Now, let's talk evidence for God.

[paximperium]

More saddended than offended. This doesn't sound like the same person I used to talk to in the Presidential Election forum. We always had civil discussions, and I respected you for that. I don't think I said anything to you that warranted such a mean-spirited reply. They were just questions illustrating my point that we all have beliefs about reality we can't ultimately prove, atheists AND theists.

Did hallucination malerin say something? Must've been my imagination.

I will go back to my conversation with Zeus and ride my Unicorn to Olympus to slay YHWH with mjolnir. Using your logic, my story is as justified and as real as your existence, all your imaginary loved ones existance and all those who died in Mumbai.

Why should anyone care about anyone else anyway? They are all a dream.

 

[paximperium]

You also missed the obvious theist objection that God may not be the sort of thing one experiences with their senses anyway, so lack of "Godly" sense-data would not be a detriment to theism on that argument alone.

So god cannot be touched, smelled, seen, felt or have any affect on reality itself that can be measured.

What makes this god anything more than non-existent?

Those atheists are wrong. Reality is either theistic (God or Gods) or atheistic. Atheists can't disprove God and theistic evidence is far from compelling (mostly personal stuff I talked about before, though I still like the fine-tuning argument). In the absence of any evidence for or against, a proposition must be given an agnostic value (.5). That is hardly a "minute probability" for theism.

No. And of course you don't understand probability; the definitions of agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist.

Of course you white wash the concept of theism into one clump. What form of theism are you talking about? Polytheism, Deism, Chickenism, Monotheism? Which type of god/s is more probable? Deism is infinitely more plausible than monotheism and what type? Universalism is more plausible than Christianity.

Now, the same thing could be said about the existence of unicorns (or anything that's not a logical contradiction). Either they exist or they don't.
We have no evidence for or against, so again an agnostic position should be taken.

And again you do not understand what agnostic means.
I'm an agnostic a-Unicorn-ist. Try to work that out.

 

[Third Eye Open]

....


Those atheists are wrong. Reality is either theistic (God or Gods) or atheistic. Atheists can't disprove God and theistic evidence is far from compelling (mostly personal stuff I talked about before, though I still like the fine-tuning argument). In the absence of any evidence for or against, a proposition must be given an agnostic value (.5). That is hardly a "minute probability" for theism.

Now, the same thing could be said about the existence of unicorns (or anything that's not a logical contradiction). Either they exist or they don't. We have no evidence for or against, so again an agnostic position should be taken. I think what you were trying to say is that the question of the existence of God is as trivial as the existence of unicorns or teacups orbitting the moon.

I don't think that's true. For thousands of years, people have not been talking about, and killing each other over, and devoting their lives to the study of whether unicorns or orbitting tea cups exist and what their properties are. People have a fascination with God, and the technical definition of atheism itself proves it is a non-trivial discussion. Atheism is defined as a disbelief in God(s) (though some atheist circles have a more robust definition of the term). Not teacups or fairies or unicorns. Atheism and theism are flip-sides of the same coin.

Um, no, I do not take an agnostic position on unicorns, and neither do you. I take an agnostic positions on snagglewops, because I have no idea what that is. I take an agnostic position on AGW because I get so much conflicted and heated information that I don't know what is propaganda or not, and have not done any research my self (please PLEASE no derail here!) I am agnostic about whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, there is no way to know one way or another from the tiny portion of planets we have observed. But I have observed the world, and history and stories about unicorns and decided that they don't exist. I am not agnostic, I have knowledge.

And don't start on about unicorns living on some other planet somewhere, the odds of a horse evolving exactly like it did here on earth plus one horn, are so astronomical that I don't even consider them.

In the same way, I have observed the world and decided that there is no gods. I could be wrong, yes. But I also could be wrong that my chair will continue to support me, yet I continue to sit on it because the information I have gathered through observation has lead me to trust it.

And when I say there are no gods, I mean that no gods that have ever been described to me exist. Someone may make up some plausible being and call it a god and then say 'ha! that might exist, how you like me now?' but as of now, I say with confidence that all gods I have heard of do not exist.

And since you seemed to make a half-hearted argument from populous or whatever its called, most people on the planet agree with me about all the gods except one. So there. You want to argue from popular opinion? Pick any god, and at least 70% of the world has my back that it doesn't exist.

 

[Mashuna]

THIS is where you were either being dishonest or lazy. This is kicking a rock and trying to refute an idealist. I had a friend, many years ago, who started hallucinating things. Scared the hell out of him. You're claiming the fact that he SAW the hallucinations is what? Evidence that they were real? Doesn't work that way.

When you "see" a person, there are infinite models of reality that are consistent with what your eyes tell you: the person may be real; they may be a bit of software code; an experience fed to your mind; a part of a very vivid dream, etc. The fact that you are getting visual sense-data is not evidence for ANY of these possibilities, because the sense-data fits consistently with ALL possibilities, and you either knew this, or should have known this.

You also missed the obvious theist objection that God may not be the sort of thing one experiences with their senses anyway, so lack of "Godly" sense-data would not be a detriment to theism on that argument alone.



Those atheists are wrong. Reality is either theistic (God or Gods) or atheistic. Atheists can't disprove God and theistic evidence is far from compelling (mostly personal stuff I talked about before, though I still like the fine-tuning argument). In the absence of any evidence for or against, a proposition must be given an agnostic value (.5). That is hardly a "minute probability" for theism.

Now, the same thing could be said about the existence of unicorns (or anything that's not a logical contradiction). Either they exist or they don't. We have no evidence for or against, so again an agnostic position should be taken. I think what you were trying to say is that the question of the existence of God is as trivial as the existence of unicorns or teacups orbitting the moon.

I don't think that's true. For thousands of years, people have not been talking about, and killing each other over, and devoting their lives to the study of whether unicorns or orbitting tea cups exist and what their properties are. People have a fascination with God, and the technical definition of atheism itself proves it is a non-trivial discussion. Atheism is defined as a disbelief in God(s) (though some atheist circles have a more robust definition of the term). Not teacups or fairies or unicorns. Atheism and theism are flip-sides of the same coin.

Wait, so Atheism is as likely as Theism because you can't prove that what we experience is real.

But Theism is more likely to be real that orbiting teapots because of evidence based on stuff that we experience?

 

[six7s]

So god cannot be touched, smelled, seen, felt or have any affect on reality itself that can be measured.

What makes this god anything more than non-existent?
<snip/>
I'm an agnostic a-Unicorn-ist. Try to work that out.

Um, no, I do not take an agnostic position on unicorns, and neither do you. I take an agnostic positions on snagglewops, because I have no idea what that is.
<snip/>
You want to argue from popular opinion? Pick any god, and at least 70% of the world has my back that it doesn't exist.

This thread is great!

You guys do all the typing, and all I have to do is go 'YUP!'

 

[Dr Adequate]

I've looked through the thread, and I still can't find where yrreg defines the hypothetical entity whose existence he wishes to discuss.

While he remains too frightened or embarrassed to tell us what the subject of this thread is, I don't really see how we can discuss it.

 

[Nick227]

THIS is where you were either being dishonest or lazy. This is kicking a rock and trying to refute an idealist. I had a friend, many years ago, who started hallucinating things. Scared the hell out of him. You're claiming the fact that he SAW the hallucinations is what? Evidence that they were real? Doesn't work that way.

When you "see" a person, there are infinite models of reality that are consistent with what your eyes tell you: the person may be real; they may be a bit of software code; an experience fed to your mind; a part of a very vivid dream, etc. The fact that you are getting visual sense-data is not evidence for ANY of these possibilities, because the sense-data fits consistently with ALL possibilities, and you either knew this, or should have known this.

One problem with this is that it's now increasingly recognised that there likely is no stream of consciousness. The brain makes little representations here and there and constantly reinforces them by getting more sense data. The illusion is that we're watching a movie inside our head. The reality is that we are constantly acquiring new data from the outside world. Thus the whole "brain in a vat" or "matrix"-type scenario starts to look weaker and weaker.

In different modes the brain can create dreams and hallucinations but in our regular day to day state it's quite likely that it simply doesn't have this power. This perspective, from Sensorimotor Theory of Vision, is not fully accepted by any means, but it is gaining ground imo, and it does explain greatly the problems neuroscientists are having with finding the hardware that could create a stream of consciousness. Of course, it also means that humans aren't quite the amazing creatures they sometimes like to think they are.

Nick

 

[Freethinker]

I've looked through the thread, and I still can't find where yrreg defines the hypothetical entity whose existence he wishes to discuss.

While he remains too frightened or embarrassed to tell us what the subject of this thread is, I don't really see how we can discuss it.

Clearly he has provided all the evidence he has.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

THIS is where you were either being dishonest or lazy. This is kicking a rock and trying to refute an idealist. I had a friend, many years ago, who started hallucinating things. Scared the hell out of him. You're claiming the fact that he SAW the hallucinations is what? Evidence that they were real? Doesn't work that way.

When you "see" a person, there are infinite models of reality that are consistent with what your eyes tell you: the person may be real; they may be a bit of software code; an experience fed to your mind; a part of a very vivid dream, etc. The fact that you are getting visual sense-data is not evidence for ANY of these possibilities, because the sense-data fits consistently with ALL possibilities, and you either knew this, or should have known this.

You also missed the obvious theist objection that God may not be the sort of thing one experiences with their senses anyway, so lack of "Godly" sense-data would not be a detriment to theism on that argument alone.



Those atheists are wrong. Reality is either theistic (God or Gods) or atheistic. Atheists can't disprove God and theistic evidence is far from compelling (mostly personal stuff I talked about before, though I still like the fine-tuning argument). In the absence of any evidence for or against, a proposition must be given an agnostic value (.5). That is hardly a "minute probability" for theism.

Now, the same thing could be said about the existence of unicorns (or anything that's not a logical contradiction). Either they exist or they don't. We have no evidence for or against, so again an agnostic position should be taken. I think what you were trying to say is that the question of the existence of God is as trivial as the existence of unicorns or teacups orbitting the moon.

I don't think that's true. For thousands of years, people have not been talking about, and killing each other over, and devoting their lives to the study of whether unicorns or orbitting tea cups exist and what their properties are. People have a fascination with God, and the technical definition of atheism itself proves it is a non-trivial discussion. Atheism is defined as a disbelief in God(s) (though some atheist circles have a more robust definition of the term). Not teacups or fairies or unicorns. Atheism and theism are flip-sides of the same coin.

And all this would be fine if Theists throughout history didn't come to conclusion that God exists because of what they see in the physical world. Atheists do not cast that judgement.

If you want to argue that the world outside our mind is untrue, that's fine. But it is a different argument.

 

[Megalodon]

What is God?​

A fictional entity created for the purpose of allowing it's creators to engage in the ultimate appeal to authority, and subsequently fleece everyone else.

 

[DC]

What is God?

A fantasy creature that gives alot hope to people that do belive in that fantasy creature.

 

[cj.23]

Righty-ho, evidence for Theism.

I'll start with a list I think - but I will try to avoid stating the arguments, just the evidence (data) that is called upon in those arguments... well I'll try -- here is a list off the top of my head from another forum where i was asked...

Evidence for Existence of God/dess/(es)

i) the existence of something rather than nothing
ii) the existence of our universe
iii) the existence of rational intelligence
iv) the existence of life
v) the fact the universe is rationally comprehensible
vi) the universe and everything in it.
vii) the cosmological constants (see ii, ii, iv and vi.)
viii) the laws of nature (see v).
ix) religious experience & sensus divinitatis (see also xi)
x) mystical experience
xi) the ubiquity of religious thinking across cultures and parallel independent development
xii) the differences in the worlds religions - pluralism
xiii) prayer results/DMILS
xiv) consciousness arising from matter
xv) evidence suggestive of life after death/NDE/reincarnation etc
xvi) the existence of humanity
xvii) the problem of Good (and especially altruism)
xviii) the Fast Food Rockers
xix) various logical arguments - not evidence as such actually, but attempted logical "proofs" - such as Occams Razor, Kalam Cosmological Argument, the classical "four proofs", etc, etc
xx) personal experience
xxi0 Special Revelation
xxii) the logical agreements between classic theism and modern science
xxiii) the argument from exclusivity - life as rare

I'm sure there are many many more evidences which can be used to formulate arguments, but that is a good start?

How do we define god? The one I was asked to defend is

God is a being that is
A. Self sufficient
B. Supernatural (Transcendent)
C. Immanent
D. interventionist
E. Designer (of universe?)
F. Has relation with humans.
G. Undifferentiated Mind
H. Not physical
I. Interacts through natural law

I'm still talking about it all - thread is here on RD.net
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=59108&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Fun discussion though, frequently sidetracked!

j x

 

[Freethinker]

Evidence for Existence of God/dess/(es)

i) the existence of something rather than nothing
ii) the existence of our universe
iii) the existence of rational intelligence
iv) the existence of life
v) the fact the universe is rationally comprehensible
vi) the universe and everything in it.
vii) the cosmological constants (see ii, ii, iv and vi.)
viii) the laws of nature (see v).
ix) religious experience & sensus divinitatis (see also xi)
x) mystical experience
xi) the ubiquity of religious thinking across cultures and parallel independent development
xii) the differences in the worlds religions - pluralism
xiii) prayer results/DMILS
xiv) consciousness arising from matter
xv) evidence suggestive of life after death/NDE/reincarnation etc
xvi) the existence of humanity
xvii) the problem of Good (and especially altruism)
xviii) the Fast Food Rockers
xix) various logical arguments - not evidence as such actually, but attempted logical "proofs" - such as Occams Razor, Kalam Cosmological Argument, the classical "four proofs", etc, etc
xx) personal experience
xxi0 Special Revelation
xxii) the logical agreements between classic theism and modern science
xxiii) the argument from exclusivity - life as rare

I'm sure there are many many more evidences which can be used to formulate arguments, but that is a good start?

Those are rationalizations, anecdotes and arguments from incredulity, not evidence.

 

[cj.23]

Those are rationalizations, anecdotes and arguments from incredulity, not evidence.

Please explain why, with illustrations?

cj x

 

[Freethinker]

Please explain why, with illustrations?

cj x

Normally it would be up to you to explain why you consider them evidence. I can't draw anyway

 

[cj.23]

Normally it would be up to you to explain why you consider them evidence. I can't draw anyway

I think my number xvii is pretty compelling, though many would claim that was a very strong argument against a benevolent God. You might have to be British to understand it - if you don't don't Youtube it. Theists have perpetrated enough atrocities on nonbelievers without me adding to the list!

cj x

 

[paximperium]

i) the existence of something rather than nothing

That is evidence of something.

ii) the existence of our universe

That is evidence of our universe

iii) the existence of rational intelligence

So?

iv) the existence of life

What about it?

v) the fact the universe is rationally comprehensible

How do you know the universe isn't incomprehensible?

vi) the universe and everything in it.

Which continues to be evidence of the universe.

vii) the cosmological constants (see ii, ii, iv and vi.)

What about it?

viii) the laws of nature (see v).

Which are abstract human constructs to explain nature.

ix) religious experience & sensus divinitatis (see also xi)
x) mystical experience

Which religious experience? Hindus? Buddhist? Pagans

xi) the ubiquity of religious thinking across cultures and parallel
independent development

Religion? Which type? Polytheism, Monotheism, Buddhism?

xii) the differences in the worlds religions - pluralism

That;s actually evidence AGAINST gods. It is evidence that religion is a universal human construct.

xiii) prayer results/DMILS

You mean the lack of results?

xiv) consciousness arising from matter

Yeah...what about it?

xv) evidence suggestive of life after death/NDE/reincarnation etc

The mean the total lack of evidence don't you?

xvi) the existence of humanity

Which is evidence of humanity...so?

xvii) the problem of Good (and especially altruism)

There is no problem. Look up Game Theory and the science reward.

xix) various logical arguments - not evidence as such actually, but attempted logical "proofs" - such as Occams Razor, Kalam Cosmological Argument, the classical "four proofs", etc, etc

You mean how logic completely opposed the idea of an infinite being, of infinite power, infinite goodness etc.?

xx) personal experience

Whose? The Muslims or Mormons?

xxi0 Special Revelation

What's so special about heresay claims?

xxii) the logical agreements between classic theism and modern science

HAHAHAHAH...sorry that was the most blatantly silly statement I've heard.

xxiii) the argument from exclusivity - life as rare

How do you know?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

THIS is where you were either being dishonest or lazy. This is kicking a rock and trying to refute an idealist. I had a friend, many years ago, who started hallucinating things. Scared the hell out of him. You're claiming the fact that he SAW the hallucinations is what? Evidence that they were real? Doesn't work that way.

When you "see" a person, there are infinite models of reality that are consistent with what your eyes tell you: the person may be real; they may be a bit of software code; an experience fed to your mind; a part of a very vivid dream, etc. The fact that you are getting visual sense-data is not evidence for ANY of these possibilities, because the sense-data fits consistently with ALL possibilities, and you either knew this, or should have known this.

You also missed the obvious theist objection that God may not be the sort of thing one experiences with their senses anyway, so lack of "Godly" sense-data would not be a detriment to theism on that argument alone.

No. This would be where you were not paying attention. There is plenty of evidence that what we see out there is the real world. That simply is the case. That evidence is not, however, absolute proof that what we see is ultimately true, as I specifically stated in earlier posts.

I did not claim access to some underlying reality. I did claim that there is evidence of "stuff out there that follows rules" -- that is what evidence of the "real world" means.

So, please stop putting words in my mouth, especially when you already know my position on a topic.

And, no, I did not miss the theist objection that God may not be knowable by sense data. I did not argue that God does not exist by any argument, so once again please stop putting words into my mouth. I argued that certain types of "god" have counter-evidence against them. That is nowhere near the same as saying that God does not exist in any absolute sense.

What I object to is your conflation (and equation) of the absence of absolute proof of ultimate reality with the absence of any reliable evidence for the existence of God. Just that, plain and simple. You made a mistake in your formulation. You can do with it what you will.

 

[cj.23]

That is evidence of something.

And so forth...

Hey you asked for the evidence. You did not say I had to explain all the arguments theists have used these claims as evidence for God in! That would take me ages! OH ok, then, if you insist I will...

j x

 

[paximperium]

And so forth...

Hey you asked for the evidence. You did not say I had to explain all the arguments theists have used these claims as evidence for God in! That would take me ages! OH ok, then, if you insist I will...

j x

I could easily use your list to support the existance of Satan or Zoobob the Celestial Troll and it would be as weak.

If theist have a personal belief, that's fine. But when you claim that there is evidence, I expect theist to support their claims with something a little less...well let's just leave it at that.