No God you say? Please read me.

[Bronze Dog]

Well, it's good to see someone who quickly and appropriately corrects himself when he bumps into real atheists. Sorry if I came off as a bit terse with my post. I've run into lots of people who posted similar thoughts but never listen to feedback.

Additionally, one relatively recent, and pretty much opposite, case is still in my mind involved a troll named Annie on one of the blogs I visited: She spewed forth every nasty thing ever said of atheists, and yet openly admitted to wanting to do everything she accused us of, like religious discrimination and endorsing relativistic/subjective/baseless morality.

Glad to see my expectations turned out to be wrong. Welcome aboard, Karl.

 

[jmercer]

Oh, go ahead. So far it all seems to be a case of misreading my argument.

Perhaps.

How is written personal testimony different from, well, "personal testimony"? Or is the distinction you are drawing between "God spoke to me" and "I saw God smite the evil heathen"?

Nope. I'm citing the written literature as anecdotal evidence of a historical nature. (Without commenting on the accuracy or validity of the content, mind you.) However, it is historical evidence.

If you wish, you can also find plenty of contemporary folks that will testify to current-day miracles. Those, of course, are a lot easier to refute and debunk.

The problem here is that you may well have seen the evil heathen being smitten, but your testimony that what you saw was necessarily divine is what remains merely a matter of personal conviction. I.E., it wasn't a natural occurance that you misperceived. It wasn't an hallucination etc. etc. There are always alternative non-divine explanations, so in the end all the testimony boils down to "nu-uh, this was God" (or Vishnu or FSM or whatever). So we can pretty safely reduce the evidence to claims of personal conviction (unless there's some actual, independently verifiable miracle you'd care to bring into the argument).

Yoink, this is indeed the core of the disagreement - albeit we don't agree on what the core means.

You are stating that it's ok to toss out anecdotal evidence because alternative and more reasonable explanations are possible. That logic is as faulty as claiming "This evidence is incontrovertible proof of God's existence" would be. In order to dismiss the idea that the evidence points to God's existence, you must prove the event was not of a divine nature by showing that what happened was a fully natural event. Then you can eliminate the involvement of the divine.

In other words, you cannot simply reduce the evidence because it doesn't fit in with your preferred solution or worldview. As I said, that's as erroneous as citing the evidence as proof of God's existence would be.

Here you make the same mistake as drkitten. You assume I'm saying that "all statements made to a doctor are worthless." They're not, of course. If I say "I have shingles" and the doctor asks "so, have you had it before, or has someone you know had it" and I say "yes." Then my statement is useful to her. She can say "so, what was it about the cases of shingles you've observed in the past that seems similar to what you're experiencing now?" In this case I become just like the "expert witness" in drkitten's original reply. My statement has weight because I can show a train of reasoning that gets me from certain symptoms to a given conclusion.

No... what I'm saying is that all anecdotal evidence has value in determining the truth.

You cannot apply one set of rules to anecdotal evidence and simply discard those rules when convenient. The quality of all anecdotal evidence is suspect, but - including religious anecdotal evidence - you cannot simply dismiss it and flatly say "There is no evidence". That claim is eminently refutable - as Dr. K and I have just demostrated.

But you have to assume that train of reasoning to lodge your objection. The example I gave was a bare statement. "Dr. I have shingles." Now, the Dr in this case is likely to assume some such train of reasoning behind this (saw something about shingles on TV, have had it before, etc.), but until that is established the statement based on the bare fact of testimony alone is useless. It has in itself no evidentiary weight whatsoever. Given that the only antecendents to the personal testimony of the divine that would matter are evidence of the divine we can only give evidentiary weight to such testimony by begging the question. Do you see?

I do see, but I'm afraid that you don't.

You are confusing "evidence" with "proof". No-one is suggesting that the claim "I have shingles" is proof - or should be taken as proof - of the patient having shingles. A claim of having shingles isn't proof of shingles; it is, however, evidence that something is wrong. Dismissing the claim of shingles outright, however, would be foolish.

Personal testimony of the divine is equivalent to telling the doctor "I feel absolutely fine, but I need to have my blood chelated because I just know that it is full of toxins." In no way can this claim be taken as evidence that there are, in fact, "toxins" in the patient's blood, or that chelation would be a useful approach to treating the condition.

No, Yoink - it's not the same thing at all; personal testimony of the divine is a statement "I have had an experience that I believe was an encounter with God." Hardly the same thing as what you described.

I don't understand why you think multiplying statement's of no evidentiary weight somehow adds to that weight.

I have no idea why you would say this. I have repeatedly said that the evidence is poor, questionable, and can be challenged concerning it's content; what you cannot do is simply pretend that it doesn't exist and ignore it in an argument against the existence of God.

Simply dismissing the evidence because you don't believe it is an error. Please feel free to dismiss it - but do so by proving it empty of value concerning the existence of God. Simply dismissing the evidence with the appeal that it's "begging the question" is inappropriate.

Centuries of people believed the sun rotates around the earth. That doesn't make it so, nor does it make their "but look, see?" claims have evidentiary weight on the question.

Correct. However, prior to proof that this wasn't true made the apparent evidence of their own eyes the best explanation available at the time. If you had lived then and denied the belief simply because you didn't think it was right, you would have been accidently correct - but you would have been as flawed in your belief as they were. You would have believed that the Earth revolved around the sun based on faith alone. You could have as easily been wrong as they were. It wasn't until incontrovertible scientific proof was produced that anyone could dismiss the claim of the sun rotating around the earth with authority.

I think you're conflating a claim I'm not making ("these statements are meaningless") with a claim that I am making ("these statements can add no logical weight whatsoever to any argument about God's existence--they are not 'evidence' for that argument"). The statements tell us all sorts of things about the individuals making them, about the cultures from which they come etc. etc. They are "evidence" in that case. But they add not a jot of weight to any argument about the existence of God (or gods). Because in order for them to do so, the existence of God would have to first be demonstrated.

Again, this is a confusion between evidence and proof.

Yep, they sure do. I don't see that you've shown that they affect my argument in the slightest, however.

Whenever I believe I'm absolutely correct, I'm usually wrong.

 

[Freethinker]

On joining this forum, one of the first threads was from someone who must have had one those moments – one of those moments when you step back and look at the world around you and wonder “How is all this possible? How am I here? Why am I here?”
He (she) then had the audacity to post a message suggesting that there may be a grand design to it all. The replies, I felt, were quite aggressive and I felt quite sorry for this person.

Karl, the thing you must realize is that just because the first thread you saw contained that kind of discussion, it may not have been the poster's first time discussing it. Some people seem to have great difficulty grasping logic, and will participate in numerous circular discussions. So....the responses to a given post will be colored by the original poster's history here. The things that will be responded to aggresively here are most likely to be either logical fallacies of making claims with no evidence.

The classic religious poster here usually does this, only in a more laborious and painful route:

Religious Poster: Of course God exists, it says so in the Bible.

Nasty Old Skeptic: How do you know the bible is true?

RP: God wrote it.

NOS: How do you know god wrote it?

RP: It says so in the Bible.

NOS: The bible is full of documented errors and outright contradictions.

RP: No, the Bible is perfect because God wrote it.

NOS: That's a circular argument. You can't say you know god wrote the bible because it says so in the bible!

RP: I just know it.

NOS:

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

A Suggestion for a Bit of Learning

Thank you all for your views. And thank you for the kindly welcome.

I apologise to all for the “closed mind” comment, which was meant as “closed mind as far as God is concerned” – I now realise, from the replies received, that even this is incorrect.

I just wrote two full A4 pages in attempt to counter your arguments – and I have just deleted them. How can I sensibly argue without evidence? Of course, I can’t and I won’t attempt it.

So why did I bother raising the issue in the first place? Well I have a confession to make.

On joining this forum, one of the first threads was from someone who must have had one those moments – one of those moments when you step back and look at the world around you and wonder “How is all this possible? How am I here? Why am I here?”
He (she) then had the audacity to post a message suggesting that there may be a grand design to it all. The replies, I felt, were quite aggressive and I felt quite sorry for this person.

Then I saw (didn’t read, perhaps I should have) a thread posing the question “Does skepticism make you smarter?”

Here is my confession for which I most sincerely apologise. I thought “What an arrogant bunch!”

I have often pondered the existence of God and thought this a good way to find out a little about you all. If I met with aggression, I would say my goodbyes and be off.

Now I have read your replies, which (except one) were polite, informed, intelligent and well presented. No hint of arrogance or aggression. Just sensible discussion and arguments. Sometimes passive and, other times, with forceful opinion. Perfect!

Thank you all once again.

Please, I beg you, do not think bad of me.

Karl Quigley – ex D.A.

P.S. I wonder if anyone left me a nasty message while I was compiling this reply.

P.P.S. So why the two A4 pages? Well I got drawn in by lively debate and really wanted to present valid argument and impress you. But I couldn't counter without delving into areas of faith and belief. And I wouldn't impress you with that!

I won't point you to anything that might destroy your faith. But, if you want to learn some more about evolution, you could do no better than to check out the talk.origins FAQs at: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

 

[Yoink]

Perhaps.



Nope. I'm citing the written literature as anecdotal evidence of a historical nature. (Without commenting on the accuracy or validity of the content, mind you.) However, it is historical evidence.

If you wish, you can also find plenty of contemporary folks that will testify to current-day miracles. Those, of course, are a lot easier to refute and debunk.



Yoink, this is indeed the core of the disagreement - albeit we don't agree on what the core means.

You are stating that it's ok to toss out anecdotal evidence because alternative and more reasonable explanations are possible. That logic is as faulty as claiming "This evidence is incontrovertible proof of God's existence" would be. In order to dismiss the idea that the evidence points to God's existence, you must prove the event was not of a divine nature by showing that what happened was a fully natural event. Then you can eliminate the involvement of the divine.

In other words, you cannot simply reduce the evidence because it doesn't fit in with your preferred solution or worldview. As I said, that's as erroneous as citing the evidence as proof of God's existence would be.



No... what I'm saying is that all anecdotal evidence has value in determining the truth.

You cannot apply one set of rules to anecdotal evidence and simply discard those rules when convenient. The quality of all anecdotal evidence is suspect, but - including religious anecdotal evidence - you cannot simply dismiss it and flatly say "There is no evidence". That claim is eminently refutable - as Dr. K and I have just demostrated.



I do see, but I'm afraid that you don't.

You are confusing "evidence" with "proof". No-one is suggesting that the claim "I have shingles" is proof - or should be taken as proof - of the patient having shingles. A claim of having shingles isn't proof of shingles; it is, however, evidence that something is wrong. Dismissing the claim of shingles outright, however, would be foolish.



No, Yoink - it's not the same thing at all; personal testimony of the divine is a statement "I have had an experience that I believe was an encounter with God." Hardly the same thing as what you described.



I have no idea why you would say this. I have repeatedly said that the evidence is poor, questionable, and can be challenged concerning it's content; what you cannot do is simply pretend that it doesn't exist and ignore it in an argument against the existence of God.

Simply dismissing the evidence because you don't believe it is an error. Please feel free to dismiss it - but do so by proving it empty of value concerning the existence of God. Simply dismissing the evidence with the appeal that it's "begging the question" is inappropriate.



Correct. However, prior to proof that this wasn't true made the apparent evidence of their own eyes the best explanation available at the time. If you had lived then and denied the belief simply because you didn't think it was right, you would have been accidently correct - but you would have been as flawed in your belief as they were. You would have believed that the Earth revolved around the sun based on faith alone. You could have as easily been wrong as they were. It wasn't until incontrovertible scientific proof was produced that anyone could dismiss the claim of the sun rotating around the earth with authority.



Again, this is a confusion between evidence and proof.



Whenever I believe I'm absolutely correct, I'm usually wrong.

This is frustrating. I think we're just quibbling about definitions here. Very early on I accepted that I should have made a distinction between "valid" and "invalid" evidence--or "evidence that has evidentiary weight" and "evidence that does not." Now you come back to me with a distinction between "evidence" and "proof" which it appears to me merely repeats that distinction--although it does so at the risk of introducing another problem (because "proof" is too absolute a claim).

I'm not denying that anecdotal evidence is "evidence"--I am saying that there are some questions on which "anecdotal evidence" has no bearing. You seem to rather vacillate on this question. Let me suggest two possible positions.

1/ You think that all the anecdotal evidence that has amassed over the centuries as to the existence of God makes the existence of God more plausible.

2/ You think (with me) that all the anecdotal evidence that has amassed over the centuries as to the existence of God fails to make the existence of God any more plausible.

If your position is 1 then I think you're simply in error for all the reasons I've adduced. This is a point about which personal testimony is incapable of resolving our doubts.

If your position is 2, then you are in agreement with me, and are merely quibbling over the definition of the word "evidence." You want to say something along the lines of "sure, this isn't proof, but it's still evidence" where I would say "this is evidence, but it isn't valid evidence."

That would hardly seem a difference worth arguing about (even on the internet!) but I will say in defence of my position that the problem with the word "proof" is that it tends to imply a notion of conclusiveness. That is "I have proof that you are the man who killed Colonel Mustard!" doesn't usually mean "I have become acquainted with facts that make it seem very likely that you are the murderer" but "the mystery is solved! You are the murderer!"

Now, I am saying not just that the existence of God is not "proven" (conclusively) by all the anecdotal evidence of the centuries, but that all this testimony does not even rise to the level of (valid) evidence

It is "evidence" that need not be weighed in the balance when we try to resolve the question of God's existence, because (despite the wealth of the material) it cannot bear on the question at hand.

If you disagree, I'd like to know what extra weight such "evidence" (or, in your terminology, "proof") does in fact, bring to bear.

ETA:

You are confusing "evidence" with "proof". No-one is suggesting that the claim "I have shingles" is proof - or should be taken as proof - of the patient having shingles. A claim of having shingles isn't proof of shingles; it is, however, evidence that something is wrong. Dismissing the claim of shingles outright, however, would be foolish.

I just want to pick this particular comment out, because it seems to me to commit a significant error. You say "well, the statement is "evidence that something is wrong." Well, yes, but that's not the point. I don't say that personal testimony that God spoke to someone isn't evidence of anything. I say that it is not valid evidence as to the question of God's existence. Similarly, in this case, the patient's statement is not valid evidence as to what is wrong with the patient, although it is useful evidence that the patient feels ill.

If you choose to reply to this post I'd be pleased if you'd address the example I gave in reply to drkitten--about the patient who says "martians have eaten their way into my body and are making me ill." This is certainly "evidence that there is something wrong with the patient." It is perhaps even, in your terminology, a kind of "proof" that something is wrong with the patient. It is not, however, in my terminology "valid evidence" that the patient in fact suffers from an attack of "martians." I am saying that accounts of God's action in people's lives are exactly the same as the patients claim that they have been attacked by martians.

The point here--and I want to be very clear about this--is not that either is impossible. The patient could be being attacked by martians. Who knows? The point is that the mere claim on the part of the patient is not, and would not be regarded as, "evidence" that this was what was occuring. And this is not because the doctor is a vile, closed-minded bigot. It is because the doctor is a reasonable person who says "I would need to have evidence that this complaint was possible before I would consider this claim as worth pursuing." Similarly, the atheist (me, here) is reasonable in saying "without proof of God's existence other than the mere anecdotal claims of believers there is no point in me regarding these claims as having any evidentiary weight." They are not "evidence" of God's existence--despite the possibility that they may in fact be both true and accurate--until the question of God's existence has been addressed by other means. The same goes for the question of "martian attack" as a genuine medical complaint.

 

[ChaoticLimbs]

I, for one, am indeed closed minded regarding the notion of a creative GOD who somehow cares about my well being and yet strangely has no regard for the well being of those people living in Yemen, Afghanistan or Nigeria.
The reason that I say that there can be no God caring for me and blessing me with all of these nice luxuries in my life is that I see that people here in the First World have those things because such things are so accessible, which makes it ludicrous to posit that I have food on my table because a benevolent deity makes it so.
For if it were true that I have MORE than enough food to feed me, and MORE than enough to make me morbidly obese, that this benevolent God is actually some kind if magical moron, arbitrarily assigning wealth according to the circumstances of one's birth. This makes God in actuality random chance and circumstances.
Therefore there is no benevolent God, no higher power with a will to do good stuff for me.
For if there was, I would curse him as being arbitrary and capricious, foolish with his magical resources and cruel to the core.

 

[Jabra]

Hi, KarlQuigley,

I'm as much 'New Blood' around this Forum as you are, and I received a very nice welcome as well. So, welcome to you, too, and you'll be alright around here.

The questions to which you prepared your answers to are indeed a 'chewed cud', but that doesn't matter. To prepare your answers, you've obviously heard the questions before, and were merely testing this Forum's response, as you say. I suppose you 'got what you were expecting?!' All well and god! (I mean, good..)

From my perspective, I ask: How many unrefuted answers to 'The Existense of God Questions' add up to giving someone an 'argument' for God? And how many 'inadequate answers' to those questions add up to actually re-inforcing someone's 'Faith-in-God''? What is the magic number, I wonder?

It's different for all individuals. Conversely, I couldn't refute enough questions to ever destroy or disrupt someone's leaning towards 'non-faith' (in some) God (and wouldn't want to), and I can't 'prove a case' to someone who doesn't believe, to convince them that 'they are wrong', and should then start thinking 'the other way', either.

There just isn't enough that's quantifiable or provable, period, that would suffice, and that's most unfortunate. Faith comes from 'another area', within an individual person, not from the empirical, scientific method. (And, remember, God gave us our brains, to think up such methods, as well, if you do believe in God.)

I think a person having a belief in a God is a good thing, for individuals who feel the need for a deity in their thinking and in their lives (whether a 'personally hands-off' type of deity (a 'Prime Mover type'), or a more 'daily-consequential' type of one - depending on one's beliefs). And that is not condescension to anyone.

I don't ridicule those of faith, nor those of some other bent. I fervently wish that it all was made much more 'plainer', to ALL of us, as to what the REAL situation IS! Unfortunately, it wasn't, which seems to me to be a major oversight. It seems there is nothing but ambiguity (and for such a seriously consequential matter??!), and so whatever or whichever God might actually exist decided it must be left up to a huge and ongoing 'guessing game' and 'debating problem', for all of our species. Has that shown itself to be a great idea? I have a big problem with this.

It doesn't seem too fair to US, as a whole, an obviously self-destructively-inclined species, but apparently that's what he/she left homo sapiens with. But you would think, that if it was ALL THAT IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US TO KNOW FOR SURE, there would be no need to debate it endlessly, and still be 'uncertain', and as much in the dark, as before the debate started. There would be ways of telling us so as to remove ANY ambiguity, for everyone.

Since it's not been 'made clear' to us, well.......what are all of us to conclude from that? We can't ALL be RIGHT, can we?!

Because I was born into a certain family (which I don't remember asking for), I'm supposed to believe that THAT family's book is the 'right one', but let's say YOU were born into a family with a different book, and YOU are supposed to believe YOUR family's book? How are we ever supposed to know?

So, for me, it just eventually turned into a matter of 'too many diagramatically-opposed different books around', on what is always presented as the 'most important kind of a subject'. And then, a day came, and people said, 'Well, can't we just try and 'fuse' some of these different books together'? And, from then... on and on and on, which I think must dilute any of the 'believabilty' in them ALL.

No, we should all have been told, in no UNCERTAIN TERMS, for sure, if it REALLY DOES AND IS SUPPOSED TO matter to all of us, or to any of us, by some entity that is TRULY CONCERNED about all of us.

 

[bruto]

Let's be reasonable. Our current scientific understanding of the process of planetary formation suggests that at one point, the Earth was indeed a barren rock. (Well, actually, the theories suggest that it was a barren mass of red-hot lava, but that's still a form of rock.) At some point, it cooled sufficiently to form large masses of solid crust (even if they were still above the boiling point of water), at which point "a barren rock" is a pretty good description.

With further cooling came oceans, dissolved minerals, an as-yet-understood process of abiogenesis, and eventually life.

So, yes, life did form "on a barren rock" -- at some point, it was a barren rock, and then (through a series of intermediate stages, and eventually life formed. Or are you suggesting that I'm not building my house on a cornfield if the first step is to pour a concrete foundation where the corn used to be?

On the other hand, just to be argumentative, since "barren" does not in its basic usage mean lifeless, but incapable of producing life, it would appear that rock it may well have been, but barren, anything but. The cornfield is not barren in spring before the seeds germinate.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Tell me why it is so hard to accept that there may be a God and to accept that the universe was created from a big bang is easy.

'Cos of all the evidence against the existence of God and all the evidence for the Big Bang.

A closed mind refuses to look at the evidence and evaluate it: an open mind follows wherever the evidence leads.

A "strong anti-God attitude", as God is usually defined, is no more evidence of "not ... skepticism but closed minds", than a strong anti-flying pig attitude.

(NB: You seem to be trying to work round the evidence against God by redefining God so that he is, in practice, indistinguishable from nothing at all. Have you ever heard of the phrase "identity of indiscernables"?)

You seem to have no idea either what evolution or the Big Bang is; and if you are going to criticize concepts which you haven't taken the trouble to find out about, you should be careful of accusing other people of having "closed minds". There is ample information on these subjects to be found in libraries and on the internet: your first step in being "open-minded" with respect to these concepts should be to find out what they actually are.

When I reject theism, I do not do so because I suppose that theists believe the universe was created by Dog: for this reason none of my arguments against theism would involve pointing out that dogs can't create universes. I have taken the trouble to learn what theists think, and what arguments they advance for their beliefs --- and that is why I reject theism.

In the same way, I took the trouble to learn what the theory of evolution is, and what arguments scientists advance for it, which is why I know that it's correct.

May I recommend a similar course of study to you?

Oh yes, and welcome to the forums.

 

[jmercer]

This is frustrating.

Most debates here are. I learned to accept that after a while.

I think we're just quibbling about definitions here. Very early on I accepted that I should have made a distinction between "valid" and "invalid" evidence--or "evidence that has evidentiary weight" and "evidence that does not." Now you come back to me with a distinction between "evidence" and "proof" which it appears to me merely repeats that distinction--although it does so at the risk of introducing another problem (because "proof" is too absolute a claim).

Yoink... please understand that I'm not saying this to further your frustration, but to help clarify things a bit. I haven't suggested at any point that valid and invalid evidence was a part of this discussion. That's a distinction you chose to make in response to my very first comment on your post.

My entire point was - and is - as simple as this: "We cannot flatly deny that there is evidence of God(s), because there is evidence. Granted, the evidence is highly suspect, inconsistent, likely untrustworthy, and not really worth much in terms of real proof - but we can't simply deny it's existence."

All of the "testimony" concerning God is strictly anecdotal and I sure as hell wouldn't want to try and prove the existence (or non-existence!) of God by using it. But I think it's a cardinal (pardon the pun! ) error to simply state "There is no evidence" - if for no other reason than someone who believes that their scripture is proof of God will immediately classify you as close-minded.

As I said before - and as has been done quite well on occasion in these forums - in order to deal with this admittedly poor and porous evidence, you have to deal with the content. If someone cites the bible as proof of God - fine! First, ask them which bible, for starters... then ask them for proof that their version is the "True(tm)" version. After they've proven that (good luck to them there!), ask them which passages prove God's existence, and take that on.

However, you must keep in mind that first-hand experiences for people who believe they've encountered God are very, very strong experiences, and - to them - are utterly valid and absolute proof. To them, your doubts about their personal experiences - while understandable - appear foolish.

You should also keep in mind that regardless of what you personally believe, you may be wrong. There's no way to be certain.

I'm not denying that anecdotal evidence is "evidence"--I am saying that there are some questions on which "anecdotal evidence" has no bearing. You seem to rather vacillate on this question. Let me suggest two possible positions.

1/ You think that all the anecdotal evidence that has amassed over the centuries as to the existence of God makes the existence of God more plausible.

2/ You think (with me) that all the anecdotal evidence that has amassed over the centuries as to the existence of God fails to make the existence of God any more plausible.

If your position is 1 then I think you're simply in error for all the reasons I've adduced. This is a point about which personal testimony is incapable of resolving our doubts.

If your position is 2, then you are in agreement with me, and are merely quibbling over the definition of the word "evidence." You want to say something along the lines of "sure, this isn't proof, but it's still evidence" where I would say "this is evidence, but it isn't valid evidence."

That would hardly seem a difference worth arguing about (even on the internet!) but I will say in defence of my position that the problem with the word "proof" is that it tends to imply a notion of conclusiveness. That is "I have proof that you are the man who killed Colonel Mustard!" doesn't usually mean "I have become acquainted with facts that make it seem very likely that you are the murderer" but "the mystery is solved! You are the murderer!"

Now, I am saying not just that the existence of God is not "proven" (conclusively) by all the anecdotal evidence of the centuries, but that all this testimony does not even rise to the level of (valid) evidence

It is "evidence" that need not be weighed in the balance when we try to resolve the question of God's existence, because (despite the wealth of the material) it cannot bear on the question at hand.

If you disagree, I'd like to know what extra weight such "evidence" (or, in your terminology, "proof") does in fact, bring to bear.

ETA:

I just want to pick this particular comment out, because it seems to me to commit a significant error. You say "well, the statement is "evidence that something is wrong." Well, yes, but that's not the point. I don't say that personal testimony that God spoke to someone isn't evidence of anything. I say that it is not valid evidence as to the question of God's existence. Similarly, in this case, the patient's statement is not valid evidence as to what is wrong with the patient, although it is useful evidence that the patient feels ill.

If you choose to reply to this post I'd be pleased if you'd address the example I gave in reply to drkitten--about the patient who says "martians have eaten their way into my body and are making me ill." This is certainly "evidence that there is something wrong with the patient." It is perhaps even, in your terminology, a kind of "proof" that something is wrong with the patient. It is not, however, in my terminology "valid evidence" that the patient in fact suffers from an attack of "martians." I am saying that accounts of God's action in people's lives are exactly the same as the patients claim that they have been attacked by martians.

The point here--and I want to be very clear about this--is not that either is impossible. The patient could be being attacked by martians. Who knows? The point is that the mere claim on the part of the patient is not, and would not be regarded as, "evidence" that this was what was occuring. And this is not because the doctor is a vile, closed-minded bigot. It is because the doctor is a reasonable person who says "I would need to have evidence that this complaint was possible before I would consider this claim as worth pursuing." Similarly, the atheist (me, here) is reasonable in saying "without proof of God's existence other than the mere anecdotal claims of believers there is no point in me regarding these claims as having any evidentiary weight." They are not "evidence" of God's existence--despite the possibility that they may in fact be both true and accurate--until the question of God's existence has been addressed by other means. The same goes for the question of "martian attack" as a genuine medical complaint.

Nicely argued. But you can't simply choose my position for me.

There's a third option that I endorse, and that option is skeptical, open-minded and objective. It doesn't begin with a belief-based judgement prior to examining the evidence at hand.

3/ I think that all the anecdotal evidence that has amassed over the centuries as to the existence of God must be included in any debate about God and not dismissed without evidence-based reason.

If you want to know what I personally think, I'll tell you - I think the bible is a poorly written fantasy novel designed to promote power over people during a time when such beliefs were rampantly unsophisticated. And I think that centuries of modification and editing were required to fix the glaring failures as they became apparent.

However, what I personally think has absolutely nothing to do with how I deal with the issue.

 

[Yahzi]

I'd like to point out that I made much the same argument in a post that you ask Karl to ignore. I didn't do it quite as concisely, but I did it.

Trust me, with these types you gotta keep it simple and short.



It won't work, of course. They just ignore the elephant squatting on their argument, and natter on about the color of the curtains.

 

[Yahzi]

How can I sensibly argue without evidence? Of course, I can’t and I won’t attempt it.

He (she) then had the audacity to post a message suggesting that there may be a grand design to it all.

The audacity was in posting something you have just defined as inarguable, and yet expecting people to treat as more than juvenile speculation.

How can you start your thread by saying, "Theists have no evidence, so no rational person should believe them?" and end it by saying, "How dare you say that no rational person should believe theists!"

In the space of one post.

 

[Rasmus]

As I said before - and as has been done quite well on occasion in these forums - in order to deal with this admittedly poor and porous evidence, you have to deal with the content. If someone cites the bible as proof of God - fine!

No, it is not fine.

It is a book, no more or no different than the Harry Potter novells. If someone came up to me and claimed that Harry Potter was real then that would be utterly insane, and the books would not be evidence to support their stance.

The daVinci Code is also no evidence that there are 666 glass panes in the pyramid of the louvre, even though it says so in the book, and even though the book claims that it reports the truth.

Looking at the books, it turns out that they are probably not even evidence that their respective authors believe what they wrote to be the truth.

First, ask them which bible, for starters... then ask them for proof that their version is the "True(tm)" version. After they've proven that (good luck to them there!), ask them which passages prove God's existence, and take that on.

Why would I waste my time with that? For the last two millenia, nobody has been able to answer these questions. It is hardly justified, therefore, to accuse me of dismissing something "out of hand" if I refuse to accept the bible as evidence for anything. If two thousand years isn't good enough, then how much consideration would you demand before something is dismissed with at least some degree of justification?

However, you must keep in mind that first-hand experiences for people who believe they've encountered God are very, very strong experiences, and - to them - are utterly valid and absolute proof. To them, your doubts about their personal experiences - while understandable - appear foolish.

That has no bearing on what is or isn't evidence of anything.

You should also keep in mind that regardless of what you personally believe, you may be wrong. There's no way to be certain.

Yes, I could be wrong. Maybe someday someone will be able to prove what 2000 years of Christianity have failed to prove. I won't be holding my breath, though, until after such proof has come forth. I see no obligation to entertain the silliness of those who wonder in here or elsewhere and have the arrogance to assume that they have answers to questions what generations of scientists, clergy and philosophers have failed to find. Especially if the people that come here show no sign of being aware of the history of these arguments.

3/ I think that all the anecdotal evidence that has amassed over the centuries as to the existence of God must be included in any debate about God and not dismissed without reason.

What more reason do you require?

If you want to know what I personally think, I'll tell you - I think the bible is a poorly written fantasy novel designed to promote power over people during a time when such beliefs were rampantly unsophisticated. And I think that centuries of modification and editing were required to fix the glaring failures as they became apparent.

However, what I personally think has absolutely nothing to do with how I deal with the issue.

And why should I spell out the reason for coming to the same conclusion to anyone that comes in here and believes they have found proof of god? I have little sympathy for the wilfully ignorant.

 

[jmercer]

In the same way, I took the trouble to learn what the theory of evolution is, and what arguments scientists advance for it, which is why I know that it's correct.

[/Fun quibble On!!!!]
You "know" it's correct? Heck, I studied it too, and I only believe it's correct. I'm nominating you for Forum God.
[/Fun quibble Off!!!!]

 

[jmercer]

No, it is not fine.

It is a book, no more or no different than the Harry Potter novells. If someone came up to me and claimed that Harry Potter was real then that would be utterly insane, and the books would not be evidence to support their stance.

The daVinci Code is also no evidence that there are 666 glass panes in the pyramid of the louvre, even though it says so in the book, and even though the book claims that it reports the truth.

Looking at the books, it turns out that they are probably not even evidence that their respective authors believe what they wrote to be the truth.



Why would I waste my time with that? For the last two millenia, nobody has been able to answer these questions. It is hardly justified, therefore, to accuse me of dismissing something "out of hand" if I refuse to accept the bible as evidence for anything. If two thousand years isn't good enough, then how much consideration would you demand before something is dismissed with at least some degree of justification?



That has no bearing on what is or isn't evidence of anything.



Yes, I could be wrong. Maybe someday someone will be able to prove what 2000 years of Christianity have failed to prove. I won't be holding my breath, though, until after such proof has come forth. I see no obligation to entertain the silliness of those who wonder in here or elsewhere and have the arrogance to assume that they have answers to questions what generations of scientists, clergy and philosophers have failed to find. Especially if the people that come here show no sign of being aware of the history of these arguments.



What more reason do you require?



And why should I spell out the reason for coming to the same conclusion to anyone that comes in here and believes they have found proof of god? I have little sympathy for the wilfully ignorant.

I require proof. Either proof of God's existence, or proof that God cannot exist.

Do you happen to have any? Because until I see some, I intend to withhold final judgement on the matter. Which, I believe, is a good example of skepticism at work.

 

[PreciousD]

I'm just saying that there were chemicals present, and life is an entirely chemical process.

Ummmmmm...Aren't rocks, even barren ones, made of chemicals? Saying that chemicals were present doesn't seem to refute the idea that life arose on a barren rock. They would have to be present by virtue of the existance of the rock itself.

 

[Tez]

I propose to this forum that God exists and created life, the universe and everything.

Here’s some pre-prepared answers for you.

1> God always existed and there was never a time when God did not exist.
2> I’m not saying God created fossils or anything like that. God created evolution.
3> The big bang itself had something to do with God.
4> The theory that simple life forms first and then becomes complex does not hold water – to me anyway. All life is complex. Hurricanes, scrap and airplanes.
5> The theory that there was once nothing and now there is everything sounds like the acceptance of magic which any God worth his salt is capable of performing.*
6> Yes, I agree the Bible’s version of events are misguided.
7> I never once said that God watches over us and cares what we do.
8> I agree that the proposal is probably unarguable. I hoping someone will try.
9> No I am not and I resent the implication.
10> I know you are but what am I?

Actually, answer five is more an afterthought.

Karl Quigley D.A.
E&OE

All I can say is that your choice of god is boooooooring. So boring in fact that there is certainly no reason to care whether its right or not.

 

[PreciousD]

One argument not used yet in this thread is the one from evil: You know, if God exists, why all the suffering, pain, random disasters, etc. But you say that you don't claim that God cares about what we do. So maybe that's no objection.

I thought everyone knew that the answer to The Problem of Evil is Free Will.

 

[Rasmus]

I require proof. Either proof of God's existence, or proof that God cannot exist.

Do you happen to have any? Because until I see some, I intend to withhold final judgement on the matter. Which, I believe, is a good example of skepticism at work.

No, it is not. You cannot prove a negative. But to hold that it is reasonable to withhold judgement on the existence of god, the flying spaghetti monster, the easter bunny, harry potter, the tooth fairy, the invisible pink unicorn (BBHHH) *and* and an honest layer borders on the insane.

It is good scepticism to judge that they do not exist and then be prepared if further evidence should be brought forth.

We can now continue to bicker about the difference between final judgement and preliminary judgement - but again, I think that 2000 years without any new evidence is more than I need to state with confidence that there is no god.

Oh, sure, I could be mistaken. Big whooping deal. I could be mistaken about everything, but there is nothing where it is less likely that I would be mistaken. So forgive me for living my life somewhat more pragmatically.

That aside, how about paying me back those 5 Million $ you owe me?

 

[jmercer]

No, it is not. You cannot prove a negative. But to hold that it is reasonable to withhold judgement on the existence of god, the flying spaghetti monster, the easter bunny, harry potter, the tooth fairy, the invisible pink unicorn (BBHHH) *and* and an honest layer borders on the insane.

It is good scepticism to judge that they do not exist and then be prepared if further evidence should be brought forth.

It may be good judgement (or not), but I'm not at all sure it's good skepticism. I think I'll withhold judgement on that, too.

We can now continue to bicker about the difference between final judgement and preliminary judgement - but again, I think that 2000 years without any new evidence is more than I need to state with confidence that there is no god.

Heh... maybe he's just lying low to screw with your head. After all, if you read the bible (and I'll bet you have), that seems quite in character.

Oh, sure, I could be mistaken. Big whooping deal. I could be mistaken about everything, but there is nothing where it is less likely that I would be mistaken. So forgive me for living my life somewhat more pragmatically.

I forgive you, my son.

That aside, how about paying me back those 5 Million $ you owe me?

Absolutely! Been meaning to do that. Just as soon as you produce that I.O.U. note...