K

SOMMS:

It's just like our ancestors saw evidence for gods and demons in lightning, disease, droughts, etc. Their religious ideas were not successful in explaining, predicting, or preventing these problems. Only science has acheived significant gains in these areas. So theist can continue to have their beliefs, but the utter lack of corroborating evidence in the real world seems to indicate that the belief is irrational.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Well this was addressed in the first post. How we interpret the world determines whether or not we see evidence for/against God. How we feel about things like morality, logic, the scope of the physical universe etc heavily influences our *how* we interpret the world.

Given this...it is not suprising that you see no evidence for God. However, it is a fallacy to say *everybody* sees no evidence for God.


Thoughts and comments,


SOMMS

K

SOMMS:

Sure there is evidence for God. The Bible is evidence for God. There is also evidence for Santa Clause. I would argue that the evidence for either is extremely weak, but it's still evidence.

I think when people say there is no evidence for God, they mean there is no scientific evidence. There is nothing that would allow an independent observer to verify or God's existence.

So, we can believe in every god ever conceived, ufo abductions, supernatural crop circles, unicorns, elves, demons, imps, astrology, witchcraft, voodoo, ghosts, vampires, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Superman, dragons, and ESP. There is evidence for the existence of all of these things. But with the lack of scientific evidence that allows verification of these things, belief in them is simply unfounded.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

All,

I guess I'm a little confused at a number of the responses to the first post. There were a number of people posting things like 'Your claim is false.'
???
This is really quite strange as my post actually made no claim either way for the existence of God.

Equally worrisome were the number of posts that seemed to ignore the original and declared 'there is no evidence for God.' In truth, this exact issue was the focus of the original post...what people see as evidence for/against God and why they see those things as evidence.


Honestly, I was beginning to think I was on crazy pills.


I think the jist of the original post was completely missed by alot of folks so I'm going to simplify and explicitly restate it. In addition I'm going to define some terms that are used.


TERMS USED IN FIRST POST
------------------------
'proof' - the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

'faith' - belief in something for which there is no proof

'evidence' - an outward sign


FIRST POST SUMMARY
------------------
<START>
-There is no proof that God exists.

-There is no proof that God does not exist.

-Note: Technically this makes everyone agnostic.

-Any position on the matter will simply be belief or 'faith' (see above) one way or the other.

-It's OK to believe things for which we have no 'proof' (see above)...we do this all the time.

-We believe things we have 'evidence' (see above) for.

-What we see as 'evidence' (see above) is determined by how we interpret the world.

-How we interpret the world is completely dependent on our views and opinions of some fairly subjective abstract concepts like science, morality, love, consciousness, resposibility, etc.

-People who view the above in certain ways are highly likely to see no evidence of God and people who view the above in other ways are highly likely to see evidence of God.

<END>


Ok. I feel the need to explicitly say what I am and am not saying.

What I am saying: the stuff between <START> and <END> tags.


What I am not saying:
-Atheism is a religion!
-There is 'proof' of God!
-Jebus exists!!
-Go to Sunday School!!!


It would be much appreciated if any and all responses to this post would primarily concentrate on the stuff I said and not decay into diatribes concerning stuff I did not say.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


SOMMS

Philosoft

SOMMS,

Is it your contention that the moment someone invents a concept and calls it 'something that might exist,' it is thereafter a faith-based decision to believe the alleged thing referenced by the alleged concept does not exist? Surely there must be more to it than this?

K

SOMMS:

I thought I did address your point. If you are willing to accept just about anything as evidence for what you want to believe, then it is possible to have evidence to believe any crazy thing that can be imagined. There is evidence that a 200 foot vampire that shrinks to microscopic sizes when I turn around is standing behind me right now. Would you imply that it's rational that I believe it?

Goliath

SOMMS,

Please respond to my post on the first page of this thread. You don't seem to know what an atheist is.

Also, your assertion that no proof for the existence of any god can be found must itself be proven.

Sincerely,

Goliath

John Galt, Jr.

Theli,

To somms's remark you responded When I asked you responded Do I understand you properly? You are saying that the statement is false as a matter of logic in the way that "1 plus 1 is 3" is false

John Galt, Jr.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
<note>
I wasn't particularly referring to you in my last posts 'Am I on crazy pills?' comment.
</note>

The point was not 'one can accept anything as evidence'. The point was 'the evidence one sees is dependent upon their worldview'.


I think we would both agree that 200ft Shrinking Vampire does not exist...even though we can't prove it. We are 200ft-Shrinking-Vampire agnostic in this sense. However, evidence for 200ft Shrinking Vampire is completely orthogonal to things like:
-The existence of logic
-The existence of physical laws and constants
-The existence of morality
-The existence of conscience
-The existence of Good/Evil
-The responsibility of God if he existed
-The scope of the physical universe

This is where your 200ft Shrinking Vampire example is different than the debate over God...because how you view the above almost completely determines whether or not you see evidence (or lack of evidence) of God in the world.


I think a specific example may help to clarify my point. Note: I am not attempting a 'proof' of Gods existence or wish (in this thread) to argue about the problem of evil...this is just an example of how ones world view affects what evidence they see.

<EXAMPLE OF THEIST>
WORLDVIEW: I personally don't believe (even when I was an atheist) that IF God existed THEN he would be responsible for all the bad things that happen.
(notice I'm not even assuming God actually exists)

INTERPRETATION OF FACT: I don't think Sept. 11 is evidence that God does not exist BECAUSE
if he existed he would not be responsible.
</EXAMPLE OF THEIST>

<EXAMPLE OF ATHEIST>
WORLDVIEW: I believe IF God existed THEN he would be responsible for all the bad things that happen.

INTERPRETATION OF FACT: I think Sept. 11 is evidence that God does not exist BECAUSE
if he existed he would be responsible for this.
</EXAMPLE OF ATHEIST>


The above is an example of two people with different worldviews looking at the same fact (Sept 11) and coming to two different conclusions.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


SOMMS

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

K

SOMMS:

The point I was trying to make with the 200 foot vampire is that just because someone can treat their subjective experiences as evidence for what they believe, that belief is not necessarily rational. I thought it was interesting that you listed reasons that indicated that the vampire didn't exist. Why can't you apply the same criteria to God? He would certainly fail on many of the points of your own list.

I don't agree that evidence is all in the way you look at it. When I typed the example of the vampire, I got the feeling that something was behind me. This is just as solid as the evidence offered for the existence of God. Does that make the evidence legitimate just because it's what I felt? The evidence we're looking for does not depend on your religios beliefs. The evidence for gravity is there to be measured whether people wanted to believe it or not.