gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Jun 16, 2022 16:03:52 GMT
I see how that was meant to work, but it is a recipe for getting conned by the little things. I could say that I have a little black dog but that I'm on vacation and didn't bring it with me. Or a calico cat. Or a pet lizard. As long as I have a suitcase I can make up just about anything about a pet that I want as long as I keep the details vague. It's important to check the small things relatively regularly as well. The difference is, there is no impact to me whether you actually have a dog or not. It doesn’t affect me if you’re lying and it isn’t worldview changing either way. The existence of a god (or anything supernatural) would be worldview altering. Even the existence of fire-breathing dragons would be. It wouldn't change your worldview in a big picture way but if you go to someone's house expecting a mean dog but they told you it's a small dog when it's big, it could put you in danger so you shouldn't neglect the small stuff. Even if it's for a different reason.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 16, 2022 16:12:13 GMT
The difference is, there is no impact to me whether you actually have a dog or not. It doesn’t affect me if you’re lying and it isn’t worldview changing either way. The existence of a god (or anything supernatural) would be worldview altering. Even the existence of fire-breathing dragons would be. Hello cap, howya been? I’ve been…successful
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 16, 2022 16:20:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 16, 2022 16:43:49 GMT
Are evidence and proof viewed the same, colloquially? This site suggests many (most?) people see a difference. 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? I’m less concerned with what “many people” say on a “site”, and more interested in what most people I converse with in reality say. I don’t know about you, but to me that’s a more meaningful metric to use when judging the use of language. When I look up the word proof in the dictionary, I get: “evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement”. This seems consistent with how most people use it (off site). Colloquially speaking when people are asking for “proof” they’re asking for evidence. We don’t need to quibble about “what words mean” in order to have a meaningful conversation. We know what people mean when they say proof! As far as what evidence would convince me that a god exists, I have two approaches to that question. Let’s replace the word “god” with literally anything else and ask the same question. What would it take to convince me that aliens are abducting people from Earth? The answer is an alien encounter! Specifically one that is a shared experience (not just me having the experience, but other people to witness it and validate my experience). The other approach is to simply say this. Not all claims are equal! The evidence sufficient to convince should be proportional to the claim. Mundane claims require very little evidence to warrant belief, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you tell me that you just got a pet dog, I’m probably going to believe you at face value because that’s mundane claim. People get dogs as pets all the time. I’ve had dogs as pets before. And why would someone make that up? If you tell me that you just got a pet grizzly bear, I’m probably going to be very skeptical because that doesn’t seem likely. Grizzly bears are not legal to own as pets, they extremely dangerous, wild animals, and it is not logistically feasible for a person to have one. So I’d need to actually see some evidence of this bear in your possession before I believed it. If you tell me that you just got a pet fire-breathing dragon…I don’t believe you! Even if I think that YOU believe that you have pet fire-breathing dragon, I personally won’t believe that you have one. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a fire breathing dragon (it’s a purely mythical creature). Is it possible that there is such a thing? Maybe. But I would not be exercising reason if I just took your word on that. If you tell me that you have a pet fire-breathing dragon that’s invisible, intangible, silent, and only communicates with you telepathically, then that’s an unfalsifiable claim which can neither be proved nor disproved. So I would not believe that claim on the count that I have not experienced this so called pet, and you have way of showing that it exists. God (at least most definitions of it) seems to fall in the last category. It’s an unfalsifiable claim and there seems to be no objective methodology by which anyone can demonstrate the existence of any god. To make things worse, God is only ever described with negative attributes: ex “timeless”, “spaceless”, “immaterial”, etc. Well what does it mean to say something that has no material and is outside of time and space “exists”? In what manner is it existing? Something that is composed of no matter, and occupies no space, at no time is functionally no different than a non-existent thing. In other words, you’ve literally described something that doesn’t exist. So God doesn’t seem to manifest in any detectable way in reality. I don’t know what kind of evidence it would take to convince me that something that doesn’t manifest in reality “exists”. But if a god exists AND it’s all power, and all knowing - then God would know what kind of evidence would convince me, and he hasn’t convinced me. The only logical conclusion I could draw from this is that either: 1) A god exists, but it either not all-powerful OR not all-knowing (or neither) 2) God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, BUT doesn’t want me to know it exists 3) God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, BUT doesn’t care if I know if it exists 4) This god doesn’t really exist at all So given the fact that I'm not convinced that any god exists, which of these do you think is the most likely? My opening stmt: "The atheist may often ask for evidence for God's existence and claim there isn't any." does not seem to conflict with "Colloquially speaking when people are asking for “proof” they’re asking for evidence." I would understand that someone who asks for 'proof' that God exists is expecting a litany of explanations, lines of reasoning and observations the other person has used to convince themselves that God exists and that perhaps would convince the person asking. But I was speaking of when someone says, provide evidence and what they really mean is 'prove it to me.' THAT seems like it would be a misuse of the term evidence for something like God's existence.
The definition of evidence provided
reflects that the term evidence is used in many different scenarios from the simplest to the ultimately complex issues. It can mean that which convinces OR that which helps to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
EG, if I someone claims to 'be in a room' and I look in the room and see then standing there, my observation is all that is needed for me to agree that the person is making a true statement. So YES, my personal observation is (all) the evidence that is needed and would be tantamount to proof.
OR
But for more declarations of complex things like...'the diversity life we see around us is due to a natural process called evolution with natural selection and random mutations working in tandem,' no one single piece of evidence would suffice to prove that is likely to be a true statement. There is the fossil record, observation of differences between offspring and parents and differences among offspring, genetics, genetic mutations and genetic patterns, and the geographical distribution of life forms that help support that theory. link Someone might claim those things don't prove natural evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. But if someone were to say there's no evidence for evolution...and I've heard that, I think most scientists would claim there IS lots of evidence for evolution.
Oh, and I think #4 is most likely.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 16, 2022 17:29:13 GMT
Are evidence and proof viewed the same, colloquially? This site suggests many (most?) people see a difference. 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? I’m less concerned with what “many people” say on a “site”, and more interested in what most people I converse with in reality say. I don’t know about you, but to me that’s a more meaningful metric to use when judging the use of language. When I look up the word proof in the dictionary, I get: “evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement”. This seems consistent with how most people use it (off site). Colloquially speaking when people are asking for “proof” they’re asking for evidence. We don’t need to quibble about “what words mean” in order to have a meaningful conversation. We know what people mean when they say proof! As far as what evidence would convince me that a god exists, I have two approaches to that question. Let’s replace the word “god” with literally anything else and ask the same question. What would it take to convince me that aliens are abducting people from Earth? The answer is an alien encounter! Specifically one that is a shared experience (not just me having the experience, but other people to witness it and validate my experience). The other approach is to simply say this. Not all claims are equal! The evidence sufficient to convince should be proportional to the claim. Mundane claims require very little evidence to warrant belief, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you tell me that you just got a pet dog, I’m probably going to believe you at face value because that’s mundane claim. People get dogs as pets all the time. I’ve had dogs as pets before. And why would someone make that up? If you tell me that you just got a pet grizzly bear, I’m probably going to be very skeptical because that doesn’t seem likely. Grizzly bears are not legal to own as pets, they extremely dangerous, wild animals, and it is not logistically feasible for a person to have one. So I’d need to actually see some evidence of this bear in your possession before I believed it. If you tell me that you just got a pet fire-breathing dragon…I don’t believe you! Even if I think that YOU believe that you have pet fire-breathing dragon, I personally won’t believe that you have one. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a fire breathing dragon (it’s a purely mythical creature). Is it possible that there is such a thing? Maybe. But I would not be exercising reason if I just took your word on that. If you tell me that you have a pet fire-breathing dragon that’s invisible, intangible, silent, and only communicates with you telepathically, then that’s an unfalsifiable claim which can neither be proved nor disproved. So I would not believe that claim on the count that I have not experienced this so called pet, and you have way of showing that it exists. God (at least most definitions of it) seems to fall in the last category. It’s an unfalsifiable claim and there seems to be no objective methodology by which anyone can demonstrate the existence of any god. To make things worse, God is only ever described with negative attributes: ex “timeless”, “spaceless”, “immaterial”, etc. Well what does it mean to say something that has no material and is outside of time and space “exists”? In what manner is it existing? Something that is composed of no matter, and occupies no space, at no time is functionally no different than a non-existent thing. In other words, you’ve literally described something that doesn’t exist. So God doesn’t seem to manifest in any detectable way in reality. I don’t know what kind of evidence it would take to convince me that something that doesn’t manifest in reality “exists”. But if a god exists AND it’s all power, and all knowing - then God would know what kind of evidence would convince me, and he hasn’t convinced me. The only logical conclusion I could draw from this is that either: 1) A god exists, but it either not all-powerful OR not all-knowing (or neither) 2) God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, BUT doesn’t want me to know it exists 3) God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, BUT doesn’t care if I know if it exists 4) This god doesn’t really exist at all So given the fact that I'm not convinced that any god exists, which of these do you think is the most likely? Very well stated. The progression from getting a pet dog through to having an invisible fire-breathing dragon was a good metaphor.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 16, 2022 20:54:27 GMT
The definition of evidence provided
reflects that the term evidence is used in many different scenarios from the simplest to the ultimately complex issues. It can mean that which convinces OR that which helps to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
That’s actually the definition of “proof” Oh, and I think #4 is most likely.
Me too!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 16, 2022 21:57:32 GMT
Very well stated. The progression from getting a pet dog through to having an invisible fire-breathing dragon was a good metaphor. Except it has nothing to do with God. Your existence proves an existence of something else, and it ain't a dog, a fire-breathing dragon, Santa Claus, or a flying plate of spaghetti.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 16, 2022 22:03:34 GMT
Very well stated. The progression from getting a pet dog through to having an invisible fire-breathing dragon was a good metaphor. Except it has nothing to do with God. Your existence proves an existence of something else, and it ain't a dog, a fire-breathing dragon, Santa Claus, or a flying plate of spaghetti. Huh?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 16, 2022 22:11:31 GMT
Very well stated. The progression from getting a pet dog through to having an invisible fire-breathing dragon was a good metaphor. Except it has nothing to do with God. Your existence proves an existence of something else, and it ain't a dog, a fire-breathing dragon, Santa Claus, or a flying plate of spaghetti. What “something else” does my existence prove?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 16, 2022 22:23:28 GMT
Except it has nothing to do with God. Your existence proves an existence of something else, and it ain't a dog, a fire-breathing dragon, Santa Claus, or a flying plate of spaghetti. Huh? You can say a fire-breathing dragon brought the universe into existence, but not if you want to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 16, 2022 22:25:59 GMT
Except it has nothing to do with God. Your existence proves an existence of something else, and it ain't a dog, a fire-breathing dragon, Santa Claus, or a flying plate of spaghetti. What “something else” does my existence prove? I presume it's the same thing you reject. Do you even know what you don't believe? Or do you simply refuse to call it God?
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 16, 2022 23:10:22 GMT
The other approach is to simply say this. Not all claims are equal! The evidence sufficient to convince should be proportional to the claim. Mundane claims require very little evidence to warrant belief, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you tell me that you just got a pet dog, I’m probably going to believe you at face value because that’s mundane claim. People get dogs as pets all the time. I’ve had dogs as pets before. And why would someone make that up? I see how that was meant to work, but it is a recipe for getting conned by the little things. I could say that I have a little black dog but that I'm on vacation and didn't bring it with me. Or a calico cat. Or a pet lizard. As long as I have a suitcase I can make up just about anything about a pet that I want as long as I keep the details vague. It's important to check the small things relatively regularly as well. Brilliant point. It's all the little things that add up to world altering views. It's how populations come to believe in a false world over decades. One person believing in a god doesn't affect me, millions of people believing in a god changes culture. One person believing an election was stolen is insignificant, millions believing it leads to an attempted coup. Slanted news can lead to riots, destruction of property and loss of life. Believing the little lies leads to believing the big lie.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 16, 2022 23:19:02 GMT
Your existence proves an existence of something else... Parents.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 16, 2022 23:24:12 GMT
Your existence proves an existence of something else... Parents. Yup. Good start.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 17, 2022 14:08:55 GMT
The definition of evidence provided
reflects that the term evidence is used in many different scenarios from the simplest to the ultimately complex issues. It can mean that which convinces OR that which helps to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
That’s actually the definition of “proof” Oh, and I think #4 is most likely.
Me too! Ok, you make a good point. But just to be clear...if anyone provides evidence of God...that'll be considered proof of the existence of God? And I assume since you are sure there is no evidence of God...that you've been an atheist since the age when you were able to understand the lines of reasoning people use to claim belief in God is reasonable and you were never convinced by any of it?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 17, 2022 21:25:58 GMT
What “something else” does my existence prove? I presume it's the same thing you reject. Do you even know what you don't believe? Or do you simply refuse to call it God? I have specific beliefs based on specific propositions. Give me a proposition, and I can tell you whether I believe it or not. But you made a statement that my existence “proves” something. What thing are you asserting my existence proves? Your assertion cannot be based on a presumption about my beliefs. You don’t even know what my beliefs are, so how can you be making assertions based on a presumption of something that you don’t know and then call that “proof”? That makes no sense whatsoever!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 17, 2022 21:32:46 GMT
That’s actually the definition of “proof” Oh, and I think #4 is most likely.
Me too! Ok, you make a good point. But just to be clear...if anyone provides evidence of God...that'll be considered proof of the existence of God? And I assume since you are sure there is no evidence of God...that you've been an atheist since the age when you were able to understand the lines of reasoning people use to claim belief in God is reasonable and you were never convinced by any of it? I never made that claim. My only claim here is that colloquial speaking, evidence and proof mean the same thing. Philosophically speaking, proof only exists in math and logic. But most people are not philosophers and most do not speak in strictly philosophical terms. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a god would depend on the specific god claim (qualities associated with the god), and the standard of evidence necessary to convince the individual evaluating it. Obviously theists have a different standard than atheists. I was once a theist; now I’m an atheist. I learned through a process of critical thinking and deconstruction that what I once thought was sufficient reason for believing was not reasonable. Consequently, I became unconvinced. Not sure if that answers your question.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 17, 2022 22:02:00 GMT
I presume it's the same thing you reject. Do you even know what you don't believe? Or do you simply refuse to call it God? I have specific beliefs based on specific propositions. Give me a proposition, and I can tell you whether I believe it or not. But you made a statement that my existence “proves” something. What thing are you asserting my existence proves? Your assertion cannot be based on a presumption about my beliefs. You don’t even know what my beliefs are, so how can you be making assertions based on a presumption of something that you don’t know and then call that “proof”? That makes no sense whatsoever! From my first post in this thread: an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately dependsimdb2.freeforums.net/post/5472313/thread
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jun 17, 2022 22:03:20 GMT
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.
The argument from fine tuning only makes sense if they don't understand evolution.
Life doesn't need the "perfect" place to exist, life adapts to the environment, not the other way around.
There are life everywhere on earth from the coldest climate to the hottest environment.
To give you an example:
The first extinction event happened about 2.45 billion years ago in the Paleoproterozoic era because too many plants started to release a deadly toxin in environment, which killed of many of the existing anaerobic species. But life adapted and today many living things are dependant on the stuff to live.
What toxin you ask? Oxygen. Yes oxygen is lethal to most animals even today, including humans. That's why we need antioxidants in order to survive.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 17, 2022 23:50:49 GMT
I have specific beliefs based on specific propositions. Give me a proposition, and I can tell you whether I believe it or not. But you made a statement that my existence “proves” something. What thing are you asserting my existence proves? Your assertion cannot be based on a presumption about my beliefs. You don’t even know what my beliefs are, so how can you be making assertions based on a presumption of something that you don’t know and then call that “proof”? That makes no sense whatsoever! From my first post in this thread: an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately dependsIMDB2.freeforums.net/post/5472313/thread Define “being”.
|
|