Now, let's talk evidence for God.

[Ichneumonwasp]

That is a blatant appeal to sense-data as evidence for the existence of external things and people. You want to back-track with some loopy definition that reality is "stuff that follows rules", that's your lookout.

I liked this version of you better. The argument was no good, but at least you weren't equivocating all over the place.

Good God, what has gone wrong with you? Sense data is evidence for the existence of external things and people. It does not tell us absolutely that they exist (as I have mentioned repeatedly), but how could it be anything but evidence for their existence?

There is a difference between evidence and absolute proof is there not? The problem, once again, is that you are equating a situation in which we have reliable (interpersonally verified and verified through a convergence of lines) evidence but no absolute proof with another situation in which we have no reliable evidence.

Let me rephrase in another guise. Knowledge is defined as justified true belief. We are justified in believing that there is an external world because we have signficant evidence that there is an external world. We, however, do not know that there is an external world because we cannot satisfy that the belief is true (we cannot stand outside reality). With God we not only do not know if the belief is true, but we also do not have sufficient justification, since the evidence that we do have is not reliable. You have equated the first situation in which we have justification for belief but not necessarily truth with the situation in which we have neither absolute truth nor proper justification.

Does that help?

 

[Upchurch]

That is a blatant appeal to sense-data

As opposed to what? Isn't "sense-data" redundant?

 

[paximperium]

As opposed to what? Isn't "sense-data" redundant?

As opposed to fantasy/delusion sense.

Off topic but who's that little person sitting on your chest?....or is it who's that big person you're sleeping on?

 

[Foster Zygote]

i) the existence of something rather than nothing

How is this evidence of a creator god? If only this god existed then there was still something rather than nothing.

ii) the existence of our universe

If it exists then it must have been created by something, yes? What created God then? Was it another god? Was that god created by another?

iii) the existence of rational intelligence

How so? There is the disturbingly real possibility that species that acquire enough information will destroy themselves, in which case "rational intelligence" might be a dead end.

Then there's the problem that you have defined the creator god as intelligent. This leads back to the same "turtles all the way down" paradox. "Intelligence must be designed by intelligence" leads to the question "What intelligence designed the intelligent god" and so on. If you terminate the infinite regress by declaring that one of the intelligent designers does not require creation and simply exists, then you are destroying the argument that intelligence requires a more intelligent designer and it becomes reasonable to assume that complex brains capable of rational thought can evolve from simple natural origins by means of natural processes.

iv) the existence of life

Life is evidence of life, not gods. So far there is nothing known about life that cannot be explained by natural processes.

v) the fact the universe is rationally comprehensible

Is it? It seems to me that there is an awful lot of universe for anyone to assume that we comprehend its full nature. It may well be too far beyond our ape brains to comprehend it, like a mouse trying to comprehend quantum physics. At any rate, our brains have evolved within this universe. Is it any surprise that we comprehend at least part of our environment? If we could not then our brains would not have evolved in the first place.

vi) the universe and everything in it.

Isn't this redundant? You might wish to edit your list somewhat.

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

The cosmological constant was a part of Einstein's general relativity theory that he abandoned after the discovery of the expansion of the universe. Your cosmological constants seems to be something that you are making up as you go.

viii) the laws of nature (see v).

Again, if the natural forces of the universe did not allow for the creation of ever more complex forms from simpler origins we would not be here to discuss the matter. Are you aware that there are currently ideas in the science of cosmology that point to the possibility that the universe is but one of a vast collection of universes, each with their own properties and physical laws?

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

Is evidence of the way human brains often work, but not evidence that the things that people are culturally conditioned to attach to such experiences actually exist.

x) mystical experience

See above. Again, you may wish to edit.

xi) the ubiquity of religious thinking across cultures...

Again, this is evidence of human behavior, not god.

...and parallel independent development

What parallel independent development would that be?

xii) the differences in the worlds religions - pluralism

This seems to me to be evidence that religion is based on interpretations of human psychological phenomena rather than any genuine external source.

xiii) prayer results/DMILS

What prayer results?

xiv) consciousness arising from matter

Redundancy.

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

What evidence?

xvi) the existence of humanity

Redundancy.

xvii) the problem of Good (and especially altruism)

Eh?

xviii) the Fast Food Rockers

So God hates us?

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

Erm... Many of the arguments that you have provided are in violation of Occam's Razor, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument is nothing but another flawed "first cause" argument. And what does Pythagoras have to do with proving design?

xx) personal experience

Is not reliable evidence.

xxi0 Special Revelation

Special revelation of what? Is there something that God revealed that was beyond human science at the time of the revelation? Did God tell the Babylonians about electromagnetic radiation. Did God tell the ancient Greeks about the rings of Saturn?

xxii) the logical agreements between classic theism and modern science

How is this evidence of the existence of God?

xxiii) the argument from exclusivity - life as rare

Is it? The universe may be teeming with life. We just don't know yet. At any rate, how does the rarity of life demonstrate the existence of God? You seem to be really grasping at straws.

 

[Darat]

As opposed to fantasy/delusion sense.

Off topic but who's that little person sitting on your chest?....or is it who's that big person you're sleeping on?

There is no little person, there is no big person, you are a fool to think there is anyone. Now stand still whilst I bring this baseball bat into the vicinity of where I, via sense-data, think your head is.

 

[paximperium]

There is no little person, there is no big person, you are a fool to think there is anyone. Now stand still whilst I bring this baseball bat into the vicinity of where I, via sense-data, think your head is.

Using my fantasy/delusion sense, my skull being made of titanium will shatter your baseball bat. I will then fly off to Mars and destroy Pluto with my Gamma-Ray eyes.

Using Malerin's logic, it is all plausible.

 

[Upchurch]

As opposed to fantasy/delusion sense.

No, I meant as opposed to what other kind of data?

Off topic but who's that little person sitting on your chest?....or is it who's that big person you're sleeping on?

That's m'boy. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is whcih.

 

[six7s]

If it exists then it must have been created by something, yes? What created God then? Was it another god? Was that god created by another?

It's turkeys, all the way up

 

[Malerin]

Keep kicking that rock, guys. The more you kick it, the realer it becomes

 

[Jimbo07]

Keep kicking that rock, guys. The more you kick it, the realer it becomes

Please act.

Just once.

Unambigously.

Please just act once, unambiguously, as if external reality does not exist. I'm willing to have you make a believer out of me. If you can fly past my window right now like Superman, I will be willing to believe my own eyes and will not accuse you of tricks or of being a figment of my imagination.

 

[D'rok]

Ode to Malerin:
(Or at least to his/her persona on this forum)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb7LqPmWBKw

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Keep kicking that rock, guys. The more you kick it, the realer it becomes

As I said before Malerin, theists postulate a God because of what they see in the world around them (As do you when you invoke the fine tuned argument). Atheists do not come to that conclusion.

The world being real is another argument. However, if you are willing to take solipsism as plausible, consider what would happen if you suffer a serious brain injury. If your memory, personality and perception begin to change, it is hard to still claim that there are not reasonable claims to the concept that the world around you interacts with your mind.

It seems you want us to have certainty before we make judgements about the universe. There is no such thing, just reasonable grounds to hold a belief. A God -in our opinion- is not reasonable. A reality is.

 

[truethat]

I actually have a theory on this one, if you'd like to read my paper its about 10 pages but here goes the gist of it


I believe that "God' is a conditioned controlled loop in the memes of man brought on by the psychological trauma of learning to speak and thus developing awareness. Once we can live without the trauma we will stop believing.

 

[Jimbo07]

As I said before Malerin, theists postulate a God because of what they see in the world around them (As do you when you invoke the fine tuned argument).

That's an interesting point, and one I'd forgotten. Many Christians feel (as do many scientists) that there is an external, measurable world.

The world being real is another argument.

Yep, and I'm guilty for continuing to conflate the two in this thread.

Argument 1:

There is an external measurable world and there is/is not evidence of a divine creator

Argument 2:

The existence of the external measurable world is in question and acceptance of its existence is/is not a belief.

Argument 3 (and something like what I was reading from Malerin):

Atheism and Theism are/are not the same because the Theist argues is for argument 1 and the Atheist argues is not for argument 2.

 

[Upchurch]

Keep kicking that rock, guys. The more you kick it, the realer it becomes

Stumped ya with that one, huh? That's okay. You ultimately have an indefensible position. I didn't really expect you to be able to.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.

Were the 104 posts previous to yours not a discussion?

 

[Twiler]

Keep kicking that rock, guys. The more you kick it, the realer it becomes

What does sense-data come from?

A dream? Then a dream exists.

A delusion? Then a delusion exists.

Part of someone else's imagination? Then part of someone else's imagination exists.

But why should it matter which?

 

[Macoy]

Anyway, how's god doing?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Stumped ya with that one, huh? That's okay. You ultimately have an indefensible position. I didn't really expect you to be able to.

Don't you mean "haha, gotcha"?

 

[Twiler]

What does sense-data come from?

A dream? Then a dream exists.

A delusion? Then a delusion exists.

Part of someone else's imagination? Then part of someone else's imagination exists.

But why should it matter which?

(damn, I sound like reverebison; CLARIFICATION!)

If you can't distinguish between these things by their behaviour, then what is the difference?