somehow in contact with the empirical otherwise God has nothing to do with the empirical and is irrelevant to any discussion we have as to the nature or purpose of empirical evidence.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

It is not that I have "ruled it out" per se so much as I have not been shown a methodology by which to differentiate between the vast array of "personal experience" out there.

If I accept automatically "personal experience" as evidence then by what means do I accept it for one and not all exactly? If you are aware of a methodology to do so then by all means show it to me.

Until then if I accept it for one I must accept it for all and what makes a personal experience of "god" any more valid than a personal experience of being Napoleon reincarnated (a surprisingly common delusion it seems) or a personal experience of being abducted and anally probed by aliens?

Personal experience and testimony has it's place for sure. We use it in courts of law and many other areas of human discourse. However in isolation it is weak and without a methodology or means to validate it I can not accept it.

That is, as I said, not "ruling it out" per se but I certainly need a hell of a lot more than that on my plate before I can consider it.

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

It is true to say, that if you rule all of that out as being evidence, then there is no evidence.

That is certainly the conclusion I tend strongly towards. I however try not to settle on a conclusion where possible and consider an issue settled. I remain open to any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning should it come to me in the future.

At this time however I think you and I agree: The idea there is a god is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated.

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

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.

I will consider any and all evidence, argument, data or reasoning that is placed before me as openly and honestly as I am capable of doing. As I am not the one making the claim however I am not in a position to tell you what that evidence can, might or must be. Especially given what each person means when they say "god" seems to vary so massively so no set criteria by me will even cover all the people claiming "god" exists.

So no the onus is on the person saying there is a "god" to first tell us exactly what they mean by that claim... and then what they feel substantiates it.

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

Is it strictly scientific evidence you seek ?

No. I very carefully phrased the quote you quoted above to NOT limit the discourse solely to science. It seems theists are more obsessed with science than I am given it is them that always bring it up, not I.

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

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.

Then you have my sympathy as the evidence that the people who say they love me in my life is quite copious and compelling. As with everything, including science, it is not 100% conclusive proof but it is a long way from being unsubstantiated either.

I think you might be making the conclusive proof / substantiation error that is so pervasive in this area of discourse. In science for example we acknowledge nothing at all is proven entirely. We just tend towards conclusions that seem to be the most likely given the evidence.

"Prove" in science does not mean "show to be true" in fact like it does in the vernacular. In science "Prove" means "Test". Hence the otherwise nonsensical phrase "The exception that proves the rule". The phrase is nonsense until you realize that "prove" means "test" and the exception to the norm TESTS the rule.

That people love you, or me, is likely heavily substantiated. It is not 100% proven. It could of course be an elaborate ploy like in that Jim Carey movie where the lead character is actually in a reality TV show and even his Wife is an actor playing a part.

The difference with the god claim is not that it is not conclusive or proven. It is ENTIRELY unsubstantiated in any way whatsoever. The analogy to people loving you therefore is not sound. ESPECIALLY so given science very much can give evidence of "love".

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

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

Another point worth making is that this makes the claims there is a god less credible not more. It is unusual to me how often theists call into question our ability to know anything for sure and present this as if it makes their claims there is a god more credible.

When one presents uncertainty and ignorance as evidence for the credibility of a claim then one is clearly reaching a point of desperation where they are motivated by little more than WANTING the claim to be true. One should at this point reevaluate ones motivation and agenda.

When lack of evidence is essentially being presented AS evidence then warning bells always go off on the panel of lights in my head.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

My capability is just fine thanks. I engage in discussions on this topic on forums and off. In public and in private. In competition debate and informal fun debate. In written word and spoken. And have done for over 18 years now.

If you are aware of any arguments supporting the idea there is a god then I am all ears. Or if you are aware of people who can make such arguments where you can not then feel free to send them my way. You can leave any fears about my capabilities to me to worry about. I do not need my hand held by anyone here.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What do you say to those who have examined that which you reject and conclude other than you?

I engage in discussion with them and ask them to show me their way of thinking and explain to me what they feel I have missed or misinterpreted.

As I said in two posts now however... the usual response I get to this is they run and hide. Not just on this forum either where people have literally quit the forum to escape.... but in real life too.

All I can do for my part is keep an open mind, an open discourse, and keep asking. If you want to misconstrue this as "hubris" in order to get an ad hominem in rather than discuss the thread topic then so be it.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Science is applied empiricism. It operates under the assumption that we experience the world through our senses. This is an assumption that cannot be tested by science. Just as the idea that you are all that exists cannot be tested by science.

Is that not the fundamental problem with these kinds of discussions morbert? The question of belief in God is a metaphysical question. It seems to be frequently confused with epistemology which is bad enough, but also with science which is even worse. Do you not agree that basing a claim that God does not exist on the lack of experimental data is a fundamental error of making a metaphysical conclusion from an epistemological position?

If there was a God operating somewhere in the vastness of the universe we are aware of, say a million light years away, how would we possibly know? If there were a God operating somehow in the 96% of the universe that even by our own limited knowledge we cannot currently define well, how would we possibly know? If our universe is far more vast than we can detect with our senses, how would we possibly know? If our universe is a subset of a larger universe that contains a God, how would we possibly know? If there is indeed a multiverse, how would we know anything about any universe other than the one we observe?

I happen to agree that the atheist position is the default epistemological position for humans as we are all born as atheists, but also think one can be skeptical (based on the lack of physical evidence), and empirical (as all scientists must be), but also embrace a metaphysical standpoint that includes a belief in a creator.

FISMA wrote: »

Morbert,

I have always appreciated your feedback and find your science to be sound.

I had another post going which I hoped you would comment on. Most posters could not grasp the fundamental or simplistic question I was asking. Here's the gist...

Can you think of a scientific test to demonstrate that our memories are working properly?

I cannot and do not believe that there is a scientific test that we can perform to conclude our memory works in the way we believe it does.

If our brains cannot be tested scientifically, how could anyone ever expect that such a device would be a mechanism by which God would be understood?

Science is applied empiricism. It operates under the assumption that we experience the world through our senses. This is an assumption that cannot be tested by science. Just as the idea that you are all that exists cannot be tested by science.

FISMA

Morbert,

I have always appreciated your feedback and find your science to be sound.

I had another post going which I hoped you would comment on. Most posters could not grasp the fundamental or simplistic question I was asking. Here's the gist...

Can you think of a scientific test to demonstrate that our memories are working properly?

I cannot and do not believe that there is a scientific test that we can perform to conclude our memory works in the way we believe it does.

If our brains cannot be tested scientifically, how could anyone ever expect that such a device would be a mechanism by which God would be understood?

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

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

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 ?

Healing an amputee does not demonstrate that God must have done it. And a working plane does not demonstrate there must be an atmosphere. Evidence affirms a belief. It does not show it to be absolutely true, or compel everyone to accept it. Just as there are some who do not accept the abundant evidence that the earth is round, there are atheists who would not accept a healed amputee as evidence for God. This does not mean that all atheists would reject such evidence. Some might raise questions about the authenticity of the story, sure. Such skepticism is always healthy. But a reputable incident (or, even better, incidents) would shake many people's confidence in their atheism. You yourself acknowledge the non-homogeneous nature of atheists.

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.

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.:)

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?

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?

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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 ?

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 !

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

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"?