Mageth

Back on topic, Buck said in the OP:

And I get the notion that no amount of evidence would suffice in the atheist's mind; ...

Yeah, we hear that notion quite often, and reveal it for the strawman it is. Of course I (and I assume most if not all other atheists) would accept certain evidence, if presented, as indicative of the existence of a god.

...even though they'll all believe other ideas pretty much on faith.

Again, a strawman. I try not to accept or reject ideas on faith; "faith" is not a tool I use to evaluate an idea. Instead, I review the evidence and arguments for and against the idea in an attempt to come to a conclusion based on the evidence and arguments as to whether the idea is to be accepted, rejected, or some middle ground or probability reached (e.g. it's possibly or probably true or false, or even "I don't know" if there's not enough evidence to come to a conclusion or I haven't sufficiently evaluated the evidence/arguments).

The nearest I come to "faith" in regards to beliefs is in accepting or rejecting an idea or theory based upon the evaluation of others who I know have used similar means to evaluate the evidence and arguments for and against the idea or theory. This is necessary because I simply don't have the time and/or expertise to evaluate every bit of evidence and argument for or against an idea or theory. And this is a prime reason why the scientific method is such a valuabe mechanism for us to evaluate the world around us; it gives us a common, proven mechanism by which we can develop a degree of trust in what others determine about the world around us. And I accept nothing based on another's "faith".

And what I described in the above paragraph is not the "faith" you appear to refer to. That faith does not allow that degree of trust in what others have determined to be (probably) true or false. Faith has been show, over and over again, to be an unreliable mechanism for determining truth. Faith is of absolutely no use in evaluating the existence or non-existence of anything.

Bill Snedden

Erm...that's the point...

Not having previously seen any universes that we know are "god-created", we cannot point to anything in this universe and say with certainty, "this is evidence of god." The most we can do is posit what we might expect to see iff this universe were to be "god-created" and then look around to see if we observe those things in reality.

Hence, so-called "intelligent design"...

Of course, we can also posit what we might expect to see iff this universe were to be godless and then look around to see if we observe those things in reality.

Hence, evolution...

So, when atheists say, "nothing is evidence of god", they are looking around to see if everything they see can be explained in "godless" terms, making the neccessary comparisons and arriving at the conclusion that, as everything can be explained without resorting to the "god" hypothesis, they see no evidence for its existence.

Of course, theists are drawing the contradictory conclusion when reviewing the same data...

The difference, IMHO, is that we have seen random phenomena and are aware of laws of statistical probabilities. We can extrapolate from these "knowns" to explain or compare "unknowns".

But as far as "god" goes, we've never seen one (in the scientific sense). We have no way whatsoever to know or even to guess with any reasonable degree of certitude what a "god" might look like or how it might behave. So-called "intelligent design" rests on the premise (at the very least!) that "god" is pretty much like us and that we can expect it to create after a fashion pretty much as we would, but of course that's importing into the equation at least some part of the conclusion. Hence the accusation of circular reasoning.

In the final analysis, it seems to me that as we have observed natural phenomena and can reason inductively based on our observations to support explanations of new evidence, we cannot legitimately claim any piece of evidence to be reliable proof of the supernatural unless we can first eliminate any possible natural explanation. Thus methodological naturalism forms the foundation of the scientific method and the reason why many reasonable people, agnostic atheists and theists alike, persist in saying that "nothing is evidence for god."

Regards,

Bill Snedden

TxGLX

Jamie:

While I dont agree with Buck's point of view, I wanted to point out that the same process can be applied to God's existance...

Hypothesis: God Exists
Experiment : Gather a group of people. Ask them all if god exists. Survey them to see if God exists.

Or, using your technical approach:
Determine the brain reactions of people who have heard a true statement. Tell people God exists, and record your findings.

The real concern that I have is this kind of thing is its the stuff that 'statistics' are normally made up of. The same experiment held in antarctica amongs penguins will give you a completely different result than the one held at a baptist convention. Sadly, it is exactly the kind of thing that someone would do to post 'empirical' evidence of the existance of God.

Science usually relies on the repeated measurement of known factors to provide predictable results. There is nothing in the proof / disproof of the existance of god that can be measured on a regular basis, or under controlled circumstances.

As for Buck's argument, I am fairly certain that any amount of evidence, given that we came to an understanding of what evidence is (I usually rely on the above stated repeated measurements of known factors), most atheists would change their minds. I, myself, would easily change my mind were a supernatural being to come to earth, raise a few folks from the dead, turn a few rivers to blood, create a few plagues of locusts, and allow the scientific community to verify the nature and lack of origin (excepting said supernatural being).

That, in my mind, would be the perfect set of evidence to change the mind of, at the very least, this atheist.

Jamie_L

I actually thought of that while writing the post, but you're not quite right. Here's why: "ice cream tastes good" is a subjective statement. If someone says "ice cream tastes good to me", that is sufficient evidence that ice cream tastes good to them.

"God exists" is not a subjective statement. It is an objective statement. If someone says "God exists," that is not sufficient evidence that God exists.

The correct God analogy is: "Belief in God exists." This can be scientifically tested as follows:

Hypothesis: God belief exists
Experiment : Gather a group of people. Ask them all if they believe god exists.

The fact that "ice cream tastes good," is subjective - that is dependent on the individual in question - does not mean it is beyond the realm of science. It just changes what science can tell you about "ice cream tasting good." There is no objective measure of what tastes good outside of human beings, but there may be something science can say about what humans think ice cream tastes good and what about ice cream make humans think it tastes good.

Similarly, psychiatry and psychology are sciences dealing with subjective issues - the workings of the human personality. However, just because all the stuff they deal with is inside people's heads, doesn't mean these fields are beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. Quite the contrary. If I had a dollar for all the times somebody in college walked up to me and asked me questions as part of a psychology experiment...

Jamie

TxGLX

Great point Jamie, thanks for setting me straight...

Then again, does it still hold true for the folks who believe God exists simply because they believe God exists?

I know, semantics. Hehehe...


This board is amazing! Great topics!

Infidelettante

Originally posted by Buck Swope
One thing that I don't understand about athesits is that they like to claim that there is no evidence that God exists.

But it's obvious to me that everything is evidence that God exists.

But of course it is obvious, Mothergod gives birth to everything at every moment. How could everything not be evidence of her blessings? This argument is every bit as strong as yours and we pagans have a lot more fun with our religion than you Christians do with yours.

So it seems that one's idea of what "evidence" might be is pretty subjective.

And I get the notion that no amount of evidence would suffice in the atheist's mind; even though they'll all believe other ideas pretty much on faith.

Faith is the key here Buck. An emotional hook for the eternally insecure. Close the door on uncertainty, open your heart to the sure thing. Hang your brain on the peg next to the others and don't give it another thought. Evidence? Tsk, tsk, what did we just say about thinking? Faith is the killer Buck. It saps the mind. It deadens the will. It wastes the intellect. It corrodes desire and rots the soul. Get rid of it now while you can still redeem yourself.

JT

Sur-reality

Just an observation: If we can disprove the fact that there is a god(s) by lack of evidence let's try it on atheism. Hmmm now where is the evidence that god doesn't exist. And remember can't prove a universal negative.

Another thing, is this forum just like all of the others? I mean if i have found one thing to be true i's that atheists and christians are alike in this one fact: they love picking apart what a person says while disregarding completely the point the person is trying to make. Now I'm not accusing anybody of this but isn't one of the first rules of logic to disregard emotion and to even try the persons theory. Oh well it's a lost cause and i fear that i am most likely wrong in this last aspect.

Philosoft

Whatever are you talking about? I've yet to see anyone mention "proof via lack of evidence" as a legitimate logical option on this thread.

Well, why don't you try making a point and I'll see if I can regard it?

Huh? You just accused everyone of this.
Presumably you've read the posts in this thread. Now, would you mind telling us where excessive emotional argumentation has usurped logical debate? I, for one, would be happy to remedy my "errors," should any be made apparent.

Sue Sponte

This is wholly illogical.

The former is an affirmative assertion that something is in fact true. The latter is an assertion that the evidence does not support the conclusion that it is true. Can you not see the difference between these? Asserting that something is true IS NOT the same as believing there is no evidence to support that assertion.

The whole premise of this argument is futile. The thing that you say everthing is evidence of is a wholly imagined entity holding no physical properties or other characteristics that can be observed or confirmed. Simply envisioning an entity that can never be confirmed nor disproven by its very definition creates a meaningless premise:

A is an entity that cannot be proven to exist or not exist.
Therefore, A exists.

I'm struggling to think of a less compelling argument than believing that something exists because it is not proveable.

Anything is subject to interpretation. Now, if it was god's car and the gun has god's fingerprints on it, you may be onto something.

SecularFuture

Buck Swope
#1) This is an unfounded personal opinion.

#2) Personal opinions can only be made into facts through evidence and reason.