• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What would count as proof of God

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,803
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
How is that any more dumb than assuming our "physical laws" are laws, or that the universe has "always existed"? They have no access to any data that could possibly confirm the existence of anything outside the bowl; they'd think you were a complete blibbering idiot for suggesting there were living beings outside the bowl. Why is it necessary to posit magnificent but completely invisible alien beings who like to give us food, when everyone knows that the First Law of Food Materialization consistently explains the phenomenon they see better (and in much more sciencey-sounding language) than any mysticism could possibly hope to do? You might as well propose that the food comes from a pink fluffy invisible unicorn pooping into the bowl.
They have no access to data? They observe food appearing but have already concluded that there is nothing outside their bowl and don't have the sense to question their previous conclusion that there isn't anything outside their bowl? An observation is not data? Dumb!

So you want me to accept that Santa is real because a five year old's experiences tell him that Santa is real even though you know better? Really?

So this is apologia 2001.762.1, argument for Santa from a fishbowl. Got it. Jack and Rexella can make a show.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,173
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
How is that any more dumb than assuming our "physical laws" are laws, or that the universe has "always existed"? They have no access to any data that could possibly confirm the existence of anything outside the bowl; they'd think you were a complete blibbering idiot for suggesting there were living beings outside the bowl. Why is it necessary to posit magnificent but completely invisible alien beings who like to give us food, when everyone knows that the First Law of Food Materialization consistently explains the phenomenon they see better (and in much more sciencey-sounding language) than any mysticism could possibly hope to do? You might as well propose that the food comes from a pink fluffy invisible unicorn pooping into the bowl.
They have no access to data? They observe food appearing but have already concluded that there is nothing outside their bowl and don't have the sense to question their previous conclusion that there isn't anything outside their bowl? An observation is not data? Dumb!

So you want me to accept that Santa is real because a five year old's experiences tell him that Santa is real even though you know better? Really?

So this is apologia 2001.762.1, argument for Santa from a fishbowl. Got it.
Not quite sure you're following. We are very like the fish. Or the toddler. We do not have access to the data necessary to speak authoritatively about that which, if anything, lies beyond the reach of the observed universe. We speak of "natural laws", but they aren't really laws, just systematic observations of how matter and energy within our known universe interact. There are plenty of scientists who take seriously the possibility of different universes with their own physical constants, but since they say it all sciencey-like, they aren't often accused of believing in Santa Claus.
 

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,081
Location
USA
Politesse,

Here's an analogy to consider. Another "teaching tale", haha.

Let's say that the scientist-fishes find no traces anywhere of there being an "outside the bowl". But a mystic fish uses his intuitive powers and has a vision of Beyond-the-Fishbowl. The other fishes are enchanted by his tale and some devout fishes start asserting the wishes of The Invisible Hand. "This is the command of The Invisible Hand!", they declare. "The Invisible Hand demands you vote republican!", and on and on in the manner of "intuitive" people.

It's a more or less secular bunch of fishes though, so the unbelieving fishes aren't killed. Instead the believer-fishes blow bubbles of disdain at them. "You proselytizing dogmatic unbeliever-fishes!" they bubble.

How's that for something you should keep your agnostic mind open to? After all it's no more presumptive of "how things might really be" than yours.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,173
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Here's an analogy to consider. Another "teaching tale", haha.

Let's say that the scientist-fishes find no traces anywhere of there being an "outside the bowl". But a mystic-fish has a vision of a Beyond. The other fishes are enchanted by this tale and live out their days busily asserting the wishes of this Really Big Fish in the imaginary Beyond. "This is the command of the Invisible Hand!", "the great Invisible Hand demand you vote republican!", and the rest.

It's a more or less secular bunch of fishes though so the remaining unbeliever-fishes aren't killed. The believer-fish just snootily blow bubbles of disdain at them. "You proselytizing dogmatic science-fishes!" they bubble.

How's that for something you should keep your agnostic mind open to? It's no more presumptive of "how things [might] really be" than yours.
Both groups of fish are equally wrong. I would gladly oppose the political regime of your fascist fishies, but them being bad fish has no real bearing on whether their epistemology is accurate.

Hence why I don't make presumptions about how the universe is constituted, personally speaking.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,803
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Not quite sure you're following. We are very like the fish. Or the toddler. We do not have access to the data necessary to speak authoritatively about that which, if anything, lies beyond the reach of the observed universe. We speak of "natural laws", but they aren't really laws, just systematic observations of how matter and energy within our known universe interact. There are plenty of scientists who take seriously the possibility of different universes with their own physical constants, but since they say it all sciencey-like, they aren't often accused of believing in Santa Claus.
I think you are confusing observations with non-observations, aka woo. Of course we can only speculate where we are unable to observe, but if we can make an observation, measure it, quantify it, predict it, why would we conclude that such data is unable to change our conclusions? The fish are just ignorant and believe in ghosts. They're dogmatic to a fault if they come to conclusions that are not supported by observation. The analogy fails miserably. New knowledge is impossible in your fishbowl.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,882
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Either the universe is eternal, or it began to exist. We can't know which, but I lean towards the eternal, as this avoids the highly dodgy and un-evidenced assumption that the First Law of Thermodynamics hasn't always applied.

Positing an eternal creator god (or gods) achieves the counterproductive step of ensuring that the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated despite an eternal universe.

God stories get us further from, not closer to, an understanding of origins.
How is the assumption of eternity any more evidenced or less "highly dodgy"?
What's wrong with it? It is conversant with all of physics. There's no particular reason to assume that the mass-energy of the universe has ever varied. Why would we think it must have once been zero?
 

Stephen T-B

Stephen T-B
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
81
Location
Yorkshire UK
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.
If this were to happen, what difference would it make to anything?
A person might shrug his shoulders and think "So? There's something 'out there' able to do this. And now I'm going to finish breakfast then I'll rob a bank and, if I must, shoot a couple of tellers and perhaps hold as hostages (and traumatise) half a dozen customers."

Apart from showing all of humanity in a very convincing manner that it exists, there's nothing much else a god could do without resorting to violent demonstrations of its power.

If it attempted to convey its nature and what it requires of humankind without terrorising the world's population, only a tiny fraction of that population would accept it as the god they'd always believed in.
The vast majority would believe it to be a demonic entity, pretending to be God.
(Of course, resorting to terror would likely have the same result...)
 
Last edited:

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,460
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Even if a face appeared in the sky with a booming voce, there is no way to tell if it is 'the' god or technology.
I'd go with a Penn and Teller trick before god.

Have an alleged god appear on their show Fool Us and see if he, she, or it can fool pro tricksters.

The rain god is punishing the state of Washington. The rain god hates progressive democrats. It is sending floods to wash away progressives as foretold in the Book Of Water.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,803
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.
If this were to happen, what difference would it make to anything?
A person might shrug his shoulders and think "So? There's something 'out there' able to do this. And now I'm going to finish breakfast then I'll rob a bank and, if I must, shoot a couple of tellers and perhaps hold as hostages (and traumatise) half a dozen customers."

Apart from showing all of humanity in a very convincing manner that it exists, there's nothing much else a god could do without resorting to violent demonstrations of its power.

If it attempted to convey its nature and what it requires of humankind without terrorising the world's population, only a tiny fraction of that population would accept it as the god they'd always believed in.
The vast majority would believe it to be a demonic entity, pretending to be God.
(Of course, resorting to terror would likely have the same result...)
I agree.

What if tomorrow every government on the planet began dismantling all of its WMDs and eliminating its armed forces? When questioned they responded that they were ordered to do so by a god.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,460
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
You can't prove what I say is untrue, therefore it may be true, therefore I believe it is it is true. A child's reasoning. Momee Dadee!! There is something under my bed!!! There is nothing there go to sleep. But I head it and saw it!!!

Imagination running wild spinning a belief.

The logical loophole that enables beliefs of all kinds form Bigfoot to ghosts.

There is visual and audio proof for the Cookie Monster and the Keebler Elves. The Great Pumpkin has yet to manifest. itself yet people do believe.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,460
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
This is about the varieties of human behavior of which religion and the supernatural is one aspect. As I have come to belive it is all manifestaions of the same human traits.

Bigfoot without proof or god without proof, both fill the same human need. The need to believe there is something else than our work a day reality.

For us who try to be objective science is about anything related to proofs of a god of any kind. For anyone who has spent time on the forum that would be axiomatic.
 

Coleman Smith

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
273
Location
Center of the Universe
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?
Publication of testable evidence for the existence of a deity in peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals by members of the National Academy of Science and the equivalent organizations in Asia and Europe.

That has never happened and I believe that it never will.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,138
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?
As my daughter pointed out, “That’s not a god, that’s a human wizard. Prove me wrong.”
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,803
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?
As my daughter pointed out, “That’s not a god, that’s a human wizard. Prove me wrong.”
Or it could be George Burns.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,630
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
The real problem I have is not with the lack of evidence for God or gods. It is with the lack of evidence for the existence of disembodied spirits, of which deities are just a subcategory. So I would need evidence that contradicted a number of foundational beliefs that I have about the nature of reality. Materialism (or physicalism) supersedes and claims about the existence of specific categories of spiritual beings. When people ask me for evidence that God does not exist, the conversation starts out with the wrong question. It leads nowhere from there.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,803
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
The real problem I have is not with the lack of evidence for God or gods. It is with the lack of evidence for the existence of disembodied spirits, of which deities are just a subcategory. So I would need evidence that contradicted a number of foundational beliefs that I have about the nature of reality. Materialism (or physicalism) supersedes and claims about the existence of specific categories of spiritual beings. When people ask me for evidence that God does not exist, the conversation starts out with the wrong question. It leads nowhere from there.
Right. The real question is about paranormalism. Gods are just another paranormal claim no different than ghosts in the basement. And even if we somehow were able to prove the paranormal it wouldn't follow that gods are real. But I cannot imagine how we would be able to prove paranormalism. If we did it would mean we just disproved normalism, reality as we experience it daily.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,130
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
Sorry, but I'm a little confused. I think that you are saying that you believe that the bible is correct because the bible emphasizes witnessing and testimony? Correct? If the Koran also emphasizes witnessing and testimony (I'll do some research on this); would you not also consider it to be true? If so, which book should we believe in?

Why are you confused? Well firstly... the bible was written well before the Koran. Witnesses (plural) are many in the bible. Witness singular, by Mohammed in the Koran has less weight. The old argument against the bible: that there were many writers etc.. strangely enough is actually better than one single witness, so to speak, just like lonesome Joseph Smith.


So are you agreeing with Harry’s effort to reflect your position?
That you believe whatever book is the oldest one with witnesses?

Just by pointing out that the bible IS the originator of the biblical prophets and Jesus, all mentioned by their names. Which suggests that the bible could NOT have copied or plagarised from the much later religions,, who as different religions, acknowledge those same biblical characters by name - who happen to be mentioned in their own religious books.


And I have a follow-up question; does this mean that you do not believve the parts of the bible that are written by people who are not witnesses? Like Paul’s stuff, and Revelations? And Genesis?

I don't follow that concept that Christians should not believe in any parts of the bible, which would be at odds with the faith. I suppose for arguments sake, that even if we are to say that certain particular things apply to a certain groups of people; this does not mean theists should not believe them, or for that matter, not preach them either.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,138
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
It’s not that it is at odds with the faith, it is that it’s at odds with YOUR DEFINITION of a reliable source. You said the bible was more real than other stories because it was written earlier and by witnesses. Does your definition mean anything? If it means anything, why do you not apply it to your biible?

Or are you saying you believe any book that has parts of it that are old and written by witnesses, and you believe all of it because of adjacency?

I ask this because it is an interesting - a very interesting - thing to ponder, IMHO. The question of HOW people believe. Not what they believe, but how they believe it.

You seem to be suggesting some rules that you follow about whether to believe or not believe a religious or supernatural story. I’m always interested in how religionists believe one religion, but tell themselves they have a valid logical reason to disbelieve others.

My evidence-based mind asks, So you have a formula with criteria that, once a story meets it, then it is believable. Let’s test it out on other religions. Let’s see if you have a formula that makes yours true and all the others false. That would be a useful formula, would it not?

But here you are saying, I have a formula, and then I violate it, but I don’t care, I’m still right.

And if someone else uses your same formula and it points to another religion being true, you still say they are wrong. But that you are right because you used a formula.

So far you’ve suggested that the oldest story, with witnesses = Truth. But then you say, if part of your story is not the oldest, and does not included witnesses, it’s still Truth, because it is stapled ogether with one that did pass your test. The Associative Property of Religious texts, perhaps? To me it says you don’t have a formula at all. You just believe in whatever makes you feel good.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,460
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
There are contemporaneous independent accounts of Mohamed. Not so for any biblical accounts, like the Exodus. I don't think there are any Egyptian records of a Jewish enslavement.

The idea that large group of people wandered the desert between say Cairo and Jerusalem r for 40 yeras without leaving any trace or being noticed is laughable. It is only about 300 or 400 miles as the crow flies.

From an archoogy show the Exodus tale as written is probably a conflation of multiple events at different times.o
There are no contemporaneous accounts for Jesus, nothing in Roman records.

In my senior apartment biding rumors and gossip spread. Events end up being told quite differently by different people as time passes.

The ancient Jews were minor players in a world dominated by the likes of Egypt. amd Babolon. Myths of power and greatness grow over time. Myth crtion an justification by divine right grnated and backed by a god was the rue not the exception.

Christians in the USA have always believed the USA was ordained by god. Not biblical by a myth creted by a culture to create the image and feeling of power.

Henry 8th set himself up as the word of god.

Conservative Israelis like Netanyahu justify seizing land for modern Israel and the ongoing colonization of the West Bank via biblical divine right. Ine bible god gave it to Jews exclusively.

Because some historical events can be correlated to the bible does not serve as a proof of god.



.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
572
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
Sorry, but I'm a little confused. I think that you are saying that you believe that the bible is correct because the bible emphasizes witnessing and testimony? Correct? If the Koran also emphasizes witnessing and testimony (I'll do some research on this); would you not also consider it to be true? If so, which book should we believe in?

Why are you confused? Well firstly... the bible was written well before the Koran. Witnesses (plural) are many in the bible. Witness singular, by Mohammed in the Koran has less weight. The old argument against the bible: that there were many writers etc.. strangely enough is actually better than one single witness, so to speak, just like lonesome Joseph Smith.


So are you agreeing with Harry’s effort to reflect your position?
That you believe whatever book is the oldest one with witnesses?

Just by pointing out that the bible IS the originator of the biblical prophets and Jesus, all mentioned by their names. Which suggests that the bible could NOT have copied or plagarised from the much later religions,, who as different religions, acknowledge those same biblical characters by name - who happen to be mentioned in their own religious books.


And I have a follow-up question; does this mean that you do not believve the parts of the bible that are written by people who are not witnesses? Like Paul’s stuff, and Revelations? And Genesis?

I don't follow that concept that Christians should not believe in any parts of the bible, which would be at odds with the faith. I suppose for arguments sake, that even if we are to say that certain particular things apply to a certain groups of people; this does not mean theists should not believe them, or for that matter, not preach them either.
*wing-shrugs* Truth be told, the only member of the old pantheons I care much for is Ningishzida.

Well, Hecate was nice, too...
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,130
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
Its nice that the bible shows you that they were quite aware of old pantheons - since it is acknowledged, and mentioned, under various names as the opposing god worships to the biblical God.

(sorry to previous posts not yet responded to, various interuptions this moment)
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,803
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
In its own way biblical woo is simpler than pantheistic woo, probably an idea it borrowed from Egypt. It's a step in the right direction but doesn't mean the simple woo is any more believable than the less simple woo, it doesn't prove the woo is more real.
 

Stephen T-B

Stephen T-B
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
81
Location
Yorkshire UK
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Its nice that the bible shows you that they were quite aware of old pantheons - since it is acknowledged, and mentioned, under various names as the opposing god worships to the biblical God.

(sorry to previous posts not yet responded to, various interuptions this moment)
 

Stephen T-B

Stephen T-B
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
81
Location
Yorkshire UK
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Teachings and stories (oral and written) songs, pictures and sculptures set the parameters within which a person's imagination perceives a particular god.
Every now and then, however, a person comes along who is charismatic, manipulative, narcissistic and creative (Ron L Hubbard) or charismatic and deluded - may or may not be a manipulative narcissist (Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell) - who either adds embellishments to the "received" model or invents a new one, leading to the emergence of new cults and religions.

Gods are experienced in texts, stories, songs, pictures, sculptures and imagination.
That's their reality. Their only reality.

It is why no god manifests as a physical entity independent of human agency.
Creatures of imagination, no amount of wishful thinking will change it.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,154
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
It’s not that it is at odds with the faith, it is that it’s at odds with YOUR DEFINITION of a reliable source. You said the bible was more real than other stories because it was written earlier and by witnesses. Does your definition mean anything? If it means anything, why do you not apply it to your biible?

Or are you saying you believe any book that has parts of it that are old and written by witnesses, and you believe all of it because of adjacency?

I ask this because it is an interesting - a very interesting - thing to ponder, IMHO. The question of HOW people believe. Not what they believe, but how they believe it.

You seem to be suggesting some rules that you follow about whether to believe or not believe a religious or supernatural story. I’m always interested in how religionists believe one religion, but tell themselves they have a valid logical reason to disbelieve others.

My evidence-based mind asks, So you have a formula with criteria that, once a story meets it, then it is believable. Let’s test it out on other religions. Let’s see if you have a formula that makes yours true and all the others false. That would be a useful formula, would it not?

But here you are saying, I have a formula, and then I violate it, but I don’t care, I’m still right.

And if someone else uses your same formula and it points to another religion being true, you still say they are wrong. But that you are right because you used a formula.

So far you’ve suggested that the oldest story, with witnesses = Truth. But then you say, if part of your story is not the oldest, and does not included witnesses, it’s still Truth, because it is stapled ogether with one that did pass your test. The Associative Property of Religious texts, perhaps? To me it says you don’t have a formula at all. You just believe in whatever makes you feel good.

Excellent, Rhea. That’s brilliant and clear.
And probably fruitless. I don’t think Learner is inclined to evenly apply “truth standards” to all documents held to be scripture by religious groups.
Can’t say that I blame him, since doing that tends to gore whole herds of sacred cows, including a lot of Christian ones.
 

Drew2008

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2021
Messages
100
Basic Beliefs
I'm a theist. No specific God belief in a Creator.
So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

What would count as proof of God​


Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,692
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

What would count as proof of God​


Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

You are thinking of evidence. Proof is proof.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended.
No. This is the process of acquiring evidence in support of a theory and finding no observations that the theory cannot explain.
But it remains a theory. By definition. Because there's always a possibility of finding something that the theory cannot explain, leading to the overhaul or rejection of the theory to ibclude new facts.

Facts do not get overturned. The theory attempting to explain them might.

Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

That's not a 'degree' of proof, it's a completely different philosophy.
In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.
Then offer a preponderance of evidence.
Or a demiponderance?
A smidgen?
Worst that can happen, your prediction is fulfilled.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,902
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

What would count as proof of God​


Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.
If a universe-creating god exists and interacts with its creation, then it is reasonable to believe that this god could make itself known to every single human on this planet with minimal effort if it wanted to. The fact that it doesn't speaks volumes.

If you make the claim that a god exists, it is your burden to provide the facts and reasoning that would convince others. Feel free to provide the evidence when you see fit.

Proof is for legal trials and math. Scientists use evidence, and estimate confidence intervals or reliability indices to quantify uncertainty. It would help if you understood the nomenclature.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,460
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
A preponderance of a lack of evidence...the case for a creator is dismissed with leave to refile when the plaintiff has evidence to present. If the plaintiff wastes the court's time on frivolous claims he will be charged with contempt.

I grew up watching Perry Mason..

Seriously, to creationists I have had face ti face talks with, the claim of a god or creator is based on a preponderance of perceived evidence.

I was talking with a Christian who pointed out the window and said just look, that a creator exists is obvious.

Wan;t there a claim that multiple peole saw the sun stand still?

If Jesus appeared before you, how do you tell it is not just advanced ET technology?
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
7,965
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence.

I do deny I have ever been presented any good evidence for theism. It's not out of denialism, it's just that the claim has failed scrutiny.

I would ask you to provide some, but I am sure you have nothing I haven't seen already.

They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

Anyone who believes because they think they have good evidence is just wrong. Consciously believing out of faith is a more respectable position.

Welcome to the forum.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,151
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence.

I do deny I have ever been presented any good evidence for theism. It's not out of denialism, it's just that the claim has failed scrutiny.

I would ask you to provide some, but I am sure you have nothing I haven't seen already.

They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

Anyone who believes because they think they have good evidence is just wrong. Consciously believing out of faith is a more respectable position.

Welcome to the forum.
The most universal phenomena I have observed based on evidence is the phenomena that "what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms; it is the axioms, however, that can not be proven in any way necessary, sufficient or complete, ever."
 

Drew2008

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2021
Messages
100
Basic Beliefs
I'm a theist. No specific God belief in a Creator.

What would count as proof of God​


Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.


If you make the claim that a god exists, it is your burden to provide the facts and reasoning that would convince others. Feel free to provide the evidence when you see fit.

We'll have to agree on what evidence is.

evidence​

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

In short evidence are facts that make a proposition more likely to be true or less likely to be true. For instance if I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim they shot a gun more probable. Not a certainty for sure. That fact alone wouldn't win the day as in any circumstantial case it is a preponderance of facts that make a case. It can work the other way if the person I accused of shooting a gun doesn't own one, that fact would be evidence in disfavor of the contention they shot a gun.

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof. The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed. If so existence of the universe was caused unintentionally and human existence was just an unintended coincidence.

There are certain facts that have to be true for some claims to be true. For instance in a murder case it has to be true that someone is dead. Usually its easy you merely present a corpse. In some cases its harder nonetheless a foundational claim to murder is a dead human. It may sound trivial but anyone proving someone murdered someone has to prove a death occurred. They have to prove a whole lot more to prove murder. For theism to even possibly be true certain facts must be true or there is no case for theism. Those facts that have to be true for theism to be true are evidence theism is true. Proof no, evidence yes.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Do yoj have an actual sorce for the definition you posted? I am curious if there are other definitions alongside this one.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,151
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Do yoj have an actual sorce for the definition you posted? I am curious if there are other definitions alongside this one.
I tend to use evidence in the idea of "that which may disprove, when known, some set of potential causalities"

I find a leaf on the road. It disproves real causalities absent leaves.

I find a footprint in my house of a boot that is not mine... It disproves causalities wherein my home has not been entered by someone who is not me.

And so on.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,460
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic

What would count as proof of God​


Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.


If you make the claim that a god exists, it is your burden to provide the facts and reasoning that would convince others. Feel free to provide the evidence when you see fit.

We'll have to agree on what evidence is.

evidence​

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

In short evidence are facts that make a proposition more likely to be true or less likely to be true. For instance if I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim they shot a gun more probable. Not a certainty for sure. That fact alone wouldn't win the day as in any circumstantial case it is a preponderance of facts that make a case. It can work the other way if the person I accused of shooting a gun doesn't own one, that fact would be evidence in disfavor of the contention they shot a gun.

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof. The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed. If so existence of the universe was caused unintentionally and human existence was just an unintended coincidence.

There are certain facts that have to be true for some claims to be true. For instance in a murder case it has to be true that someone is dead. Usually its easy you merely present a corpse. In some cases its harder nonetheless a foundational claim to murder is a dead human. It may sound trivial but anyone proving someone murdered someone has to prove a death occurred. They have to prove a whole lot more to prove murder. For theism to even possibly be true certain facts must be true or there is no case for theism. Those facts that have to be true for theism to be true are evidence theism is true. Proof no, evidence yes.
Political hand waving and diverseness, Pressed for facts and saying nothing. Like trying to get Trump to present factual evidence of voter fraud.

What is your evdebce?


When working on real problems I have used syllogisms to help make it clear.


P1 evidence 1 for a creator
P2 evidence 2 for a creator
C Given P1 and P2 a creator must exist.

What are your premises?

Just for once I'd like to hear a theist say I know it is not logical and I jave no objective factual evidence, but I belive in god. I coud actually res[ect that.
 

Drew2008

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2021
Messages
100
Basic Beliefs
I'm a theist. No specific God belief in a Creator.
Do yoj have an actual sorce for the definition you posted? I am curious if there are other definitions alongside this one.
I tend to use evidence in the idea of "that which may disprove, when known, some set of potential causalities"

I find a leaf on the road. It disproves real causalities absent leaves.

I find a footprint in my house of a boot that is not mine... It disproves causalities wherein my home has not been entered by someone who is not me.

And so on.

Evidence is a fact (the leaf) that supports a contention reality isn't absent leaves. The more difficult questions in life are rarely as cut and dry. This discussion revolves around what happened billions of year ago minus eyewitnesses. Like detectives at a crime scene any evidence we have is after the fact.
 

Drew2008

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2021
Messages
100
Basic Beliefs
I'm a theist. No specific God belief in a Creator.

What would count as proof of God​


Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.


If you make the claim that a god exists, it is your burden to provide the facts and reasoning that would convince others. Feel free to provide the evidence when you see fit.

We'll have to agree on what evidence is.

evidence​

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

In short evidence are facts that make a proposition more likely to be true or less likely to be true. For instance if I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim they shot a gun more probable. Not a certainty for sure. That fact alone wouldn't win the day as in any circumstantial case it is a preponderance of facts that make a case. It can work the other way if the person I accused of shooting a gun doesn't own one, that fact would be evidence in disfavor of the contention they shot a gun.

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof. The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed. If so existence of the universe was caused unintentionally and human existence was just an unintended coincidence.

There are certain facts that have to be true for some claims to be true. For instance in a murder case it has to be true that someone is dead. Usually its easy you merely present a corpse. In some cases its harder nonetheless a foundational claim to murder is a dead human. It may sound trivial but anyone proving someone murdered someone has to prove a death occurred. They have to prove a whole lot more to prove murder. For theism to even possibly be true certain facts must be true or there is no case for theism. Those facts that have to be true for theism to be true are evidence theism is true. Proof no, evidence yes.
Political hand waving and diverseness, Pressed for facts and saying nothing. Like trying to get Trump to present factual evidence of voter fraud.

What is your evdebce?


When working on real problems I have used syllogisms to help make it clear.


P1 evidence 1 for a creator
P2 evidence 2 for a creator
C Given P1 and P2 a creator must exist.

What are your premises?

Just for once I'd like to hear a theist say I know it is not logical and I jave no objective factual evidence, but I belive in god. I coud actually res[ect that.

I wrote my premise above. Of course there is factual evidence. To be evidence it must be an established fact.

Do you accept the definition of evidence? Do you agree 'For instance if I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim they shot a gun more probable.' Its far from proof but do you concede it is a fact that makes the subsequent claim more probable? Not true just more probable. By the same token if the suspect didn't own a gun though far from conclusive it better supports the contention he didn't shoot a gun. Those are facts and such facts are evidence.

I'm not deliberately being difficult. I know as soon as I list P1 some folks in here will make up a new definition for what is and isn't evidence. For many the absolute core foundation of atheism is the mistaken idea there is no evidence in support of theism.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,151
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Do yoj have an actual sorce for the definition you posted? I am curious if there are other definitions alongside this one.
I tend to use evidence in the idea of "that which may disprove, when known, some set of potential causalities"

I find a leaf on the road. It disproves real causalities absent leaves.

I find a footprint in my house of a boot that is not mine... It disproves causalities wherein my home has not been entered by someone who is not me.

And so on.

Evidence is a fact (the leaf) that supports a contention reality isn't absent leaves. The more difficult questions in life are rarely as cut and dry. This discussion revolves around what happened billions of year ago minus eyewitnesses. Like detectives at a crime scene any evidence we have is after the fact.
It does not support the contention. It disproves the counter.

This is a failing of faith, trying to support rather than trying to kick out the support.

Evidence cannot support something. Axioms cannot be proven as necessary, nor sufficient.

Evidence can only narrow down the possibilities through disproving certain causalities, indicating them as purely imaginary or nonsense.

Verification happens through disproof. Trying to do it the other way is the core of foolishness and blind faith.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,138
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I'm not deliberately being difficult. I know as soon as I list P1 some folks in here will make up a new definition for what is and isn't evidence. For many the absolute core foundation of atheism is the mistaken idea there is no evidence in support of theism.

Wait, so you’re saying “if I present evience, you’ll argue about it, and I might not prevail in that debate, so I’ll say nothing and claim to win?”


That’s your strategy?
And you think we’ll buy it?
Would you buy that?
 

Drew2008

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2021
Messages
100
Basic Beliefs
I'm a theist. No specific God belief in a Creator.
I'm not deliberately being difficult. I know as soon as I list P1 some folks in here will make up a new definition for what is and isn't evidence. For many the absolute core foundation of atheism is the mistaken idea there is no evidence in support of theism.

Wait, so you’re saying “if I present evience, you’ll argue about it, and I might not prevail in that debate, so I’ll say nothing and claim to win?”


That’s your strategy?
And you think we’ll buy it?
Would you buy that?

I'm not selling anything and I don't care what you buy.

I'm attempting to get a baseline agreement of what constitutes evidence not just in the context of theism vs atheism. In the context of everyday life. Evidence is merely facts that make a proposition more likely then minus such a fact. What some folks will revert to is the notion if a fact doesn't personally persuade them then ifsofacto its not evidence. That's not true. If I claim Joe Montana was the best QB that ever lived, does the fact he won four super bowls make my contention more probable then say if he never played football? Of course its irrefutable evidence my claim might be true. You may disagree and say that schmuck was just lucky and therefore the fact he played football and won four super bowls doesn't even count as evidence. Not so. It does count as evidence. Just evidence you don't accept.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,692
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I'm not deliberately being difficult. I know as soon as I list P1 some folks in here will make up a new definition for what is and isn't evidence. For many the absolute core foundation of atheism is the mistaken idea there is no evidence in support of theism.

Wait, so you’re saying “if I present evience, you’ll argue about it, and I might not prevail in that debate, so I’ll say nothing and claim to win?”


That’s your strategy?
And you think we’ll buy it?
Would you buy that?

I'm not selling anything and I don't care what you buy.

I'm attempting to get a baseline agreement of what constitutes evidence not just in the context of theism vs atheism. In the context of everyday life. Evidence is merely facts that make a proposition more likely then minus such a fact. What some folks will revert to is the notion if a fact doesn't personally persuade them then ifsofacto its not evidence. That's not true. If I claim Joe Montana was the best QB that ever lived, does the fact he won four super bowls make my contention more probable then say if he never played football? Of course its irrefutable evidence my claim might be true. You may disagree and say that schmuck was just lucky and therefore the fact he played football and won four super bowls doesn't even count as evidence. Not so. It does count as evidence. Just evidence you don't accept.
Yeah, but most people have seen Joe Montana. Comparing claims made about the widely experienced corporeal with claims made about the incorporeal is very silly.

A much better comparison is asking whether bowler Mitchem Williamson was the best bowler the game of Cricket has ever seen, of course, the catch is he lived in 18th Century England and there is no record that he played (or really ever existed).
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence.

I do deny I have ever been presented any good evidence for theism. It's not out of denialism, it's just that the claim has failed scrutiny.

I would ask you to provide some, but I am sure you have nothing I haven't seen already.

They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

Anyone who believes because they think they have good evidence is just wrong. Consciously believing out of faith is a more respectable position.

Welcome to the forum.
The most universal phenomena I have observed based on evidence is the phenomena that "what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms; it is the axioms, however, that can not be proven in any way necessary, sufficient or complete, ever."
Is your belief that the most universal phenomena you have observed based on evidence is the phenomena that "what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms; it is the axioms, however, that can not be proven in any way necessary, sufficient or complete, ever.", a false belief?

If it is a false belief, well then you're wrong.
If it is not a false belief, then it is not the case that what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...

I'm not selling anything and I don't care what you buy.

I'm attempting to get a baseline agreement of what constitutes evidence not just in the context of theism vs atheism.
Wow. I hate this quote system. Anyway,

Dude, i don't even agree with the definition of theism you're flogging. I hear the word, i think of believers in one god, multiple gods, inhuman gods, false gods, time and/or space travellersposing as gods and the entire universe with a very slight touch of self-awareness.Gods that made the universe, gods that found it, and gods born into it regardless of the origin.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,151
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence.

I do deny I have ever been presented any good evidence for theism. It's not out of denialism, it's just that the claim has failed scrutiny.

I would ask you to provide some, but I am sure you have nothing I haven't seen already.

They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

Anyone who believes because they think they have good evidence is just wrong. Consciously believing out of faith is a more respectable position.

Welcome to the forum.
The most universal phenomena I have observed based on evidence is the phenomena that "what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms; it is the axioms, however, that can not be proven in any way necessary, sufficient or complete, ever."
Is your belief that the most universal phenomena you have observed based on evidence is the phenomena that "what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms; it is the axioms, however, that can not be proven in any way necessary, sufficient or complete, ever.", a false belief?

If it is a false belief, well then you're wrong.
If it is not a false belief, then it is not the case that what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms.
And there's that sophistry that always gets you on ignore whenever I purge my ignore list.

"The one thing that I cannot doubt is that I sit here doubting". Nothing has come up to change this fact.

You can either doubt, and potentially be wrong about being wrong, or even right about being wrong; or you can abandon doubt and be wrong about being right but you will never be certain of being right about being right; therefore the only way to be confidently right about a thing is to accept that you are wrong

When you trust but verify, this is the way of things.

That's one strike.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...

Dude, i don't even agree with the definition of theism you're flogging. I hear the word, i think of believers in one god, multiple gods, inhuman gods, false gods, time and/or space travellersposing as gods and the entire universe with a very slight touch of self-awareness.Gods that made the universe, gods that found it, and gods born into it regardless of the origin.
Shit, where'd the rest of it go, then?

Anyway, posing the argument as theist vs. atheist is, clearly, a mistake. There are theists that accept BigBang Theory, as far as it goes, and evolutionary theory, for what it actually says, and four-color-map theory, all as ways for man to try to understand the universe that the divine has provided for them. Some even work in the fields advancing the science.
But they're not all finding the same god being revealed.
I mean, it'd be kinda telling if every god-loving cosmologist became Mormon, or god-fearing paleobotanist converted to Bantu ancestor worship. But that's not what we see. People go to examine the evidence for the creation of life, Earth, or the universe, and for the most part retain the tradition they held on the way in.

Save yourself time and aggravation. Post the reasons that you find the idea of the divine to be convincing, rather than arguing with other people about what you think they do or should believe. See what happens.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,151
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
To me, theism starts exactly when someone abandons doubt.

The non-theist doubts.

Lots of people who call themselves atheists, especially here, become theists under this definition. I do not think this is a categorization error ony part so much as it is on theirs.

And so I will call them "bad atheists", so as to avoid the no-true-scotsman.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,460
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic

What would count as proof of God​


Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.


If you make the claim that a god exists, it is your burden to provide the facts and reasoning that would convince others. Feel free to provide the evidence when you see fit.

We'll have to agree on what evidence is.

evidence​

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

In short evidence are facts that make a proposition more likely to be true or less likely to be true. For instance if I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim they shot a gun more probable. Not a certainty for sure. That fact alone wouldn't win the day as in any circumstantial case it is a preponderance of facts that make a case. It can work the other way if the person I accused of shooting a gun doesn't own one, that fact would be evidence in disfavor of the contention they shot a gun.

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof. The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed. If so existence of the universe was caused unintentionally and human existence was just an unintended coincidence.

There are certain facts that have to be true for some claims to be true. For instance in a murder case it has to be true that someone is dead. Usually its easy you merely present a corpse. In some cases its harder nonetheless a foundational claim to murder is a dead human. It may sound trivial but anyone proving someone murdered someone has to prove a death occurred. They have to prove a whole lot more to prove murder. For theism to even possibly be true certain facts must be true or there is no case for theism. Those facts that have to be true for theism to be true are evidence theism is true. Proof no, evidence yes.
Political hand waving and diverseness, Pressed for facts and saying nothing. Like trying to get Trump to present factual evidence of voter fraud.

What is your evdebce?


When working on real problems I have used syllogisms to help make it clear.


P1 evidence 1 for a creator
P2 evidence 2 for a creator
C Given P1 and P2 a creator must exist.

What are your premises?

Just for once I'd like to hear a theist say I know it is not logical and I jave no objective factual evidence, but I belive in god. I coud actually res[ect that.

I wrote my premise above. Of course there is factual evidence. To be evidence it must be an established fact.

Do you accept the definition of evidence? Do you agree 'For instance if I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim they shot a gun more probable.' Its far from proof but do you concede it is a fact that makes the subsequent claim more probable? Not true just more probable. By the same token if the suspect didn't own a gun though far from conclusive it better supports the contention he didn't shoot a gun. Those are facts and such facts are evidence.

I'm not deliberately being difficult. I know as soon as I list P1 some folks in here will make up a new definition for what is and isn't evidence. For many the absolute core foundation of atheism is the mistaken idea there is no evidence in support of theism.
The oneus is on the cliamant to prove assertions beyond doubt, not on the unbleivers.

I do not accept your definition of evidence. or facts.

Refresh my memory, what are your ecideced proofs of a creator?


The Wtachmaker theist argument.

P1 You have never seen a watch, you find one and with its complexity you assume it is not natural, someone or something crezted it
p2. You observe a complex universe.
C There must be a creator of the universe.



The teleological argument (from τέλος, telos, 'end, aim, goal'; also known as physico-theological argument, argument from design, or intelligent design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, that complex functionality in the natural world which looks designed is evidence of an intelligent ...

The Telelogical Argument

The observed universe could not possibly exist without a god-creator, theretofore a god-creator exists.

Then there is what I call New Age Mysticism born out of the psychedelic 60s. The unverse is alive, I know because I feel the vibbratuions, and so on. The universe is love.

Hindu scripture is by far the most poetic and elegant in terms of creation.

Or Buddhism, what ever 'it' is, it is all created in your head.


So, exactly what is your argumnt for a creator that has not been used before?
 
Top Bottom