|
Post by rizdek on Jun 9, 2022 16:39:46 GMT
The atheist may often ask for evidence for God's existence and claim there isn't any. But that's a misuse of the term. Evidence is a much broader concept than proof. Most scholarly theologians/apologists know the arguments and lines of reasoning they use to point to the existence of God are not proving God exists. Most settle for making arguments that make it reasonable to conclude that God exists and that God is a better explanation for what they think is going on in the world than other views such as naturalism.
I write this as someone not convinced by those arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 10, 2022 2:44:31 GMT
Most settle for making arguments that make it reasonable to conclude that God exists and that God is a better explanation for what they think is going on in the world than other views such as naturalism.
I appreciate the difference between evidence and proof. But, from what I've seen, theists fail to even make that standard of "arguments that make it reasonable to conclude that God exists". The problem with their evidence isn't that it's not proof. The problem with their evidence is that it is so flimsy.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 10, 2022 15:38:57 GMT
Most settle for making arguments that make it reasonable to conclude that God exists and that God is a better explanation for what they think is going on in the world than other views such as naturalism.
I appreciate the difference between evidence and proof. But, from what I've seen, theists fail to even make that standard of "arguments that make it reasonable to conclude that God exists". The problem with their evidence isn't that it's not proof. The problem with their evidence is that it is so flimsy. As I said, regardless of how much and often and long I've studied arguments for the existence of God...I'm not even close to being convinced.
As to flimsy...that's in the eye of the beholder. A theist would say the argument from fine tuning, for example, is not flimsy and should be quite convincing. See...when they are speaking of evidence they can use arguments (reasoning) as evidence. I see it as 'evidence' a prosecutor may present. Let's say there's an apparent murder. One person is dead and it looks like they were beaten to death. One piece of evidence the prosecutor may present would be that the accused was in a room with the deceased for an hour. The room had no windows or other doors than the one that was under observation the whole time. They went in together and after an hour, one was dead due to physical damage that matched the physical damage one person can inflict on another. That isn't proof the one person killed the other, but it is one argument/line of reasoning that he might have, and the prosecutor will use that argument as evidence.
IMHO, the argument from fine tuning is pretty difficult to explain away, even if I do say so myself. Generally it is based on what the "complex initial conditions given within the big bang in which all intelligent life depends. "
It's not exactly that the universe was designed FOR life, but it questions why they are as they are and declares that if any of these many constants were any different, no life would've been possible.
What would your answer be? And that's not a question intended as a challenge, I would like to know how others address it.
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Jun 10, 2022 16:07:54 GMT
Proof is the acceptance of evidence. It is subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 10, 2022 19:04:05 GMT
It's not exactly that the universe was designed FOR life, but it questions why they are as they are and declares that if any of these many constants were any different, no life would've been possible.
What would your answer be? And that's not a question intended as a challenge, I would like to know how others address it.
As a lay person in this field, I would answer that, given that there are many billions of galaxies that have existed for an unimaginably long time, it becomes reasonable to suppose that eventually one small spot in one of those galaxies would have evolved conditions favorable to life. But an in-depth discussion of fine tuning will involve scientific arguments (cosmology, quantum mechanics) that I am simply not qualified to make judgments about. For example: www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/750262
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 10, 2022 20:48:28 GMT
It's not exactly that the universe was designed FOR life, but it questions why they are as they are and declares that if any of these many constants were any different, no life would've been possible.
What would your answer be? And that's not a question intended as a challenge, I would like to know how others address it.
As a lay person in this field, I would answer that, given that there are many billions of galaxies that have existed for an unimaginably long time, it becomes reasonable to suppose that eventually one small spot in one of those galaxies would have evolved conditions favorable to life. But an in-depth discussion of fine tuning will involve scientific arguments (cosmology, quantum mechanics) that I am simply not qualified to make judgments about. For example: www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/750262 I will look into that book...it looks like it might be good. But understand that the argument from fine tuning doesn't mean that the constants just allow life on some planet, but that they allow planets to even exist at all. The claim is that if any of these parameters were different by a tiny amount, no planets, or stars, of even atoms would have formed at all....anywhere....ever. So their contention is that there wouldn't be any planets anywhere on which life could live, no atoms out of which life could form, and no sun (star) to sustain it if it did form.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 12, 2022 13:43:13 GMT
As a lay person in this field, I would answer that, given that there are many billions of galaxies that have existed for an unimaginably long time, it becomes reasonable to suppose that eventually one small spot in one of those galaxies would have evolved conditions favorable to life. But an in-depth discussion of fine tuning will involve scientific arguments (cosmology, quantum mechanics) that I am simply not qualified to make judgments about. For example: www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/750262I will look into that book...it looks like it might be good. But understand that the argument from fine tuning doesn't mean that the constants just allow life on some planet, but that they allow planets to even exist at all. The claim is that if any of these parameters were different by a tiny amount, no planets, or stars, of even atoms would have formed at all....anywhere....ever. So their contention is that there wouldn't be any planets anywhere on which life could live, no atoms out of which life could form, and no sun (star) to sustain it if it did form. Here's one other problem I'd have with fine tuning, or actually any of these broad philosophical arguments for theism. If we accept that a conscious being, a god, created the universe and got life (but oddly, not his own life) started, then we must choose between two equally untenable propositions. Either 1) This god chooses not to reveal himself to the only(?) species of life that actively seeks to know him. Or 2) This god HAS revealed himself, and among the superstitious, illogical, deleterious religions that fill the world, one of these religions, despite its easily recognized defects, is true. And, to me, neither option makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Jun 12, 2022 16:29:19 GMT
No fact has been universally proven. If you don't accept the evidence, it isn't proof.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 12, 2022 19:04:09 GMT
Either 1) This god chooses not to reveal himself to the only(?) species of life that actively seeks to know him. Or 2) This god HAS revealed himself, and among the superstitious, illogical, deleterious religions that fill the world, one of these religions, despite its easily recognized defects, is true. I don't think it need follow that any religion views God 100% correctly even if God has revealed himself to the world. Say for example God revealed himself as Jesus Christ sometime in the first century - it wouldn't necessarily follow that his actions and teachings were recorded correctly or he was understood in the correct theological light.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 12, 2022 21:26:33 GMT
I will look into that book...it looks like it might be good. But understand that the argument from fine tuning doesn't mean that the constants just allow life on some planet, but that they allow planets to even exist at all. The claim is that if any of these parameters were different by a tiny amount, no planets, or stars, of even atoms would have formed at all....anywhere....ever. So their contention is that there wouldn't be any planets anywhere on which life could live, no atoms out of which life could form, and no sun (star) to sustain it if it did form. Here's one other problem I'd have with fine tuning, or actually any of these broad philosophical arguments for theism. If we accept that a conscious being, a god, created the universe and got life (but oddly, not his own life) started, then we must choose between two equally untenable propositions. Either 1) This god chooses not to reveal himself to the only(?) species of life that actively seeks to know him. Or 2) This god HAS revealed himself, and among the superstitious, illogical, deleterious religions that fill the world, one of these religions, despite its easily recognized defects, is true. And, to me, neither option makes sense. Given the premise that "a god created the universe," conclusion #2 is wrong because all religions that recognize such a creator would be correct in that regard, not just one. The problem with all the different religions isn't a disagreement about whether or not such a being exists; it's disagreement about what it wants. As for revelation, I think the First Cause argument demonstrates the disparity of both conclusions, for one can intuitively acknowledge an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately depends without calling it "God".
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 12, 2022 21:50:45 GMT
I will look into that book...it looks like it might be good. But understand that the argument from fine tuning doesn't mean that the constants just allow life on some planet, but that they allow planets to even exist at all. The claim is that if any of these parameters were different by a tiny amount, no planets, or stars, of even atoms would have formed at all....anywhere....ever. So their contention is that there wouldn't be any planets anywhere on which life could live, no atoms out of which life could form, and no sun (star) to sustain it if it did form. Here's one other problem I'd have with fine tuning, or actually any of these broad philosophical arguments for theism. If we accept that a conscious being, a god, created the universe and got life (but oddly, not his own life) started, then we must choose between two equally untenable propositions. Either 1) This god chooses not to reveal himself to the only(?) species of life that actively seeks to know him. Or 2) This god HAS revealed himself, and among the superstitious, illogical, deleterious religions that fill the world, one of these religions, despite its easily recognized defects, is true. And, to me, neither option makes sense. Yes Those that you mentioned and several other lines of reasoning keep me from being impressed. But the argument from fine-tuning takes some work to get around...at least for me. Or more precisely the conundrum of fine tuning, because the argument concludes with a being far more unlikely, IMHO than a couple dozen fine tuned parameters. What ideas do you have on that?
My view is that if there is some sort of immaterial super 'that which none greater can be conceived' fine-tuning creator being that somehow farted the universe into the abysmal nothingness some billions of years ago, it likely has no more interest in humans than we have in the mold that grows on the bottom of a log in a deserted forest. It is sheer hubris for humans to imagine that a god created all this....a universe 10s of billions of light years across and expanding like a bat out of hell in all directions at once...did it all for some barely civilized bipedal apes on a small rocky planet in the out skirts of some unimportant galaxy. And the myriad of god beliefs scattered around the world and throughout history and the absurdity of them...including Christianity... convinces me there is nothing particularly important, urgent or useful in trying to believe in or follow the teachings of these apparently man made religion.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 13, 2022 1:00:46 GMT
Either 1) This god chooses not to reveal himself to the only(?) species of life that actively seeks to know him. Or 2) This god HAS revealed himself, and among the superstitious, illogical, deleterious religions that fill the world, one of these religions, despite its easily recognized defects, is true. I don't think it need follow that any religion views God 100% correctly even if God has revealed himself to the world. Say for example God revealed himself as Jesus Christ sometime in the first century - it wouldn't necessarily follow that his actions and teachings were recorded correctly or he was understood in the correct theological light. Well, that would describe untenable option #3) God reveals himself in some discreet time and place to be quickly lost to man's inability to get the story straight. And God is content for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 13, 2022 4:15:39 GMT
The atheist may often ask for evidence for God's existence and claim there isn't any. But that's a misuse of the term. Evidence is a much broader concept than proof. No it isn’t! The “concepts” are the same and the words are literally synonymous in the colloquial sense. They mean exactly the same goddamn thing and the only reason to use an argument like this is for equivocation. Nobody who asks for proof is using the term in the mathematical sense! At best you could argue that colloquially speaking proof refers to “sufficient evidence to warrant belief”. Beyond that you have no case! Also, the moral arguments have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a god. They only have to do with moral claims about a god.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 13, 2022 5:43:10 GMT
Proof is replicable.
You can't prove the existence of something indefinable. There is significant evidence that a creator is unnecessary. We are at the point where the creator's only job was to start the big bang, everything after that was evolution.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 13, 2022 11:07:38 GMT
The atheist may often ask for evidence for God's existence and claim there isn't any. But that's a misuse of the term. Evidence is a much broader concept than proof. No it isn’t! The “concepts” are the same and the words are literally synonymous in the colloquial sense. They mean exactly the same goddamn thing and the only reason to use an argument like this is for equivocation. Nobody who asks for proof is using the term in the mathematical sense! At best you could argue that colloquially speaking proof refers to “sufficient evidence to warrant belief”. Beyond that you have no case! Also, the moral arguments have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a god. They only have to do with moral claims about a god. I agree the moral arguments are not good to show God's existence. Some noted apologists even agree they are weak:
So at the most, Swineburne thinks that moral arguments coupled with other arguments make a theistic universe more probable. So he definitely doesn't see what he presents as proving God's existence. But moral arguments weren't what I had in mind.
Are evidence and proof viewed the same, colloquially? This site suggests many (most?) people see a difference. link So evidence suggests many see a difference. Be that as it may, when you say you want evidence of God's existence, you mean proof? Ok....What would be proof of God's existence? What could you see/experience that could leave absolutely NO doubt in your mind....no other explanation than a god had to exist for it to have happened? I, personally can think of nothing that would PROVE to me a god existed/exists....ie could absolutely NOT be explained any other way.
But more interestingly, what your response to the argument from fine tuning?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 13, 2022 12:21:07 GMT
A Christian will say that hindu Gods are not real. Christians are atheists towards hindu Gods. if a Christians thinks an Atheist's should prove that the Christian God is not real, than Christians need to prove that hindu Gods are not real. That's all well and good...and I agree. But other than some who flippantly make that challenge "prove that the Christian God is not real," who I ignore or answer just as flippantly, I haven't seen very many notable Christian theologians/apologists ask an atheist to prove God isn't real. What they mostly ask us to do is explain some things they think rare real in the world, or somethings that has happened, if naturalism or physicalism is true. Those things are the basis for their evidence (arguments and lines of reasoning) that God is the more likely explanation. Rarely do they go directly from, say, the argument from fine tuning or the cosmological argument TO 'and therefore the Christian God is that one true God.' Oh some do, but the more astute ones don't...or at least they pretend not to.
And with regard to Islam, Muslim's have arguments for God's existence that parallel Christian arguments. www.alislam.org/articles/8-foundational-arguments-for-existence-of-god/ And there are Hindu arguments for the existence of god(s) that also parallel Christian's arguments. So essentially all the major religions start out with pretty much the same set of arguments...evidence they'd call them...that theism is true. If you visit Dr Craig's website...(you can do it, I find his website hard to navigate), he definitely goes the extra mile to try to show it is reasonable to believe a god exists...ie theism....all the way to the Christian God. So he doesn't SAY he takes it for granted although I'm pretty sure he's finding (can I say cherry-picking) the evidence he uses to get to his proof that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of humanity and that the one true God isn't Allah.
What is your response to the argument from fine-tuning? The argument is based on a couple dozen physical constants that if they were any different, the claim is that atoms would not form and there would be no stars or planets, so no structures at all and certainly none to support physical life as we know it.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 13, 2022 12:33:45 GMT
Proof is replicable. You can't prove the existence of something indefinable. There is significant evidence that a creator is unnecessary. We are at the point where the creator's only job was to start the big bang, everything after that was evolution. And that is what most notable apologists claim they are doing with some of their arguments. They claim they are offering evidence in the form of arguments that take a given observation or set of observations and claiming it/those are better explained if theism is true.
What is your response to the argument from fine tuning as described here? link
And when they say 'possible development of life' they're not just saying that the earth is life friendly. They're claiming that if those constants were a bit different, no atoms would form and therefore no stars or planets would form and the universe, if it existed at all, would "look" entirely different and no kind of physical life would be possible at all because there would be nothing from which life could arise.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 13, 2022 22:54:16 GMT
Proof is replicable. You can't prove the existence of something indefinable. There is significant evidence that a creator is unnecessary. We are at the point where the creator's only job was to start the big bang, everything after that was evolution.
I though the big bang was supposed to be scientific. How did it know to make humans different than animals? How did it know to give people different languages, colors, 10 fingers and toes for a norm, the ability to think, to envision, to create things that weren't there? How and why did it give humans a conscience, a sense of right and wrong and not just raw animal instincts like most other life forms?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 14, 2022 0:43:30 GMT
Proof is replicable. You can't prove the existence of something indefinable. There is significant evidence that a creator is unnecessary. We are at the point where the creator's only job was to start the big bang, everything after that was evolution.
I though the big bang was supposed to be scientific. How did it know to make humans different than animals? How did it know to give people different languages, colors, 10 fingers and toes for a norm, the ability to think, to envision, to create things that weren't there? How and why did it give humans a conscience, a sense of right and wrong and not just raw animal instincts like most other life forms?
Other animals seem to have distinct senses of right and wrong. It may not be as complex as humans, but many have social hierarchies and rules the members of the group follow. How do we know they don't have consciences?
The big bang isn't thought to have 'designed' or 'known' anything. Whatever it was, it seems to have been a point when matter/energy and time/space emerged from an underlying natural existence. Otherwise we have to assume something came from nothing and that seems unlikely.
But if we're into asking how something did something, I think it's a fools errand. Even if God exists, no one know how he did/does...anything, AFAIK. How does God have the ability to exist eternally in a timeless state yet still be able to do things in sequence or have sequential thoughts? How does one know whether God is actually good given the assumption by many that he defines what is good and provides the basis for moral thinking. Based on that, there is no point in saying God is good because we can't know. Furthermore, we can't even know if what we think is good is actually good or not, IF God is the only source of moral thinking. It's worse even than having subjective morals. At least with subjective morals we try to come up with reasons. No such reasons are meaningful if God is the only source of moral thinking....he apparently can't even have reasons for what he thinks is right or wrong, because if he did, then those reason would be the basis for moral thinking and why things are right and wrong, not God himself.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 14, 2022 3:45:21 GMT
Proof is replicable. You can't prove the existence of something indefinable. There is significant evidence that a creator is unnecessary. We are at the point where the creator's only job was to start the big bang, everything after that was evolution. And that is what most notable apologists claim they are doing with some of their arguments. They claim they are offering evidence in the form of arguments that take a given observation or set of observations and claiming it/those are better explained if theism is true.
What is your response to the argument from fine tuning as described here? link
And when they say 'possible development of life' they're not just saying that the earth is life friendly. They're claiming that if those constants were a bit different, no atoms would form and therefore no stars or planets would form and the universe, if it existed at all, would "look" entirely different and no kind of physical life would be possible at all because there would be nothing from which life could arise.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/
I wasn't previously familiar with Fine Tuning but it seems an ass first explanation... that if your asshole wasn't round then round turds would be constrained. There could be an infinite number of universes where life is impossible, or universes that failed completely because the physics were unstable. Ours is the story of a universe where everything worked. There are uncountable planets in our universe where life failed, or never evolved beyond single cells. We are the story where life evolved like the universe evolved in the very early days before atomic particles.
|
|