Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 09:50AM

No, there was no evidence either way,

Here's the problem TheLurker is having with you. You say "no evidence", which according to Lurker (unless I'm misunderstanding him/her), you mean "There is no direct evidence".
Direct evidence isn't always needed. We don't need to see a murderer stab his victim, in order for us to piece together clues and come to a conclusion, that maybe, just maybe, he did stab the guy.
In the moon case, we had one side that was visible. This side was full of craters. The processes that led to these craters forming was and is well understood. Although, at that time, we didn't have direct photographs of the far side, we were able to take our understanding of the near side, and extrapolate it to the far side and find that, quite likely, there are craters there too. Our understanding was, that the forces that produced craters on the near side could work on the far side, and there is nothing we could observe that might have prevented them.
In other words, detective work. Having direct photographs helped a great deal of course, to confirm it, but in the end, were not really necessary.

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 09:52AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

So what scientific test would prove Christianity and why ? Give an example . .

Well for one, that it is possible, probable and plausible that a guy could conjure up food to feed a crowd of a few thousand, but that somehow everyone else in the region failed to take note of this, up to and including the Roman military commanders who would have just loved the thought of not needing to worry about supplies for their men while on campaign.
How does that pass the scientific test?

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 09:53AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Here's the problem TheLurker is having with you. You say "no evidence", which according to Lurker (unless I'm misunderstanding him/her), you mean "There is no direct evidence".
Direct evidence isn't always needed. We don't need to see a murderer stab his victim, in order for us to piece together clues and come to a conclusion, that maybe, just maybe, he did stab the guy.
In the moon case, we had one side that was visible. This side was full of craters. The processes that led to these craters forming was and is well understood. Although, at that time, we didn't have direct photographs of the far side, we were able to take our understanding of the near side, and extrapolate it to the far side and find that, quite likely, there are craters there too. Our understanding was, that the forces that produced craters on the near side could work on the far side, and there is nothing we could observe that might have prevented them.
In other words, detective work. Having direct photographs helped a great deal of course, to confirm it, but in the end, were not really necessary.

Ok, so what "non direct" evidence would prove Christianity and why ?
Any examples ?

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 09:53AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

This is interesting, so some atheists demand scientific evidence for Christianity, while other atheist claim nothing can be tested.

So what scientific evidence and tests would you like for Christianity, give us an example.

Some atheists demand scientific evidence for Christianity in order to accept it is an accurate claim about reality. The same atheists know that this is most like impossible to be produced in the first place. Thus they don't accept Christian claims as accurate.

These atheists know that it is most like impossible for Christians to know if their beliefs are accurate or not. Which makes it awfully odd that so many Christians decided that their beliefs are accurate anyway, doesn't it.

And also ... drum roll please ... anti-scientific since science says that you must have scientific theories that have passed tests in order to have confidence in claims about reality.

Cen taurus wrote: »

No, there was no evidence either way, and therefore some people believed the craters existed, and some people didn't.

Ok. So in your mind there was absolutely no evidence that craters existed on the far side of the moon until we physically saw them. The entire near side of the moon and everything we knew about how that worked, and everything we know about how other moons work, and everything we knew about asteroid impacts on other planets and moons etc etc was not evidence for anything on the far side of the moon. Until we actually physically saw the craters no evidence what so ever for their existence was there.

Here is hoping you never get on a jury, unless you physically observe the crime happening yourself you will say there is no evidence for it. :pac:

Anyway, ok then. Thank you for clarifying you are using your own very particular definition of the word 'evidence'. It will make your posts much clearer in the further for everyone else.

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 09:54AM

TheLurker wrote: »

Some atheists demand scientific evidence for Christianity in order to accept it is an accurate claim about reality. The same atheists know that this is most like impossible to be produced in the first place. Thus they don't accept Christian claims as accurate.

These atheists know that it is most like impossible for Christians to know if their beliefs are accurate or not. Which makes it awfully odd that so many Christians decided that their beliefs are accurate anyway, doesn't it.

Ok. So in your mind there was absolutely no evidence that craters existed on the far side of the moon until we physically saw them. The entire near side of the moon and everything we knew about how that worked, and everything we know about how other moons work, and everything we knew about asteroid impacts on other planets and moons etc etc was no evidence. Until we physically saw the craters no evidence for the existence was there.

Here is opening you never get on a jury, unless you physically observe the crime happening yourself you will say there is no evidence for it. :pac:

Well ok then.

Thank you for clarifying you are using your own very particular definition of the word 'evidence'. It will make your posts much clearer in the further for everyone else.

Glad to see that you and I are on the same page when it comes to discussing evidence.

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 09:54AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Well for one, that it is possible, probable and plausible that a guy could conjure up food to feed a crowd of a few thousand, but that somehow everyone else in the region failed to take note of this, up to and including the Roman military commanders who would have just loved the thought of not needing to worry about supplies for their men while on campaign.
How does that pass the scientific test?

It doesn't, nor does it fail it either.

Now back to what you were actually asked :

What scientific test would prove Christianity and why ? Give an example . .

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 09:55AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Ok, so what "non direct" evidence would prove Christianity and why ?
Any examples ?

Since you're the guy who believes this religion, how about you? Why should I take the time and effort to come up with such things, when I don't believe it?

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 09:56AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

It doesn't, nor does it fail it either.

Now back to what you were actually asked :

What scientific test would prove Christianity and why ? Give an example . .

It fails the scientific test in that it cannot be demonstrated or repeated. You kinda need that.

Your religion claims Jesus fed thousands. How come no-one else in the region looked at this? How come the Roman commanders never took note of this?

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 09:58AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

It fails the scientific test in that it cannot be demonstrated or repeated. You kinda need that.

There was a scientist there taking a test ? News to me.

What scientific test would prove Christianity and why ? Give an example . .

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 10:00AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

What scientific test would prove Christianity and why ? Give an example . .

I'm not going to take the time and effort to come up with such an example. Again, I have no stake in proving Chrisitianity true. You do. You're the one who believes it. Ergo, burden of proof is on you. YOU try to come up with a scientific test that Christianity passes.

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 10:03AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Glad to see that you and I are on the same page when it comes to discussing evidence.

I think he is trying to argue that we all accept beliefs without evidence and thus there is nothing irrational about Christian belief that an invisible deity exists.

To do that though he is inventing his own notion of 'without evidence' means.

We certain accept the existence of things we have not seen, but we do not do that without evidence to support their existence. That evidence does not require that it is an observation of the thing itself, you can infer existence of something by studying the system that would produce it, such as inferring the existence of craters on the far side of the moon by studying the existence of craters on the near side of the moon. These craters would be evidence in support of the existence of far side craters. Likewise life on Earth would be evidence in support of life on other planets, since we have a reasonable grasp on the processes required to produce life on Earth and a reasonable understanding that those processes operate else where in the universe.

This of course is a world away from supposing the existence of gods based on nothing.

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 10:04AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm not going to take the time and effort to come up with such an example. Again, I have no stake in proving Chrisitianity true. You do. You're the one who believes it. Ergo, burden of proof is on you. YOU try to come up with a scientific test that Christianity passes.

There isn't one that I know of, that's why I don't demand one, it's a belief.

If there is a scientific test you want let us know what it is, and why it would prove Christianity.

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 10:07AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

There isn't one that I know of

So how do Christians support the belief in the accuracy of Christian claims?

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 10:07AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

There isn't one that I know of, that's why I don't demand one, it's a belief.

If there is a scientific test you want let us know what it is, and why it would prove Christianity.

So there's nothing scientific at all about Christianity. The various claims of what Jesus did, they are not historical at all (since history is a science). Your belief is based on nothing that can be demonstrated, nothing at all that can be shown to actually be true. There's no foundation to show, nothing to set it apart from any of the other thousands of thoughts what reality actually is like that themselves are without foundation.
You are quite happy believing something without ever subjecting it to a test, to see if it actually is true or not (that bit you said about never demanding one).

Thanks for the clarification.

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 10:11AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So there's nothing scientific at all about Christianity. The various claims of what Jesus did, they are not historical at all (since history is a science). Your belief is based on nothing that can be demonstrated, nothing at all that can be shown to actually be true. There's no foundation to show, nothing to set it apart from any of the other thousands of thoughts what reality actually is like that themselves are without foundation.
Thanks for the clarification.

+1

Only thing I would change is 'true' to 'accurate'. It is impossible to show something is 'true' in the sense that is 100% accurate model of the world. A good example of this is Newton's laws of motion were replaced by General Relativity. So Newton's laws are very accurate but not 100% accurate (ie true). General Relativity is more accurate, but again we have no way of knowing if a more accurate system will come along in the future. So we never know if a theory or claim is true in a strict sense, only that it is very accurate. It might be 100% accurate but since we have no way of knowing if something more accurate will eventually come along, we cannot know if it is or not.

The over all point is that Christians cannot support any claim that any of their beliefs are accurate. At all. Not like 95% accurate, but accurate AT ALL. Never mind true.

And it is unscientific to hold these beliefs as accurate if you cannot support that. Science will not let you do that because science knows you cannot support it. If you go and do it anyway you are being anti-scientific, since you are essentially saying science is wrong.

The point seems to have sailed over his head

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 10:12AM

TheLurker wrote: »

I think he is trying to argue that we all accept beliefs without evidence and thus there is nothing irrational about Christian belief that an invisible deity exists.

To do that though he is inventing his own notion of 'without evidence' means.

We certain accept the existence of things we have not seen, but we do not do that without evidence to support their existence. That evidence does not require that it is an observation of the thing itself, you can infer existence of something by studying the system that would produce it, such as inferring the existence of craters on the far side of the moon by studying the existence of craters on the near side of the moon. These craters would be evidence in support of the existence of far side craters. Likewise life on Earth would be evidence in support of life on other planets, since we have a reasonable grasp on the processes required to produce life on Earth and a reasonable understanding that those processes operate else where in the universe.

This of course is a world away from supposing the existence of gods based on nothing.

For the past year or so, I've been hearing non-stop about the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, about how they very likely contain life. How can we make this determination, Cen might ask, since we haven't seen the life (yet)? Simple, by understanding the processes of life here on Earth and studying what we know now about those moons, we can make a probabilistic determination of whether there is life.
I don't believe there is life on those moons or other planets. I believe that it is more likely that there is, versus less likely that there isn't.

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 10:13AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So there's nothing scientific at all about Christianity. The various claims of what Jesus did, they are not historical at all (since history is a science). Your belief is based on nothing that can be demonstrated, nothing at all that can be shown to actually be true. There's no foundation to show, nothing to set it apart from any of the other thousands of thoughts what reality actually is like that themselves are without foundation.
You are quite happy believing something without ever subjecting it to a test, to see if it actually is true or not (that bit you said about never demanding one).

Thanks for the clarification.

When you're finished with the strawman, that leads us back to the question.

Do you want evidence ?

What evidence would you accept, give us an example, and why would it prove Christianity ?

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 10:15AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

When you're finished with the strawman, that leads us back to the question.

Do you want evidence ?

What evidence would you accept, give us an example, and why would it prove Christianity ?

Why do you keep working under the assumption that such evidence must theoretically possible?

It is entirely probable that there is no way to support the accuracy of a claim that a god exists.

Which again makes it awful odd that millions of Christians decide to do this anyway, doesn't it.

I really really hope you are not asserting that until a claim is shown to be false it is reasonable to believe it is true, and thus until a test demonstrates Christianity isn't true it is fine to believe it is? Because holy cow if you are ...

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 10:16AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

When you're finished with the strawman, that leads us back to the question.

Do you want evidence ?

What evidence would you accept, give us an example, and why would it prove Christianity ?

Tisn't a strawman. You yourself said you've never subjected or demanded a scientific test for your religion, therefore, your religion cannot be called scientific.
Without it being scientific, you cannot claim "The claims Christianity makes are an accurate model of reality" and expect to be taken seriously by rational minded people.

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 10:17AM

TheLurker wrote: »

Why do you keep working under the assumption that such evidence must theoretically possible?

It is entirely probable that there is no way to support the accuracy of a claim that a god exists.

Which again makes it awful odd that millions of Christians decide to do this anyway, doesn't it.

So either you want evidence, or you don't, which is it ?

And if you want evidence, what evidence would you accept and why would it prove Christianity ?

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 10:22AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

So either you want evidence, or you don't, which is it ?

Of course I want evidence. That doesn't mean that it therefore must be possible to produce that evidence.

Since you love fallacies so much that is a non-sequitur.

I will not suddenly believe something simply because it has been shown that it is impossible produce evidence for it... I don't even know where to start with hos stupid that idea is :pac:

Cen taurus wrote: »

And if you want evidence, what evidence would you accept and why would it prove Christianity ?

I would accept a testable model that makes predictions that can be shown to match observation to an increasing level of accuracy.

Got any ....?

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 10:25AM

TheLurker wrote: »

I would accept a testable model that makes predictions that can be shown to match observation to an increasing level of accuracy.

Like what , give an example, and why it would prove Christianity for you ?

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 10:31AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Like what , give an example, and why it would prove Christianity for you ?

Again, burden of proof is on you to do this. Newton didn't just stroll into his classroom one day, say "Gravity is a totally real thing" and expected his peers to agree with him, all with nothing to show for it.
He did the work first. He came up with a theory that, after intense scrutiny, passed the scientific test.

What do I hear if I go into mass? I hear sermons, "According to the Gospel of whoever, Jesus did this, Jesus said that".

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 10:44AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Like what

Like the theory of electromagntisic (makes a zillion testable predictions). Or for that matter, the theory that my bus will leave the bus stop at 5.56 (testable claim)

The world is full of theories that make testable predictions. All of science is based on such a principle.

If you want an example of a Christian claim that makes a testable prediction, there isn't one as far as I'm aware. If you have one I'm all ears. If you want from me an example of a theoretical Christian claim that makes testable predictions, the Bible describing electromagnticism as Maxwell did.

Cen taurus wrote: »

, give an example, and why it would prove Christianity for you ?

It wouldn't prove Christianity for me. It would demonstrate for me that a Christian claim is accurately modelling some facet of reality.

silverharp · 22-03-2015 10:44AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Like what , give an example, and why it would prove Christianity for you ?

would you agree that there is no historical evidence that we can go on, if for instance we lined up the 1000 most well known religions and set the task that any of them proved that their religions are not man made ?
The New Testiment says that if you have enough faith you can move a mountain. So if I saw someone claiming to be christian dong that I would consider converting on the spot :pac:

TheLurker · 22-03-2015 10:48AM

silverharp wrote: »

So if I saw someone claiming to be christian dong that I would consider converting on the spot :pac:

Yeah that will do. You would need a lot more to form a consistent theoretical model, but it is a start ... :pac:

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 10:48AM

silverharp wrote: »

would you agree that there is no historical evidence that we can go on, if for instance we lined up the 1000 most well known religions and set the task that any of them proved that their religions are not man made ?
The New Testiment says that if you have enough faith you can move a mountain. So if I saw someone claiming to be christian dong that I would consider converting on the spot :pac:

You don't get it Silverharp. That bit about moving mountains? That was...what's the word? Symbolic? Yeah that's it! He wasn't saying literally you could have anything happen as long as you believe...

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Ohh...:(

For those who don't get my point, there is no point at all to saying things like that if your intended meaning is symbolic. How else are lines like those meant to taken, if not literally? It only makes sense if you read it literally.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch anime for a few hours.

silverharp · 22-03-2015 11:05AM

TheLurker wrote: »

Yeah that will do. You would need a lot more to form a consistent theoretical model, but it is a start ... :pac:

I'd settle for some amputees being healed

Cen taurus · 22-03-2015 11:06AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Again, burden of proof is on you to do this. Newton didn't just stroll into his classroom one day, say "Gravity is a totally real thing" and expected his peers to agree with him, all with nothing to show for it.
He did the work first. He came up with a theory that, after intense scrutiny, passed the scientific test.

If I was making a claim, but I'm not making a claim. Belief is not a claim.
I believe alien life exists out there is not a claim that it does.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What do I hear if I go into mass? I hear sermons, "According to the Gospel of whoever, Jesus did this, Jesus said that".

And you'll also here the word belief emphasised throughout.

RikuoAmero · 22-03-2015 11:08AM

Belief is not a claim.

You keep telling yourself that, hon. Need I remind you what thread you're on?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments