Andrew_theist

One good question leads to another.

But once more, this is a negative argument - the unavailability of a natural explanation (which is not exactly the same as a 'break down') is so vague, so poor - where is the positive evidence of a supernatural entity?
Show us your gods!

Well there was a fella about two thousand years ago who claimed to be God and apparently convinced a lot of people of the sincerity of his claims. These people claimed he rose from the dead and some died rather than recant…

Of course I am well aware of the objections this will raise. The main problem is if it happened, it happened 2000 years ago. I did a little thought experiment and wondered if someone came today and performed the same miracles as Christ (I assume were in agreement that such miracles would satisfy most skeptics) what would be thought of them 2000 years from now? My guess is we would be in the same boat and there would be just as many skeptics. Tape and film wouldn’t be deemed anymore reliable than written eyewitness accounts as they could be doctored.

Another possibility would be the hundred’s of thousands of people who seem sane in most respects, don’t believe in other fantastic just so stories yet claim to believe in and have a personal encounter with God. I happen to be one of those people and I trust that in all other respects I appear to be a fairly sane person. I take it that doesn't do it either.

If I could upon request I could manifest the power of God in some way then one might deem that evidence of God. I would suspect fraud. If a person could do that then God would be subject to their beck and whim. What kind of God is that? So if any mere mortal claims he can prove God I suspect that falsifies the claim.

So the real question is why doesn’t God continually manifest himself in some manner that is irrefutable? Why does He leave possible clues but no direct confirmation? If God exists it should be assumed that He is able to do so. The question is now a theological one. My best answer is that God is looking for those who will believe in Him on the amount of evidence he has provided. Evidently there is some value in believing we are here as a result of design apart from smoking gun evidence. However as I mentioned in the debate I don’t think there is any smoking gun evidence for the philosophical claim of naturalism either that is that all things can be reduced to some physical cause. If there were there would have been no debate. Yet people make their best judgment and believe it is true. There doesn’t seem to be any escape I know of. If I reject the possibility of supernatural causes then I am forced by default into accepting natural causes alone without any better level of confirmation. Sorry but the success of science does nothing to confirm the big-ticket claim of naturalism because I see no reason in the God scenario that science would not be just as successful.

I will say this. Even if I became a born again pagan backslider I would still believe in supernaturalism because I have had too many things happen to me personally that convinces me of it.

lpetrich

And there was another fella 1400 years ago who claimed that the archangel Gabriel had brought God's latest and greatest revelation to him. And he apparently convinced large numbers of people that he was God's latest and greatest prophet. To the point that large numbers of people visit the cities where he had lived and worked. And to the point that large numbers of people have been willing to die fighting for his religion.

That aside, lots of people in centuries past had been described as having worked miracles. Richard Carrier has discussed several examples, such as statues bleeding in pagan Rome, Apollonius of Tyana raising a girl from the dead, Vespasian curing a blind man by putting his spit in the man's eyes, and the numerous miracles worked by St. Genevieve.

However, miracles have become much rarer in recent centuries, a phenomenon noticed by philosopher David Hume 250 years ago. How could that be? Could it be that our critical standards are much higher?

The Gospels are NOT eyewitness reports; they are after-the-fact hagiographies, something like the numerous biographies of medieval saints and the likes of Parson Weems's biography of George Washington. Does anyone take seriously the story of GW and the cherry tree?

Also, with present-day technology, we can feel much more confident of the authenticity of such supposed events.

Large numbers of seemingly-normal people have had direct experience with deities of religions other than Andrew's; does that indicate their existence? The Epicureans struggled to find "rational" explanations of the numerous visions of deities that people would have; does that mean that the deities of Mt. Olympus are real beings? In the Middle Ages, lots of people would have visions of the Virgin Mary and various saints; non-Catholics refuse to take them seriously. And many people claim to have seen ghosts.

That's an evasion comparable to the "shyness effect" that plagues ESP research -- ESP effects have a remarkable tendency to disappear when skeptics are around.

Which is illogical and contrived. As if Mr. G. is teasing us or something. Which is not quite 100% benevolence.

Pagan backslider??? When I think of paganism, I think "Give me some really old-time religion." Supernatural stuff and all.

faded_Glory

Thank you for honestly admitting that you cannot demonstrate the reality of the entity you believe in.

You will first have to come up with a definition of your god. Then, I will see if there is evidence against the thing you've defined. If you are thinking about an all-knowing, omni-present, omni-potent and omni-benevolent entity, that will be easy.
Which one? Do I need to show you that Zeus doesn't exist? Wodan? Jupiter? Amon-Ra? The list is endless...

fG

faded_Glory

What is significant is that there were a lot more people that he did not manage to convince of this, like the Romans and most of the Jews. If he was God, and came to Earth with the purpose of revealing himself, don't you agree that he did a pretty poor job?
Indeed. One of the objections has to do with the inconsistency between the claim that Jesus revealed himself to be God, yet God doesn't want to make himself clear to us living here and now. If those who witnessed the Resurrection did not come to harm by having witnessed an act of God, why would we?
No, not until I would have a similar encounter. I don't want to trivialise your personal experiences, but you will agree that you cannot expect them to have evidentiary power to those who have not had similar experiences. Which leaves the question why God, if he exists, is so selective...
Do we need 'proof'? I would be perfectly happy with the same evidence that the witnesses of the (supposed) resurrection had. If they could have it, why not we?
This contradicts the claim that Jesus was God and convinced those around him of this fact through his resurrection. Again, if he could do that 200 years ago for more then 500 people, as is claimed, then why not repeat the performance? Is my eternal salvation not worth it? Or, does this God perhaps not exist at all and are the Jesus miracle stories no more than a myhtical elaboration of a normal human being?
As has been explained many times now, the default position is only to accept that for which there is solid evidence. Personal experience can apparently sometimes override this requirement, but that will not count beyond the person who had the experience. When confronted with an unexplained phenomenon (the Big Bang?), I am content to leave the question open. Theists are uncomfortable with that, and postulate God as the explanation. But that only pushes the unexplained further back. Theists have unanswered questions too: why is there a God? How is there a God? What exactly did he do to create a Big Bang universe?

See? You are content to leave those questions open. Why then is theism 'superior'?

But this is where the principle of parsimony comes in. If we would not use that, we could come up with infinite explanations for everything, and the result would be total meltdown. This is already visible in the tens of thousands of different religions in the world, each claiming to be the one and only correct one. By accepting just one thing without solid evidence, they have opened the floodgates to innumerable conflicting explanations. Another fine mess you got us into!
Andrew, that is perfectly OK. I am not out to rob you of your beliefs. I am just trying to show you some reasons why atheists will not accept the current evidence as sufficient to accept that there is a god. It is not because we have a priori committed ourselves to disbelieve whatever the evidence, but because we sincerely think that the evidence is too meagre, and can be more parsimionously be explained through natural means.

fG

agapeo

[Which one? Do I need to show you that Zeus doesn't exist? Wodan? Jupiter? Amon-Ra? The list is endless...]

Once again I find myself conversing with one of those intellectual a-holes. I'm not impressed with your response. Fine. Take your pick. I'm not choosy. Provide to me positive evidence that any one of them doesn't exist.

faded_Glory

Zeus was defined as the Greek top-god who lived on Mount Olympos. People have climbed to the top of Mount Olympos and saw that there was no-one living there. Ergo, Zeus (as per this definition) does not exist.

What sort of stupid game are you playing anyway? Are you seriously claiming we should accept the existence of everything we cannot disprove? And you dare to call me an a-hole?

In case you missed it, my point here was that you yourself don't accept the existence of any gods except the one you happen to believe in. We are not that far apart! Tell me what positive evidence you have that Zeus does not exist.

fG

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: faded_Glory ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

Er....the Bible

madmax2976

Yes and history is full of charalatans, claims of miracles and other supernatural phenomena. I have no more reason to believe the stories about this “fella” from two thousand years ago than I have to believe any modern stories of alien abduction or ghosts – quite a few less reasons actually.

Now your getting it. As some circus guy once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute”. If I disregard the failure of the supernatural to ever demonstrate its usefulness, if I disregard the success of naturalism over supernaturalism - coupled with Ochams razor, if I disregard the numerous frauds claiming to be able to perform amazing feats – and jump to conclusions which I cannot verify – then I can count myself as one of those “suckers”.

Your experience is your own. I can find similar examples of others who claim the same thing – except with a different deity or different supernatural forces. Think of why you might discount Jonathan Edwards claim to be able to talk with the dead, Shirley Mclaine’s claim to have been reincarnated, the Moabite’s claim that their God Chemosh helped them to defeat the Isrealites, or that Jamacan ladies’ ability to tell your future (and past) from reading her tarot cards, and you’ll maybe figure out why I discount your experience as evidence as well.

If you can’t prove your deity, then why do you try so hard to do that very thing?

Of course my best answer is that your deity doesn’t exist – or at the very least we can’t be sure if your deity exists. Your’s is just an ad hoc explanation as to why it doesn’t offer unequivicable evidence of itself, as though its playing some of kind of game with us.

That’s true – no “smoking gun” evidence. Which is why we debate over which worldview is more likely based on the evidence available to us. In a nutshell – that’s naturalism.

I’ll take notice that you equate naturalism with science here, but in any case…..

The “big ticket” claim of naturalism has the following results: It demonstrates its superiority over the supernatural as a method of explaining the universe. It continually pushes back the possibility of the supernatural ever being the answer to any phenomena with every discovery it makes and every mystery it solves. Even you admitted the supernatural is “rare at best”. And your telling me that you can view this as compatible with a “God scenario” in which a deity supposedly wants us to conclude it exists?? If your God did exist, and this is how it operates, its insane – or just plain mean.

I’ll note that your conviction of these experiences is no less than that of Shirley McClain’s conviction she was reincarnated, Jean Dixon’s conviction that could tell the future, Benny Hinn’s conviction that he can heal people, Uri Geller’s conviction that he could bend spoons with the power of his mind, my own brother’s conviction that he saw Satan in a campfire one night, the Aztec’s conviction that human sacrifices were necessary, the South’s conviction that slavery was bible ordained, or the Wiccan conviction that they can perform magical spells.

agapeo

Zeus was defined as the Greek top-god who lived on Mount Olympos. People have climbed to the top of Mount Olympos and saw that there was no-one living there. Ergo, Zeus (as per this definition) does not exist.]

Is that the absolute best you can do? I'm disappointed. All you done is showed what history has recorded. Did it occur to you that maybe they had their geography messed up? "People climbed up" You're just telling me what a history book says or relating the testimony of those that made the trip, not showing me positive evidence that Zeus doesn't exist. Come on now. Get serious and stop insulting my intelligence.

[What sort of stupid game are you playing anyway?]

It's a fun game. Aren't you having fun?

[Are you seriously claiming we should accept the existence of everything we cannot disprove?]

Absolutely not! Are you seriously claiming that a theist should not accept a god that they cannot prove?

[And you dare to call me an a-hole? ]

Oh grow up! Dish it out but can't take it? Give me a break.

[In case you missed it, my point here was that you yourself don't accept the existence of any gods except the one you happen to believe in.]

Oh really. I missed your point? You likewise missed mine, if the above is any indication. I didn't ask you to give me a history lesson. I asked you to give me positive evidence of any god(s) non-existence. Obviously you can't do so, so you fall back on what is written. Why don't you take a trip up Mt. Olypus and see for yourself if Zeus is there.

[We are not that far apart!]

Don't flatter yourself.

[Tell me what positive evidence you have that Zeus does not exist.]

Sweet Jesus Louise, I didn't make the claim, you did. Now I ask you to prove it and so far you haven't done a very good job of it. Try this one on for size since you're having trouble proving the non-existence of a god(s). Provide me with positive evidence that George Washington existed. I know I met a man who had the same name and even show me a driver's licence to prove it, but I don't think he's the same man.

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>

Vorkosigan

The problem is that naturalism to you has become a religious truth statement and not a philosophy or method of doing science.

I don't have any religion. I am a metaphysical naturalist.

Note that methodological naturalism does not hold that such entities or forces do not exist, but merely that one cannot use them in scientific explanation.

As I have written many times in the past, including earlier in this very thread, where you confused metaphysical and methodological naturalism.

The great men of science you noted were theists and continued to be theists. They didn’t see this as a vindication of atheism as you and those of your ilk do.

I am glad at last you've come to understand that methodological naturalism was invented by theists....

They didn’t view this as a fundamental belief and become apologists for naturalism as a result.

Why should they? They had already been indoctrinated in theistic beliefs, and lacked the knowledge about the world we have today. Atheism would not start to spread among scientists until after the second half of the 19th century.

More importantly, in an age that brutally punished people for criticizing the ruling religion, openly advocating atheism was impossible (in any case, I doubt any of the early scientists were atheists). Even Newton kept his Arianism in the closet, afraid of what might happen.

They believed the tools of science were inadequate to do such investigation. Period.

"They" who? Are you claiming that all the early scientists had the same views on religion, identical to the ones you outline in the sentence above? I rather suspect that they had a diversity of views on the issue. I rather suspect, given that a couple of months ago you had no idea that the first western scientists were all theists, that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Yet they continued to believe the world was knowable and logical precisely because it was created.

Yes. So? They held beliefs that have not held up under scrutiny. So have many other scientists.

You continue to fall prey to the very thought I so painstakingly laid out in the debate...

You flatter yourself. You made a series of unsupported and indefensible assertions that demonstrated that you really did not know enough about the topic. Why don't you read some of the titles on the book list that Metacrock provided for you? Ask him to boil it down to the ten best.

... that to employ the success of science as vindication of naturalism as a religious truth is gross circular reasoning.

Since none of us claim it is religious truth, you are spouting nonsense.

The success of methodological naturalism IS strong evidence in favor of metaphysical naturalism. Think about it: when you investigate reality using the assumption that there are no supernatural entities, we get reliable and useful results. Why do you think that is?

But let's follow this for a while. If naturalism is erroneous, why do you think history is characterized by the failure of theism to produce reliable and useful knowledge about the world through divine revelation? If naturalistic deductions are circular -- even delusional, as you seem to be saying -- why is it that hard-nosed capitalistic businessmen utilize them? Why don't oil companies rely on the Bible instead of petroleum geology? Why don't biotech companies put little colored sticks as the OT recommends, next to their prize bacteria, instead of using the latest genetic techniques? Why is it that governments turn to scientists for the useful weapons development techniques, instead of priests or shamans? Why local rebels, backed by primitive magic, always loose to European soldiers backed by technological weaponry?

It's not just that metaphysical naturalism is suggested by the success of science; it is also strongly evidenced in reality-bites fields like warfare and business. People who rely on methodological naturalism have more success in manipulating reality than those who don't. Period. Across the board, in every field of human endeavor save manipulation and control of others, naturalistic assumptions crush supernatural ones. If theism is right and naturalism is wrong, why is there such an across-the-board failure of the supernatural?

Michael