Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…243244246248249…327

Comments

  • #7352
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    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.


  • #7353
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭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?


  • #7354
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    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.


  • #7355
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭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.


  • #7356
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #7357
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭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.


  • #7358
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    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.


  • #7359
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    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.

    None at all? Then I reiterate my sympathies from above. However this paragraph really does confirm my suspicion that you can making the "proof" error I described. Science does not "definitely prove" anything. At all. It just tends towards a truth using massive substantiation.

    Take for example the speed of light in a vacuum. We have tested and tested and tested this and we say with massive confidence that we know what it is. However who is to say that at the "other side" of the universe it is not different. We simply do not know. ALL we can say is that given the evidence we have the claim that we know the speed of light in a vaccum is highly likely to be an accurate claim.

    We __Prove nothing at all__ to be "definitely" true though. Science just does not work that way.

    I do hope though that if you re-evaluate your words and position on this matter that you will find that the claim that there are people in your life that love you is in fact.... while not conclusively 100% proven.... at least heavily substantiated by quite a lot of evidence.

    If you need to bring those people into a lab to test that the right areas of their brain light up when they think about you, that the hormone levels in their blood change at the right level, and that their galvanic skin responses match the expect norms for people in love.... then by all means do so... but it is unfortunate it has to come to that.

    Again the analogy falls down however as we are comparing a heavily substantiated claim (such as my wife loves me) to an entirely unsubstantiated one (that there is a god).

    The difference is not subtle. Or small.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    So someone cured of back pain and flung backwards by an invisible force on The God Channel won't suffice then ?

    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.
    Lapis lazuli wrote: »
    It's only evidence if you change the definition of evidence back to something that affirms your belief in God.

    My own definition of "Evidence" is quite simple actually and quite unlimiting. I define it as a process more than a thing. I define the process as follows:

    1) State exactly and clearly exactly what it is you are claiming.
    2) List exactly and clearly the things you feel substantiate the claim in 1).
    3) Explain clearly how the things listed in 2 support the claim made in 1).

    Any person who follows those three steps has put themselves in a position that is amenable to discourse and consideration from those around them. Alas the process I see normally followed, especially on threads like this one is:

    1) Vaguely make some claim that something called "god" exists.
    2) Randomly list some stuff like "personal experience" or restate the claim in 1 in a few "Begging the question" type forms.
    3) Run.


  • #7360
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    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.

    It was intended as tongue in cheek. You'd have to be down a marble to suppose Benny Hinn and his ilk as anything but shysters. This is the guy who claimed that Jesus Christ was going to physically manifest beside him - on stage.

    But one of many failed prophecies..


  • #7361
    Lapis lazuli
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 37 ✭Lapis lazuli


    Morbert wrote: »
    Healing an amputee does not demonstrate that God must have done it.

    That's why I was trying to gauge why you personally consider it evidence, rather than say evidence for some other entity / occurrence.
    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.

    Sure, that's why I'm trying to get an idea of what incidents would and why. In your case, it's the healing of an amputee.
    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.

    What kind of personal experience would you find convincing for you personally ?
    At this time however I think you and I agree: The idea there is a god is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated.

    I would agree it is unsubstantiated for you, and presumably for most atheists.
    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.

    Not really, some theists say they will only accept scientific evidence, some say otherwise, I'm just trying to obtain examples of the different types of evidence/incidents different atheists would accept. In Morbert's case that example was the healing of an amputee.[/quote]

    What I'm interested in is examples of evidence / incidents / experience you personally, as an atheist, would find convincing and why.


  • Advertisement
  • #7362
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Lapis lazuli wrote: »
    I would agree it is unsubstantiated for you, and presumably for most atheists.

    Unsubstantiated for christians too. That is why its called belief, because the evidence is insufficient to substantiate existence of god.


  • #7363
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Unsubstantiated for christians too. That is why its called belief, because the evidence is insufficient to substantiate existence of god.


    That would depend on what you understand by the word substantiation. If it were true that the only valid form of substantiation was empirically based substantiation then your claim would be correct.

    Were it only that you could substantiate your own belief


  • #7364
    Lapis lazuli
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 37 ✭Lapis lazuli


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Unsubstantiated for christians too. That is why its called belief, because the evidence is insufficient to substantiate existence of god.

    If that's the case, then that brings us back to how, in the case of Morbert, does a healed amputee become suffient evidence to substantiate the 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

    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 ?


  • #7365
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    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

    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.

    For example Gallileo didn't say to the world "the heliocentric model is correct", only for the world to say "we don't believe you", and for him to reply "what evidence would you accept to believe my hypothesis". He published the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, laying out the evidence for the heliocentric model (as first expoused by Copernicus, and developed by others including himself), and said "the heliocentric model, according to our current knowledge, is correct, and here is my evidence", only for the church to say "that goes against scripture, therefore you have to be wrong", and ban his book. Note the responsibility for evidence in the progression. At all times Gallileo was responsible for looking for, examining and furnishing the evidence to prove his case, not those arguing against.


  • #7366
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,649 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Were it only that you could substantiate your own belief

    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?

    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.
    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 ?

    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.

    You've been on this bogus rationale for pages now without actually attempting to GIVE ANY EVIDENCE. A fairly crude attempt to make the ones demanding evidence for the god claim seem unreasonable because we might dare to question the evidence put forth.

    As before , we dont really question that sunlight comes from the sun, because the evidence is there in droves to support the claim. And we certainly don't attempt to refute it by saying science can't prove to a certainty its not a giant alien lightbulb. If we did we'd never get anything done.


  • #7367
    Lapis lazuli
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 37 ✭Lapis lazuli


    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.

    I'm not trying to prove God, I'm asking for an example of what evidence you personally would accept as evidence.

    In Morbert's case, we've established that evidence for him, is a healed amputee.

    Would you consider that evidence ?

    Or would you require something else, e.g. God appearing in front of you ?


  • #7368
    Lapis lazuli
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 37 ✭Lapis lazuli


    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.

    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.

    Would you consider Morbert's definition of evidence as evidence, or again, as atheists are not homogenous, do you require something else ?


  • #7369
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,649 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    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.

    You did actually, because no sooner than he said it, you replied that it "could be a powerful alien".

    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.


    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.


  • #7370
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    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.

    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.


    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?

    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. Faith is often mistaken to mean without any substance whatsoever. When it means non empirical substance.

    So reworking your statement above:
    The onus MUST be on the claim maker to substantiate.

    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.





    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.

    This is known as a non-sequitur.


    As i explained previously. You haven't defined God with any concrete properties.

    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)

    If you could step away from that particular vehicle for a moment you too could see the sheer arrogance of such a position. "If I and those like me can't detect it, it doesn't exist".


  • #7371
    Lapis lazuli
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 37 ✭Lapis lazuli


    Virgil° wrote: »
    You did actually, because no sooner than he said it, you replied that it "could be a powerful alien"..

    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 ?

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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 ?


  • Advertisement
  • #7372
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,649 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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. There has to be an axiom somewhere otherwise we can never reasonably assume anything.
    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?
    I would much prefer the have evidence that can deal in the currency of spiritual reality than evidence which cannot.

    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.
    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.
    Ah here we are. If you don't believe you can't see. Is that it?
    This is known as a non-sequitur.

    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?



    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)
    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.


  • #7373
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    The amount of advancement we've made as a species under empirical evidence has been imeasureable and under others, not so much

    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.

    I remember someone talking of colonizing other areas of space as an answer :)




    Tell me what faith is then?

    It's evidence. Just in a currency suited for the task.


    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.

    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.



    Ah here we are. If you don't believe you can't see. Is that it?

    That's potentially the problem - you must yourself agree. It's not dealt with by waving your hand either.



    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.


  • #7374
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,649 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    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.

    You want an empirical substantiation for empirical substantiation itself?



    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.

    Actually axioms as a base point are "logical" or "mathematical". And thus far pretty much all advances have come from allowing them as true and building on top of them empirically. Its nothing to do with what I wish.

    I wish it were axiomatic that humans could fly unaided. We can't unfortunately.



    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.
    White noise as far as I'm concerned. I could literally make up whatever crock I like using the above logic. Pink leprachauns and floating teapots harmonize 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.
    Good for you, that doesn't mean you can just place god up there alongside the physical world in terms of probability of existence.


    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.
    You think belief in god created the piano? You don't get to just piggyback "spirituality" or "another dimension" or whatever nonsense on top of enjoyment of sound and claim them inseperable.
    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.
    Excuse my language but are you having a ****ing laugh?

    Would you prefer a return to the days where wolves carried off newborns, a large percentage of women die in childbirth and the 30 year old was considered the village elder? Where getting an infection was a death sentence? If you feel that way, turn off your computer and go live in a cave surely?
    This is just scaremongering nonsense, nothing more.
    It's evidence. Just in a currency suited for the task.
    A currency suited for your task. Fitting evidence to the conclusion seems to be pretty prevelant round these parts unfortunately.



    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.
    You've admitted thus far, that empirical evidence, that which has done the most to advance ourselves as a race isn't what you would use to show gods existence.
    The only reason i see for that is because it would do the opposite.




    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.

    Alas you've not actually detailed your method at all. What extra sensory pereption do you use, that i cannot access for whatever reason, to achieve this knowledge?
    But it is only an assumption. And so, your conclusions needn't necessarily follow since your assumption might not be right. Hence Non Sequitur.
    I said that people are happy to rely on empiricism for day to day life driving, cooking, flying whatever, all things built by empirical methods. But then throw it out the window with regards to god creating the universe. And you claimed Non-sequitar. You yourself admit you do this when it comes to god. Im still not seeing the non sequitar.
    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.

    The initial claim being made, as per the thread, by theists, is that god exists.
    This is the first claim. First and foremost they must back this up, using methods accessible to all. If they can't do this then we can't continue.



    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.

    Not the point. How we use the advancement in knowledge is secondary to the fact that we made the advancement to begin with. Something we've yet to experience by your mystery methods.


    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.
    Work away, I won't stop you, so long as you're not trying to step on my toes so to speak. However if you're going to try claim that God,that you know exists somehow, created the universe as we determine it empirically then your spirituality is encroaching GROSSLY upon that which we determine empirically, without so much as a: here's how we did it.
    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.

    Try leap off a cliff so? See where spirituality will get you.


  • #7375
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,649 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    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 ?

    Again,
    1: if you said a property was that your god can cure amputees
    2: reproducibly show me this happening
    3: Unless I can find a better explanation ill accept it as evidence for what you claim.

    This is the only way it can happen and you keep skipping to step 3.



    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.
    Well this is up to them in that case. The airport or whatever, in exchange for using their services. Asks for substantiation of identity, and have decided that a passport or whatever will suffice as.

    The claim however that God exists and created the universe is absolutely awesome when compared to claim of identity and must be evidenced by the same amount more.

    Extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.




    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 ?

    And your defined God stumbles at the first hurdle.

    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.

    I've detailed enough about your latter point earlier on.


  • #7376
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    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.

    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


  • #7377
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,649 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    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
    In which case Lapis would be claiming to know something that a human brain can't figure out. Still leaves him at square 1.
    I never suggested that we abandon the enquiry, just that Lapis doesn't have the end result sitting in front of him.


  • #7378
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    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.

    I would say the the existence of God can be tackled, in part, with metaphysics, but I think it is a much simpler question. A God that hides is not particularly compelling, and most Christians would want to argue that God can be "seen" to exist in some form or another.


  • #7379
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Virgil° wrote: »
    Omnipotent vs Omniscient

    Which of the various constructs for each of those two words work to make a paradox?

    (You, of course, need to be able to answer "all" otherwise your logically impossible God has found a gap.)


  • #7380
    Virgil°
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,649 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Which of the various constructs for each of those two words work to make a paradox?

    Can god make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?


  • Advertisement
  • #7381
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It was intended as tongue in cheek.

    My apologies. I guess in a thread of unsubstantiated nonsense claims... tongue in cheek jokes are hard to distinguish from the rest.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You'd have to be down a marble to suppose Benny Hinn and his ilk as anything but shysters.

    Amazing how many of them believe their own nonsense though. The guy I linked to was seemingly so sure of his mental powers and ability to throw trained fighters to the ground that he not only put himself in a fighting ring with a trained fighter from another school.... but put a wad of his own cash on the line in a "bet" for it too.

    The result, on you tube if you are into that kind of thing, is a confused old man being punched in the face until he bleeds. Thankfully not all nonsense claims have to have such a violent clash with reality.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    This is the guy who claimed that Jesus Christ was going to physically manifest beside him - on stage.

    If you presuppose an all powerful god then such a claim is no more (or less) nonsense than any other that theists make. With "god" all things are possible.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement