Steven Carr

Who makes the assumption that science and logic is the only way to know anything? This is a strawman.

I might accidentally know something through lucky guesses.

For example, I might say I know next week lottery numbers are
1 4 8 12 15 17 and 33 and by a pure fluke , be right.

It is , of course, possible that theists are right by pure chance, despite seemingly impossible odds against them. Who can deny that?

sandlewood

I don't think your response has anything to do with what I said. I’m asking why you think that all things were caused to exist by a god specifically rather than by something else? Does the thing leave traces that indicated what, if anything, created it?

It doesn’t make that assumption. However, how do you measure how well a method is for acquiring knowledge? I would say that it can be used to make reliable predictions. Also, it leads to results that are consistent (it doesn’t produce contradictions).

Science has proved to be reliable in making accurate predictions. I don’t know of any better method. That’s not to say there can’t be another method, only that there hasn’t been a better one.

Lobstrosity

If you're not talking about a particular god, you have not even defined god. Therefore, your true statement to us is really: "everything is evidence of something."

Perhaps you should tell us what god is before you talk about having evidence for it, for I certainly would agree with the more general phrase I have just given. Yes, everything is clearly evidence of something. Whether that something is all-powerful, who knows? Whether that something is intelligent no one can say. Whether that something currently interacts with the universe to destroy the symmetries in space and time physics currently relies upon in order to simply exist as a science, people can't say, though the "evidence" certainly casts doubt upon it.

It's only a red herring because of your inherent vagueness. Your statement is like my saying that everything is evidence of Ramalamadingdong. I defy you to show that this statement is not accurate. Furthermore, I defy you to show me that this statement is even unreasonable. If you can't you must now believe in Ramalamadingdong, right? For now let's not even concern ourselves that Ramalamadingdong is an undefined entity, for who needs to actually understand his irrational beliefs, right?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Buck Swope :

Huh? We know that nothing we observe is evidence for God because we can recognize what evidence for God would be. For observation x to be evidence of God, you'd have to support the conditional "If x, then (probably) God." And you'll have a tough time of that.

I still don't see how the latter is based on faith. What faith do I require to decide that widespread intense suffering isn't evidence of God's existence? Faith is belief in absence of evidence, or in the presence of evidence against. Unless you're going to assume everything is evidence of everything from the outset, the burden of proof will be upon you if you assert that some observation x is evidence of some entity y.

Bluefire211

This is a logical fallacy, known as "begging the question", or circular reasoning. It is the same as saying "God exists because he does." This is especially true since I am certain the God you describe would be the one who supposedly created everything?

I'm sorry that you think we atheists take science and logic on "faith." That "faith" is responsible for pretty much everything you take for granted in this world. If the principles and evidence that science and logic are based on were not true, firstly they would not have endured the many centuries they have been used and secondly this world would be a very different place based on some completely different structure for determining the truth of things, if anything at all.

Please tell us, how can we know anything without science? What can we know? How can we know? It is fine that you would accept your God on faith, but would you accept driving a car whose safety systems were designed with the principle of "I believe this will be safe, and so it will be".
I see no difference in either case.

Over and out,
Bluefire211

Asha'man

Imagine, for a moment, that two universes exist. One was created by a god, one formed spontaneously. Imagine that life exists in each universe, it was created by that same god in the first universe, and formed spontaneously in the other. In one universe, god exists, in the other, he doesn't. Imagine that you know you are in one of these two universes, but you don’t know which one, and that you can’t peek into the other universe to look for differences.

How would you know which universe you are in? What characteristics would you expect to see in one universe that would be unlikely or impossible in the other?

Personally, looking around, I see a universe that behaves exactly as I would expect if I were in the godless one. I see no evidence of supernatural interference whatsoever. This may not prove which of the two universes I am within, but it sure makes the godless one seem possible, if not probable.

Buck Swope

Circular. I could just as easily say, "We see plenty of evidence of God because I recognize it as such.


Well, you can't prove it, can you? Yet you believe it.

Buck Swope

Some interesting points here, but for the sake of this argument can we not agree that everybody, believer or not, has at least an idea of what the concept of "God" is?

Buck Swope

Nothing circular about it, I'm simply stating that the two statements "Everything is evidence for God" and "Nothing is evidence for God" are both equally unproveable.

Listen, I certainly agree that science and logic are important ways of deriving some knowledge, but they're not the only ways.

Well, I know that ice cream tastes good, but I can't prove it scientificly. Go figure.

Buck Swope

This is an interesting way of looking at the problem, but I'm not sure how it helps resolve anything. All this boils down to is that this universe may or may not have been created by God. Well, we already all agree with that.

Then you say, "Personally, looking around, I see a universe that behaves exactly as I would expect if I were in the godless one. "

How do you know, if you have never been in a "god-created" universe to compare?