If by honest "layer" you ment lawyer, well I'm not able to easily "prove" it on this forum, but I assure you that my father is an honest lawyer. It may be only anecdotal, but his clients as well as the judges and other lawyers he's worked would likely testify to that. However, the fact that in the past he has also been the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy may be interpreted as not always being honest in the strictest sense as a father, but I'm not complaining.
No God you say? Please read me.
- Thread starter KarlQuigley
- Start date
No. The answer is 42. Everyone knows that's the answer to everything.
Ah, but The Problem of Evil is not everything. It is one thing. And so, though the answer to everything is indeed 42, it does not follow that every answer is 42. That is, "Free Will" is one of the smaller answers contained within the Ultimate Answer of 42.
My take on the issue of anecdotal evidence for the existence of God:
There is nothing necessarily wrong with anecdotal evidence. It just happens to be lacking in rigor, and as such we have to be careful what conclusions we draw from it.
Now let's say a friend of mine comes to me and says, "I had lunch with Bob today." I will be inclined to believe him, both because I know Bob, and because my friend has been trustworthy in the past. There's nothing to suggest to me that he might be wrong about this as well. All of these qualifiers are also evidence as to the fact that he has lunch with Bob, just as is his statement "I had lunch with Bob." All of this is added to the body of evidence that helps me make my conclusion.
But let's try to be a little more sure. I'll ask him, "What makes you think that?"
Friend: "Well, I called Bob on my phone, and he answered me, saying that he could join me for lunch."
Me: "Ah, yeah, I remember when he gave you his phone number."
Friend: "And we agreed to meet at my favourite restaurant. When I got there, I saw someone that looked just like him sitting at the table. I sat down next to him and we enjoyed lunch. Over the course of lunch he acted just as I've always known him to act, his voice was as I remember it. He ordered his favourite dish and made small talk with the waitress, who remembered him well."
Now, all of this is entirely reasonable. Looking at the evidence that he's collected, it seems to me that the most reasonable conclusion is that he he lunch with Bob.
Let's contrast this with a theist.
Friend: "I had lunch with God today."
Me: "How do you know?"
Friend: "This afternoon I was sitting at my desk when I suddenly had this strong feeling that God wanted to meet me for lunch."
Me: "Really? That's weird."
Friend: "Yeah. So I went to my favourite restaurant. I saw a glowing orb of light hanging over one of the tables, so I sat down there."
Friend: "God started to talk to me, telling me all sorts of things about the way other people should live, what I should do with my life, and confirming my own beleifs about the world."
Me: "Did he tell you anything that you didn't already know?"
Friend: "Well... not really."
Me: "Okay, go on."
Friend: "When it came time to order, God got all quiet, and he wouldn't say anything, so I ordered him a ceasar salad. I guess he didn't like it, though, because he didn't have any."
Okay, I'm being a little silly here. My point is not that such testimony is meaningless. My point is that all of the other evidence is lacking. There are better conclusions from the evidence that my friend has to offer me than that he had lunch with God. He might be a little nuts. Maybe he took some sort of drug. I don't know, but while this might be evidence for God, it is much better evidence for my friend's mental illness.
Similarly there have been many eye-witness acounts of UFO sightings. I don't doubt that many of these saw something. These accounts are certainly evidence for the existence of UFOs. They are even evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial visitors to earth. They just happen to be weak evidence.
Someone can say, "I saw an alien spacecraft fly over my house last night." But we say, "what makes you think what you saw was an alien spacecraft?"
And usually from their report, we can give some other explanation that is more well supported by the whole body of evidence that we have available.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with anecdotal evidence. It just happens to be lacking in rigor, and as such we have to be careful what conclusions we draw from it.
Now let's say a friend of mine comes to me and says, "I had lunch with Bob today." I will be inclined to believe him, both because I know Bob, and because my friend has been trustworthy in the past. There's nothing to suggest to me that he might be wrong about this as well. All of these qualifiers are also evidence as to the fact that he has lunch with Bob, just as is his statement "I had lunch with Bob." All of this is added to the body of evidence that helps me make my conclusion.
But let's try to be a little more sure. I'll ask him, "What makes you think that?"
Friend: "Well, I called Bob on my phone, and he answered me, saying that he could join me for lunch."
Me: "Ah, yeah, I remember when he gave you his phone number."
Friend: "And we agreed to meet at my favourite restaurant. When I got there, I saw someone that looked just like him sitting at the table. I sat down next to him and we enjoyed lunch. Over the course of lunch he acted just as I've always known him to act, his voice was as I remember it. He ordered his favourite dish and made small talk with the waitress, who remembered him well."
Now, all of this is entirely reasonable. Looking at the evidence that he's collected, it seems to me that the most reasonable conclusion is that he he lunch with Bob.
Let's contrast this with a theist.
Friend: "I had lunch with God today."
Me: "How do you know?"
Friend: "This afternoon I was sitting at my desk when I suddenly had this strong feeling that God wanted to meet me for lunch."
Me: "Really? That's weird."
Friend: "Yeah. So I went to my favourite restaurant. I saw a glowing orb of light hanging over one of the tables, so I sat down there."
Friend: "God started to talk to me, telling me all sorts of things about the way other people should live, what I should do with my life, and confirming my own beleifs about the world."
Me: "Did he tell you anything that you didn't already know?"
Friend: "Well... not really."
Me: "Okay, go on."
Friend: "When it came time to order, God got all quiet, and he wouldn't say anything, so I ordered him a ceasar salad. I guess he didn't like it, though, because he didn't have any."
Okay, I'm being a little silly here. My point is not that such testimony is meaningless. My point is that all of the other evidence is lacking. There are better conclusions from the evidence that my friend has to offer me than that he had lunch with God. He might be a little nuts. Maybe he took some sort of drug. I don't know, but while this might be evidence for God, it is much better evidence for my friend's mental illness.
Similarly there have been many eye-witness acounts of UFO sightings. I don't doubt that many of these saw something. These accounts are certainly evidence for the existence of UFOs. They are even evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial visitors to earth. They just happen to be weak evidence.
Someone can say, "I saw an alien spacecraft fly over my house last night." But we say, "what makes you think what you saw was an alien spacecraft?"
And usually from their report, we can give some other explanation that is more well supported by the whole body of evidence that we have available.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
You do now. Just for the record.
I, like Douglas Adams, hold a strong atheist position: There is no God. Period.
This is not an "opinion" or "belief", anymore than it's an opinion or belief that the sun and planets do not revolve around the Earth.
We know enough about the universe at this point to positively discount all theories of God, unless (as discussed above) they are framed so weakly as to be empty, in which case they are not theories at all.
On another well-known board I once heard someone make the argument that we should be open to the possibility that somebody might someday come up with a theory of God that works. But this, too, is nonsense. It's like saying that, even though tales of magical fire-breathing dragons are pure myth, someone might be able to concoct a definition of "magical fire-breathing dragon" that corresponds to something real, so we should withhold judgment.
Here's the nub of it:
1. Notions of God have their origin in myth, religion, and legend.
2. As physical theories about our universe have advanced, corresponding God-centered ideas have retreated, and the rational/material worldview has won out in every case.
3. There is no coherent core God-theory with which all non-marginal theists will agree.
4. One can discard the God theory entirely and not lose one iota of explanatory power.
5. God theories create innumerable problems and solve none.
6. There are perfectly rational explanations for why human beings should believe in God despite its non-existence.
Thus endeth God.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Of what, exactly?
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
Free will causes natural disasters and all suffering?
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
I have yet to encounter an account of a 'god' that is worthy of respect, let alone worship.
The question of whether a god or gods exist bores the hell out of me. If one or more of them did exist, it would not matter to me one bit.
As it stands, I have no reason to posit such an arrogant and deranged critter. My understanding of the world is such that adding something as unnecessary and artless as a god to the mix would be an uncouth kludge.
The question of whether a god or gods exist bores the hell out of me. If one or more of them did exist, it would not matter to me one bit.
As it stands, I have no reason to posit such an arrogant and deranged critter. My understanding of the world is such that adding something as unnecessary and artless as a god to the mix would be an uncouth kludge.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I've decided on a sort of reverse of Pascal's wager. If there is no god then it doesn't matter what I believe. If there is, and he's actually a god worthy of the title, not some crackpot home-made concoction of primitive fears and misunderstandings, then it doesn't matter what I believe. The safe bet, if you trust in the goodness of God, is to remain godless.
Nice logic, well written, concisely put.
Got proof?
Of what, exactly?
Well, this is a skeptics forum... I am a skeptic, and you have made a claim. You have claimed:
"There is no God. Period.
This is not an "opinion" or "belief", anymore than it's an opinion or belief that the sun and planets do not revolve around the Earth."
As I've stated in this thread and others, I'd love to see proof of God - proof that God exists, or that God doesn't exist, either one.
You say it's a fact; I require proof of that claim, just like I would require proof of a claim that God exists.
UndercoverElephant
Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2002
- Messages
- 9,058
Grammatically, it is not an opinion. Grammatically, it is a bald statement of fact. But since it cannot possibly be supported in the same way as "the sun and planets revolve around the Earth" can be, it ought to be expressed as a belief. Just because you hold that belief very strongly, it does not follow that you can justify turning into a fact.
But....the precise situation depends on exactly what you mean by "God" in your statement.
If you mean some specific conception of God, then it may well be possible to support the statement. e.g. if God means "The God of Christianity, as described literally in the Bible." then your statement is supported by scientific fact. Either the biblical account of God is literally true OR darwinism is true, but they can't both be true. Therefore the empirical facts supporting darwinism also support the claim that "there is no God".
However, there are many other conceptions of God, even within Christianity. There are a great many other conceptions of God outside Christianity. Of these, there is no shortage of conceptions of God which do not contradict empirical science at all. If you allow the word "God" to stand for those conceptions of God (and you have not specified that you won't allow this) then your position is untenable. You can legitimately claim that you do not believe in the existence of any sort of God but if you try to claim that it is a FACT that nothing resembling any of those conceptions actually exists, then you are in serious trouble, because you've lost the ability to tell the difference between facts about empirical reality and purely metaphysical/religious beliefs. That's neither critical thinking nor skepticism. It's just dogma.
Absolute nonsense. You have no means of supporting this claim. But please do try.....
Apart from the ones that have their origin in philosophy and direct human experience.
Ah, so the turkey which learns that every time the farmer's wife comes down the path at dawn, it is going to get it's breakfast, is justified in believing that whenever the farmer's wife comes down the path at dawn, it's going to get fed, yes?
Your view is oversimplified, blind to the well-documented weaknesses in the materialial worldview, and critically dependent on invalid inductive reasoning.
There is no coherent anti-God-theory with which all non-marginal atheists will agree. Try finding me someone who (completely) agrees with you, for example.
Which "God theory"?
Equally, there are perfectly rational explanations for why human beings should disbelieve in God, despite God's existence.
You are beginning to sound like lifegazer. "Use olde Englishe! It's so much more convincing!"
StewartP
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 449
UndercoverElephant
Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2002
- Messages
- 9,058
Good. Then you'll be able to tell me which definition of "God" you are refering to. Or are you defending the claim that the proposition "it is certain that no God exists" is true, regardless of how you define God?
Remember, piggy has claimed that the only cases where his proposition doesn't apply is when the definition of God is "sufficiently vague" as to be meaningless. From where I am standing, it looks like you can agree with piggy, but only because the definition of God is sufficiently vague such that neither you, nor I, nor piggy actually knows what is meant.
The critical problem with his position is the extension of "God cannot possibly exist" from specific (Christian) conceptions of God which explicitly contradict science to a much more generalised claim about "all conceptions of God", including those which do not contradict science at all, either explicity or implicitly. Are you agreeing with piggy to the extent that your position also becomes vulnerable to criticism of this sort? Or are you just saying that you are certain that the God of the creationists cannot possibly exist?
Put it another way: anyone who thinks they can defend the claim that empirical science supports hard atheism is a sitting duck. I'd love to see somebody here attempt to support such a claim, because I think it would become fairly obvious very quickly that it cannot be done.
Last edited:
And you know that?
StewartP
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 449
Yes.
OK
Yes
I am a bear of very little brain. I wouldn't dream of of trying to support atheism by emperical science. God is not logical. neither the concept, nor the guy himself. You had suggested that there is no coherent anti-God-theory with which all non-marginal atheists will agree. And your suggested proof of that was that piggy would be hard pressed to find a single person who completely agrees with him. I was being glib when I suggested that I did. But now that you pointed out that he has multiple definitions of his atheism I've thought deeper and decided that . . .
I still agree with him. Whatever the definitions. Which is why I've replied "Yes" and "OK" because all options sit perfectly well with me.
Stitching it back together I get:
"It is certain that no god exists, regardless of how you define god except when the definition of god is "sufficiently vague" as to be meaningless."
Yep. That's OK with me.
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,949
UndercoverElephant,
I consider myself to be a hard atheist. I believe that no god exists. When I make this claim, obviously I have something in mind when I say "god". I could have a cat named "god", but obviously that doesn't mean that I do not believe that the cat exists. The definition of "god" I have in mind when I make the statement is that of a supernatural being (or beings) which somehow created and/or control at least some part of the world. I am not including things like the Deistic notion of a God (which, in my opinion, cannot meaningfully be said to exist or not exist), nor am I talking about definitions of god which essentially define god to be the universe itself, or some sort of "first cause" or other highly philosophical notion which does not implicitely entail that the god be some sort of supernatural being.
That said, I see absolutely no difficulty in claiming that empirical science supports my position. I also see no reason why I should be forced to either adopt the term "atheist" to refer to anything which anybody anywhere has arbitrarily chosen to call a "god", or not call myself an atheist.
Anyway, in my opinion the entire argument about what does or does not constitute atheism is rather pointless. When discussing the issue with laymen, they are not interested in deep philosophical issues. The term atheist just conveys to them that I am not a follower of any of the various forms of theism which they are familiar with. If I am having a deep philosophical discussion about the issue, the term "atheism" isn't even relevant. More likely I would explain that I am a naturalist whose philosophy is that beliefs about synthetic propositions should be based on empirical evidence.
Dr. Stupid
This position seems to me to be somewhat of a double standard. If I am understanding you correctly, on one hand you recognize that claims about a "god" are only meaningful if a coherent definition of what the person making the claim means by "god", is given. But at the same time your assertion that "anyone who thinks they can defend the claim that empirical science supports hard atheism is a sitting duck", seems to require the assumption that the hard atheist does not have such a coherent definition of what they mean by "god" in mind when they make that claim.
I consider myself to be a hard atheist. I believe that no god exists. When I make this claim, obviously I have something in mind when I say "god". I could have a cat named "god", but obviously that doesn't mean that I do not believe that the cat exists. The definition of "god" I have in mind when I make the statement is that of a supernatural being (or beings) which somehow created and/or control at least some part of the world. I am not including things like the Deistic notion of a God (which, in my opinion, cannot meaningfully be said to exist or not exist), nor am I talking about definitions of god which essentially define god to be the universe itself, or some sort of "first cause" or other highly philosophical notion which does not implicitely entail that the god be some sort of supernatural being.
That said, I see absolutely no difficulty in claiming that empirical science supports my position. I also see no reason why I should be forced to either adopt the term "atheist" to refer to anything which anybody anywhere has arbitrarily chosen to call a "god", or not call myself an atheist.
Anyway, in my opinion the entire argument about what does or does not constitute atheism is rather pointless. When discussing the issue with laymen, they are not interested in deep philosophical issues. The term atheist just conveys to them that I am not a follower of any of the various forms of theism which they are familiar with. If I am having a deep philosophical discussion about the issue, the term "atheism" isn't even relevant. More likely I would explain that I am a naturalist whose philosophy is that beliefs about synthetic propositions should be based on empirical evidence.
Dr. Stupid
[/begin aside]
Hey, Stimpy - good to cya again.
[/end aside]
Here's an interesting thought-experiment... or at least, I think so.
If someone - like the Pope, for example - were able to get a being claiming to be God appear at a designated place, at a designated time, what could that being do to prove that S/He was God - as opposed to merely being a highly evolved entity, for example?
Hey, Stimpy - good to cya again.
[/end aside]
Here's an interesting thought-experiment... or at least, I think so.
If someone - like the Pope, for example - were able to get a being claiming to be God appear at a designated place, at a designated time, what could that being do to prove that S/He was God - as opposed to merely being a highly evolved entity, for example?