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 ?
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?
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.
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.
antiskeptic wrote: » What do you say to those who have examined that which you reject and conclude other than you?
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.
Lapis lazuli wrote: » It is true to say, that if you rule all of that out as being evidence, then there is no evidence.
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.
Lapis lazuli wrote: » Is it strictly scientific evidence you seek ?
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.
Lapis lazuli wrote: » Science is wonderful, but it won't provide evidence for everything in life. It's the physical how, not the why.
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.
Lapis lazuli wrote: » 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.
antiskeptic wrote: » So someone cured of back pain and flung backwards by an invisible force on The God Channel won't suffice then ?
Lapis lazuli wrote: » It's only evidence if you change the definition of evidence back to something that affirms your belief in God.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I do not think I would accept anything on television as evidence for such a claim. In fact I do not even think YOU would. Or do you, for example, think Yanagi Ryuken has super mind powers given the sheer number of people he can "clearly" throw around with "invisible force"? EDIT: Ah I see morbert beat me to it with a similar example.
Morbert wrote: » Healing an amputee does not demonstrate that God must have done it.
Morbert wrote: » 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.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 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.
At this time however I think you and I agree: The idea there is a god is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated.
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: » I would agree it is unsubstantiated for you, and presumably for most atheists.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » Unsubstantiated for christians too. That is why its called belief, because the evidence is insufficient to substantiate existence of god.
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
Lapis lazuli wrote: » Good. As Morbert has done, can you give us an example of what scientific evidence you personally would accept for God's existence, and why it would be evidence of God ?
meeeeeeee! 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
antiskeptic wrote: » Were it only that you could substantiate your own belief
Good. As Morbert has done, can you give us an example of what scientific evidence you personally would accept for God's existence, and why it would be evidence of God ?
Brian Shanahan wrote: » It is not for me to tell you what evidence would prove god. It is for you to bring me what you think is evidence which would prove god, and for me to subsequently do your job for you.
Virgil° wrote: » As i explained previously. You haven't defined God with any concrete properties. So we have no idea what you're talking about. If we attempt to answer the question you can just shift the goalposts.
Lapis lazuli wrote: » As this is the Christianity forum, you can take God as the Christian definition of God. Morbert was perfectly able to answer the question and it hasn't shifted any goal posts.
Virgil° wrote: » You can't substantiate a lack of belief. And neither should anyone have to. Otherwise you'd have to substantiate arguments against all kinds of unsubstantiated nonsense. The onus MUST be on the claim maker to substantiate.
It makes sense to elevate empirical evidence as the most important type. I can understand why theists don't really want to when it comes to god. But if we took that attitude towards everything society would fall apart. Imagine a bridge that was built using faith, hearsay mixed with a small nuggets of rationale, would you be happy to cross it in a heavy truck? What about getting into a plane that was built by un-empirical methods?
The onus MUST be on the claim maker to substantiate.
Its nonsensical to value empirical evidences when dealing with day to day life but for some reason throw it all out the window when it comes to one of the most important questions man has ever posed.
As i explained previously. You haven't defined God with any concrete properties.
Virgil° wrote: » You did actually, because no sooner than he said it, you replied that it "could be a powerful alien"..
Virgil° wrote: » But we don't take this approach to anything else substantiated heavily with evidence because we'd end up in an unending loop of second guessing everything no matter how heavily substantiated it is.
Virgil° wrote: » There are many different sects of Christianity, all claiming different things about him. So help me out here. Give me a few reproducible testable properties of the Christian god? So you know, we can actually attempt to verify that hes there.
antiskeptic wrote: » Indeed. And I'm asking that Brian substantiate his belief that in order for a belief to be deemed substantiated, one must necessarily restrict oneself, on the way there, to ploughing an empirical furrow.
In addition for presenting a non-empirical argument to substantiate the belief that empricism is the only/best way to substantiate a belief (and in so doing you contradict yourself since you are restricted to providing empirical proof of your position, not philosophical argumentation), you suppose seem to be labouring under the typical atheist misunderstanding about what faith (at least Christian faith) is.
I would much prefer the have evidence that can deal in the currency of spiritual reality than evidence which cannot.
So reworking your statement above: There are two parties in this: the person making the claim and the person demanding the evidence. Now what would happen if the person who would receive the evidence is blind. That is: unable to receive it? The problem can lie with the recipient as easily as it does with the claimant.
This is known as a non-sequitur.
It would be better not to switch things around. Brian is making a claim. I'm merely suggesting he (and you, who make it too) can't actually support it. You can go on about the utility of empiricism (about which I've no issue when it comes to dealing with the empirical world) but are leaping when magically supposing all of existence must bow to it (which assumes, blindly, that if it ain't empirical, it don't exist)
Virgil° wrote: » We can SHOW, with numerous examples, empirical evidence at work and functioning fully. From the car you drive to the coffee machine you use. The same cannot be said for any methods thus far for substantiating the god claim.
There has to be a floor somewhere. Otherwise you'll fall down the same hole, where whatever method you posit for gaining substantiation will require something to substantiate it also.
As i've said before I suspect this is what some theists here want. We can't really know anything, therefore God is as likely as the rest.
The amount of advancement we've made as a species under empirical evidence has been imeasureable and under others, not so much
Tell me what faith is then?
Of course you would because any evidence of the kind that has actually shown to be reproducible and have advanced our species will shred the idea of a god. You've admitted as much.
Ah here we are. If you don't believe you can't see. Is that it?
That many theists who use modern technology built on empirical evidence for some reason don't like using empirical evidence for the god claim? Its a single statement. What doesn't follow what to your mind?[/quote What if everything isn't to be accessed empirically. That would be a reason not to "use empirical evidence" apart from not liking to. It's your assumption - a philosophy known as Empiricism - that everything that can be is to be accessed empirically (or else it doesn't exist) which is guiding your thinking. But it is only an assumption. And so, your conclusions needn't necessarily follow since your assumption might not be right. Hence Non Sequitur. He asking you to substantiate YOUR claim. If you read back you'll see that I didn't make one: he made a claim to someone else and I interjected challenging his claim. But no matter: even if I did and he countered using a claim in the process, I can first establish whether his claim is reasonable before having to respond. That we use the kind of evidence that has served us pretty much every advancement known to date is what you are disputing. For every "advancement" you can think of, I'll think of a corresponding negative. Okay? Which is neither here nor there: that spanners work pretty well on nuts and bolts doesn't mean they are also good for reading voltage. It's not that we are applying empiricism to the spiritual world. It is that YOU and your kin are applying god/spirituality to the empirical world. Remember that it's the philosophy you adhere to (Empiricism in your case) which you are applying to the world. And that is your right as far as I am concerned. I too however, consider it within my remit to shape the world according to the philosophy I adhere to. I don't see how any one philosophy can elbow it's place to the top in any objective sense. The fact is that the world is open to whoever would get up and attempt to exert influence over it.
He asking you to substantiate YOUR claim.
That we use the kind of evidence that has served us pretty much every advancement known to date is what you are disputing.
It's not that we are applying empiricism to the spiritual world. It is that YOU and your kin are applying god/spirituality to the empirical world.
antiskeptic wrote: » That's not answering the question actually asked. I'd remind you that you need to provide an empirical substantiation since empirical substantiation is the only substantiation admissible by you and Brian.
Indeed. And that floor is a philosophical one, not an empirical one. Ultimately you are left to decide yourself whether the philosophy you adhere strikes you a adequate.
Not at all. I know God exists and that knowledge is based on evidence. And that evidence, although not empirical primarily, achieves the same things as empirical evidence does in it's own way: it harmonizes with what I perceive around me.
It might be I'm deluded of course, but I worry about that in the case of God's existence as I do in the case of the physical world I think exists.
If only the world and things of value consisted only of that which was empirically demonstrable! Then I couldn't find a particular piece of music beautiful.
As an aside: all this "advancement" has accelerated the rate at which the world is going to Hell in a handbag. I don't hold out much hope for the world I'm afraid - now that we've figured out ways of consuming all it's resources to exponential degree whilst rendering ourselves able to destroy ourselves on a industrial scale. What do you think is going to happen in a world where diminishing resources aren't restricted to just oil and water .. but everything that goes into making it tick along? Hint: what is the only thing that has ever happened before when different folk decide they want the same thing? I wouldn't want to be around when this groaning Creation is pulverized back down to a level that would make the Stone Age seem luxurious.
It's evidence. Just in a currency suited for the task.
I'm not sure I ever admitted anything produced so far would shred the idea of God. I was making the point that I don't see much use in trying evaluate the non-empirical empirically. That would be a nonsense.
That's potentially the problem - you must yourself agree. It's not dealt with by waving your hand either. What if everything isn't to be accessed empirically. That would be a reason not to "use empirical evidence" apart from not liking to. It's your assumption - a philosophy known as Empiricism - that everything that can be is to be accessed empirically (or else it doesn't exist) which is guiding your thinking.
But it is only an assumption. And so, your conclusions needn't necessarily follow since your assumption might not be right. Hence Non Sequitur.
If you read back you'll see that I didn't make one: he made a claim to someone else and I interjected challenging his claim. But no matter: even if I did and he countered using a claim in the process, I can first establish whether his claim is reasonable before having to respond.
For every "advancement" you can think of, I'll think of a corresponding negative. Okay? Which is neither here nor there: that spanners work pretty well on nuts and bolts doesn't mean they are also good for reading voltage.
Remember that it's the philosophy you adhere to (Empiricism in your case) which you are applying to the world. And that is your right as far as I am concerned. I too however, consider it within my remit to shape the world according to the philosophy I adhere to.
I don't see how any one philosophy can elbow it's place to the top in any objective sense. The fact is that the world is open to whoever would get up and attempt to exert influence over it.
Lapis lazuli wrote: » I asked him why he personally considered it evidence, because I'm interested why he personally considered it evidence for God, rather than evidence for something else. That's not 'goal post shifting'. In exactly the same way, I'm also interested in examples of what other atheists would consider as evidence for God and why. I don't expect any two answers to be the same. E.g. do you consider an amputee being healed as evidence, if not why and what example would you consider as evidence ?
If I'm asked for evidence of identity, a Golf Club is able to specify that a membership card is sufficient for them, an airport will specify a passport as sufficient evidence for them, and a bank may ask for utility bills, passport and drivers licence as evidence, but they will reject the golf club card, or merely a passport on its own. The person claiming the identity, does not have to spend all day at the counter presenting all sorts of evidence that is not acceptable as evidence by the institution, while guessing what the institution will accept as evidence, while facing arguments about the definition of identity and evidence.
Again Morbert was well able to answer the question, but let's pretend you're not familiar with Christianity. God from the broadest Christian point of view is a spirit, the creator that is self existent, eternal, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, just, but merciful and loving etc. but if someone wants to define the Christian God as something slightly different to that for the purposes of discussion here, I've no real problem with that, as my primary interest is what different examples of evidence would atheists consider as evidence for God and why ?
Virgil° wrote: » Omnipotent vs Omniscient So such a being can't logically exist. I didn't even have to use empirical evidence to counter this. You just did all my work for me.
nagirrac wrote: » Just because humans cannot figure something out does not mean it does not exist or cannot exist logically. There are hundreds of known paradoxes, a large number of them in science as the below table summarizes. In fact some of the strongest scientific theories from an empirical standpoint contain significant paradoxes that our primate brains may never figure out. Nobody suggests abandoning science because of all the paradoxes it contains, so why suggest abandoning investigation of the concept of God because of a paradox we have unearthed?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes
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? 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.
Virgil° wrote: » Omnipotent vs Omniscient
antiskeptic wrote: » Which of the various constructs for each of those two words work to make a paradox?
antiskeptic wrote: » It was intended as tongue in cheek.
antiskeptic wrote: » You'd have to be down a marble to suppose Benny Hinn and his ilk as anything but shysters.
antiskeptic wrote: » This is the guy who claimed that Jesus Christ was going to physically manifest beside him - on stage.
