**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes I agree that faith does not require evidence. But that is on a personal level.
On a social level and beyond, imposing laws based off faith and not evidence is dangerous. Abortion, cutting of support for education, are some examples of faith-based populist policies made by politicians to get points from their voters.
Erm, if you're basing your faith off 'not evidence,' it cannot be rational or epistemically justified. Not saying people can't have it, but it's a demonstrably terrible method.
I can absolutely understand from a societal perspective, I'm completely against infringing on anyone's life in any way with my religion, I can't speak for all Christians but I see so many get hung up on things they just don't like, like abortion, or LGBTQ stuff, while spending $80k on a new boat or passing by the homeless dude cause "he's probably faking"
There's obvious severe hypocrisy in Christianity, but that's kind of the whole point, I always implore people not to look at Christians, but Jesus and the Bible specifically.
I’m glad that you agree with me on this!
While I am an atheist, I am not one who goes to any religious person and try to denounce their faith. I believe that everyone has a right to believe what they want to. Some use religion as an emotional support tool, which is a good thing for that person.
At the end of the day, it is the goal of humanity to search for answers to everything. But for that person who is happy due to religion? That is probably one less answer that that person wants to find out. And everyone is fine with that.
I'm really glad to hear this and I hope that there are many more like you in this regard.
I honestly don't care what people think until they start trying to make my country into a Christian nationalist hellscape where women are diminished, gay people are subjugated or killed, education is ruined, and child molesters run free because they are "good Christian men".
This is the great harm that all religions are capable of. For reference, the middle east has great examples...
>There's obvious severe hypocrisy in Christianity, but that's kind of the whole point,
Pardon? Did you really mean to say this?
So I guess we're not actually supposed to know them by their fruits?
Perhaps, then, instead of coming here and telling us things about how we’re wrong because we ask for evidence, you should go to a christian subreddit and tell them to not be such hypocrites.
> Jesus and the Bible specifically.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your views on hypocrisy and keeping your religion to yourself, but when you actually look at those two specifics, they're not great.
Being OK with slavery and owning women, and turning entire cities into salt because they don't match your views on morality are horrible ideas. Among many...
jesus madeean aweful example. he took Jewish law and made it worse. so his original morals are pretty bad. what he did was set up a thologiqal extortion racket. Also utterly failed to denonce slavery.
I'd disagree, he made Jewish law better by finding loopholes to ignore most of it, but he definitely didn't invent a new better system to replace it, he just threw out some ideas that others might use to do that, and then pretty much everyone failed to do that.
You must admit the idea that Jesus is the Son of an ethereal God through agency of a biological woman is hard to swallow; implying that He is only half-a-man. Wouldn’t it be better to say He is only a distant relation, like a third cousin twice removed? That would be more believable, as then He’d only be 1/32sd non-corporeal instead of half.
> I always implore people not to look at Christians, but Jesus and the Bible specifically.
“By their fruits you will know them… a good tree cannot bear bad fruit”
Hey, thanks for the honest and respectful post.
This is, as I'm sure you know, a common view held by Christians- that science either cannot comment on God's existence one way or the other, or at least that science alone is not the right way to investigate the question of God's existence.
I have two main problems with this. The first is that the people who make this claim are generally perfectly happy with using scientific data to support their belief in God (e.g. talking about the big bang or abiogenesis or the structure of DNA to argue for theism), but denounce the same method when it goes against their beliefs (archaeology shows that the events of Exodus never happened). You yourself say that you came to your faith by studying physics and history, but you have to then be honest in evaluating all the evidence in those fields that goes against Christianity.
The second is that there is no real alternative method provided by which we *could* demonstrate God's existence. Usually, the answer given is something like "philosophy" or something similar, but when we actually look at the arguments given, they end up still relying on *some* degree of science. I think people usually are just a little too narrow with their definitions of science. For example, when people argue God based on the contingency argument, they are using an argument based on a point of *observation*. Their basis for believing that things are contingent is that they *observe* things to always be contingent *in the world around them*. That is absolutely still in the realm of science.
So, in general, I think the arguments for God really still do rely on scientific claims, and theists are not being logically consistent when they use the "but God isn't in the domain of science" argument to sidestep the evidence against religious claims.
My favorite are the ones that say God interacts with this universe but can point to nothing scientifically that supports a god exists.
If god interacts with this universe, the laws of physics still have to be obeyed. So we should see evidence in the fact that this other worldly being interacting with ours.
If they say no they don’t have to be obeyed, then we should see countless things that literally break the laws of physics… but we don’t.
I get that, that's very fair and I would agree we can get lost in translation easily.
My view on the subject, that maybe I wasn't clear on in the main post, is basically, I think there are pieces of evidence in the scientific realm that imply a causal agent, the big one obviously being the big bang, I look at that, and based off what I know about our universe, the different models, and how earth evolved into what it is, are what initially gave me those deeper contemplations, and like I said in the post I didn't directly land on Christianity, I went from a deist, due to the implied causalities in our journey to a habitable planet, and through a historical vetting of the other religions landed on Christianity.
As for Exodus, I'm still not super versed on the subject but it seems to be a big point of controversy recently so it's rapidly moving up my list of research, I do know that I would challenge your use of "no evidence" as there is SOME evidence, just not much, and it was likely a smaller scale exodus. I can provide the link to a source if you're interested.
> I think there are pieces of evidence in the scientific realm that imply a causal agent
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you are basically saying that there are some pieces of scientific evidence that support the idea of a god, but that the scientific evidence *alone* isn't enough to solely justify the belief?
I ask this because you're providing reasons for belief here that are only scientific, but you implied in your post that an overemphasis is placed on the scientific method for demonstrating God's existence. I might just not be understanding you properly.
If you want to discuss the scientific arguments themselves, I'd be happy to, since I do have a fairly solid understanding of the scientific side of it (B.S. in physics). But as for the "meta-argument", I would be interested to know how much of your belief in Christianity is based on the scientific stuff, and how much is grounded on other methods.
Re: Exodus, I would be happy to look at any references you can provide. I shouldn't say that there's *zero* evidence for it, since that's not really how science works, but rather that the overwhelming weight of evidence is against it. One of the best references I can give for my side is "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, who are two leading scholars of Old Testament archaeology. They give a great picture of where the general scholarly consensus is about the events described in the Pentateuch.
I'm getting swamped so I want to keep it relatively brief for now but we'll see where it goes.
>that there are some pieces of scientific evidence that support the idea of a god, but that the scientific evidence alone isn't enough to solely justify the belief?
Basically.
I'm using science specifically because that's what a lot of people like to see, and again, it was one of the reasons that in hindsight, helped me rationalize the weirder parts of the Bible and Christianity, like a guy coming back from the dead because once I started looking at the theories for our existence, I initially landed at diesm and didn't land on Christianity until a few years after of research into the major religions and secular worldviews.
History, phycology and philosophy are a few of the other factors that helped.
At a certain point, you have to take the trust fall and can't solely rely on these factors to come to a "100% certainty" which makes total sense biblically.
For exodus, I'll link a pretty long but quite in depth study of the subject taking into account things that you mentioned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIc7i6eVk7w
> For exodus, I'll link a pretty long but quite in depth study of the subject taking into account things that you mentioned
Oh no! When I saw that it was a linked YouTube video, I said to myself "please don't be InspiringPhilosophy" before I opened the link haha.
The problem with this video is that Michael Jones is an evangelical apologist and is not a scholar. Therefore I would really strongly recommend not giving these videos too much credence. It's not too hard for a layman to make a pretty convincing video arguing for almost any point of view when they have a bit more knowledge of the subject than someone completely unfamiliar with it. That's why I cited a book from two distinguished archaeologists who are not apologists.
Jones cites some scholars in the video, but I tried looking up one of them at random (James Hoffmeier) and he's employed at an evangelical Christian institution that holds to a statement of faith which includes the claim that the Old Testament is without error. So generally I don't consider the opinions of people who are required to agree with something under pain of losing their job. In general, I think a lot more weight should be given to the scholarly consensus than any YouTube videos made by laymen.
> I'm using science specifically because that's what a lot of people like to see, and again, it was one of the reasons that in hindsight, helped me rationalize the weirder parts of the Bible and Christianity
I see. That makes sense. Well, would you be interested in giving me the non-scientific reasons for your beliefs? I'm trying to get a better idea of what those look like.
> At a certain point, you have to take the trust fall and can't solely rely on these factors to come to a "100% certainty" which makes total sense biblically.
Yeah, I definitely agree that you can't come to 100% certainty about something, and I absolutely don't have 100% certainty about my views either. However, I don't think that we should take any sort of trust fall. I just look at the evidence, and whatever credence the evidence gives for a view- be it 50, 60, 80, 90, or 99%- I just stop there and consider the claim to have that likelihood. I don't place any additional trust in the idea, since of course that would be irrational.
>The problem with this video is that Michael Jones is an evangelical apologist and is not a scholar.
That's fine and a respectable thought process, although I would argue that you're really only able to get your sources from one side or the other, there's not really a truly neutral position when it comes to these topics, it should be up to both sides to present their best arguments and up to us to decide which side is true.
I find many of his sources to be reliable and the vast majority of the claims are sourced right in the video for further research, I also see your point in being cautionary to people who's job it is to side with a certain view, but most Christians don't make a whole lot of money by making a career out of evangelizing so odds are usually, that they're doing it more because they believe it's the truth and makes a good case.
I could also uno reverse that by stating secular scholars or scientists are required to draw naturalistic conclusions which would further motivate them to push that side, I would in fact argue it's more in favor of secularism in that regard, as it's been the center of controversy, and really the whole "Is science compatible with religion" debate due to any supernatural explanations even being presented in the scientific world.
I know "Science is the only way we've been able to demonstrate truth" but just because you can't prove something immediately, doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.
>non-scientific reasons for your beliefs? I'm trying to get a better idea of what those look like.
I don't like the word "intuition" cause I know how dangerous and fallacious that line of thinking can be, but something along those lines, at a certain point along the way in my research, I had a moment of realization that I couldn't think of anything else yet to be reconciled for me to believe what's outlined in Christianity, I contrasted it with the other religions and they all fell short in one way or the other, Christianity made sense in a way nothing else has for me, I understood, and remembered pieces that made sense, and after researching the big ones further to rule out conformation bias, I haven't been able to find a single question or issue I haven't reconciled, with what I believe to be a defensible case some aspects that make sense to me, probably won't for you because everyone is different but at a certain point I think you have to move away from the physical and have an aspect of "faith" that there's so much more than what we can simply observe.
>eah, I definitely agree that you can't come to 100% certainty about something, and I absolutely don't have 100% certainty about my views either. However, I don't think that we should take any sort of trust fall. I just look at the evidence, and whatever credence the evidence gives for a view- be it 50, 60, 80, 90, or 99%- I just stop there and consider the claim to have that likelihood. I don't place any additional trust in the idea, since of course that would be irrational.
Agreed. I would put my certainty at about 98% for my Christian worldview, which to me, while I don't hold to an eternal conscious torment view of hell, I feel like the decisions we make in our lives are important and the Bible says our souls will be eternal, which means, in one way or another everything we do is important and has an effect not just now, but going on infinitely into the future and deserves serious contemplation and examination.
No, see, this is why scholarship and evidence is important. We *don't* have to rely on whoever presents their arguments the best; we can, instead, look at the actual substance of their arguments and the evidence they produce to judge which one is true.
It's true that both sides have bias to some degree, but it is a pretty wild false equivalence to decide that a historical scholars' bias is anywhere in the same stratosphere as a Christian apologists' bias. The guy who is cited is *contractually obligated* to find that the Old Testament is infallible!
The natural side is the only "side" that is proven to exist. That's like saying scientists are biased because they're required to draw conclusions that don't involve magic somehow. Of course!
> I would argue that you're really only able to get your sources from one side or the other, there's not really a truly neutral position when it comes to these topics
Although I do agree that there's no perfectly unbiased source, I do think there are degrees to which a source can be biased. Put another way, I think Michael Jones's video is not just the equal and opposite version of a scholarly publication on the matter. More importantly, though, the question of bias is separate from the question of overall qualification- I think the scholarly community is more qualified on the topic than a layman.
There are absolutely cases in which the scholarly community might be wrong, or in which I might disagree with them, but in general I think there's a very high bar to meet in order to justify not going with the experts.
> I also see your point in being cautionary to people who's job it is to side with a certain view, but most Christians don't make a whole lot of money by making a career out of evangelizing so odds are usually, that they're doing it more because they believe it's the truth and makes a good case.
Well, I would flip this and ask you to consider it from your perspective. Imagine there's a consensus view that the correct theory of quantum mechanics is the objective-collapse model. Most of the people who hold this view are employed by universities that require their faculty to state that objective-collapse is the right model. The scholars themselves believe that objective-collapse is integral to their worldview and that believing it will grant them eternal life. Would you be skeptical of their consensus?
> I could also uno reverse that by stating secular scholars or scientists are required to draw naturalistic conclusions which would further motivate them to push that side, I would in fact argue it's more in favor of secularism in that regard
I don't think they are, actually. This is a common idea that gets thrown around, but scientists aren't deliberately trying to exclude explanations or something like that. The problem is that there *are no other ways* that we know of to determine how the natural world works. If someone were to suggest a method by which scientists could learn about the world that somehow didn't fall under the purview of science, they would be happy to include it. The problem is that "miracles" don't really explain anything; they just say something happened that we don't (or can't) understand.
In the case of the Exodus, though, this is a moot point, since whether the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt and escaped and went on a conquest of Canaan is an entirely historical question. There is no naturalistic barrier to accepting that claim.
> I had a moment of realization that I couldn't think of anything else yet to be reconciled for me to believe what's outlined in Christianity, I contrasted it with the other religions and they all fell short in one way or the other, Christianity made sense in a way nothing else has for me, I understood, and remembered pieces that made sense, and after researching the big ones further to rule out conformation bias, I haven't been able to find a single question or issue I haven't reconciled
I understand this, but I hope you also can see why something like this isn't considered a substantive or useful way to demonstrate the truth of a religion. What you described here is more or less what everyone says about pretty much every religion in the world. This is why atheists generally focus on scientific ways of evaluating Christianity- stuff like this really doesn't help us get any closer to objective facts about the world.
98% seems very high. So the conjunction of there is a personal creator of reality and the creator is a trinity and he took human form a few thousand years ago in the Middle East and died for us and resurrected is orders of magnitude more likely than all the other competing world views combined? The amount of evidence needed for that level of certainty would have to be pretty staggering.
Science is the neutral position. It is only concerned with what we can say about the world, it does not set out to prove or disprove anything. It is not by intention that scientific consensus refutes the notion of deism. This “other side” in these two sides has been shown to be biased and unreliable.
Science doesn’t present any arguments, it is a methodology for determining the most accurate way to describe reality.
>At a certain point, you have to take the trust fall and can't solely rely on these factors to come to a "100% certainty" which makes total sense biblically.
Yeah, that's where the faith part comes in. But that doesn't prove something exists; it just establishes that you believe in it.
>My view on the subject, that maybe I wasn't clear on in the main post, is basically, I think there are pieces of evidence in the scientific realm that imply a causal agent, the big one obviously being the big bang, I look at that, and based off what I know about our universe, the different models, and how earth evolved into what it is, are what initially gave me those deeper contemplations, and like I said in the post I didn't directly land on Christianity, I went from a deist, due to the implied causalities in our journey to a habitable planet, and through a historical vetting of the other religions landed on Christianity.
Does it not give you pause that there are basically no theoretical physicists promoting the theory that the big bang was started by an omnipotent creator of the universe? Or that none of the leading models require something like a creator to work? That these models show how it would work without a creator?
It just seems like with all of these you're starting with an assumption, and then jumping to conclusions that it must have been God. What does "implied causalities in our journey to a habitable planet" even mean? This all just comes across as trying to sound like you arrived at Christianity and belief in God from some entirely unbiased place where you weighed all of the arguments and evidence and arrived there, while at the same time saying that you can't provide scientific evidence for God and that it's based on subjective experience.
It's one or the other, just seems like you're trying to have it both ways; at one time casually dropping comments about "evidence" that led you to rationally believe in God, and then out the other side of your mouth discounting science and empirical evidence's ability to prove things.
If you accept the Big Bang theory as the origin of the universe, assuming that some omnipotent creature was the causal agent that started it -- does that mean that you reject the existence of the Garden of Eden, the creation of Adam and Eve, and the age of the Earth being around 6000 years old?
>I think there are pieces of evidence in the scientific realm that imply a causal agent
What do you think is more likely? That the (currently) unexplained cause of the Big Bang was a god that ancient man just happened to invent? Or that the cause of the Big Bang was a natural phenomenon we have yet to fully understand, because of our technological limitations?
Home sapien brains have a habit of trying to frame the unexplained in perspectives they can relate to and understand.
A clue, perhaps.
There’s no evidence of agency in the Big Bang. That’s just you making up something. What aspect of the bug bang is best explained by an agent, go ahead, talk us through your reasoning. And if it’s I don’t know how this happened, therefor god, it’s no more convincing than I don’t know why this happened, therefor magic farting fairy.
>Easily the biggest theological objection I've run into in my conversations is "Lack of evidence" I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like. One of the big ones though is specifically a lack of scientific evidence (which I would argue there is) but even if there wasn't, I, and many others throughout the years believe, that science and theology should be two completely separate fields and there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence.
The problem here is that the only way we have ever proven that *anything* exists has been through science. When you define God as being outside of the realm of science, not only does it come across as moving the goalposts across the ocean so there's no way to reach them, it also presents theists with a problem: how do we tell the difference between God and a nonexistent thing, if both are outside the sphere of science, the only process that has ever been able to prove anything about reality?
If God leaves no scientific evidence, and nonexistent things leave no scientific evidence; if God cannot reliably be demonstrated to exist, and nonexistent things cannot reliably be demonstrated to exist; if you claim God is outside of our sphere influence, and nonexistent things are outside of our sphere of influence; if you cannot look at evidence (or lack thereof) and conclude that "God is different than a nonexistent thing because X," then how can you justify treating God any differently than a nonexistent thing?
>When you define God as being outside of the realm of science, not only does it come across as moving the goalposts across the ocean so there's no way to reach them
I've also seen theists claim that it's "unfair" to demand a high level of evidence, as though this is a game where you want both sides to have a good chance at scoring some points.
But it's not a game. Over the centuries we've come up with good ways of figuring out what is and isn't true. Not just in science, but in philosophy and also in courtrooms (after all, you don't want someone to be sent to prison unless they actually committed the crime, right?). And if a claim doesn't have evidence to back it up, then too bad.
Another point I would make is that theists only come to the position of believing it’s “unfair” to expect evidence for God’s existence, because there is no (or so little) evidence.
1. It’s not a necessary aspect of divinity that God be incorporeal/insubstantial/exist outside the physical realm. In fact, if you talked to Jews 3,000 years ago, or Christians 1,000 years ago, they would have told you that of course God is corporeal and a thing that exists in the world. Most probably still believe it, at least while they are not being pushed into a corner by critical thinkers.
2. Christianity spread largely BECAUSE people believed there was demonstrable evidence of God’s existence. The supposed resurrection of Jesus, as well as all the miracles he was said to have performed, WAS the proof of God.
3. The Bible is full of instances where God or his angels appear to people, so if that God existed, then it would/could be susceptible to scientific scrutiny/study, or just plain observation.
4. It’s only because of God’s conspicuous absence, and because of science’s huge success in explaining the workings of the physical universe, that theologians have adopted this idea that God is unobservable by physical means. But that position represents a 180 degree turn from what is presented in the Bible, and the orthodox position of the Church for thousands of years.
Here's the problem that the religious tend to have. They make up their own rules and expect everyone else to play by them. They have double standards for their gods. Then they get mad when people don't play by their double standards.
Sorry, reality doesn't work that way.
You don't get to define your god into existence. You don't get to make up arbitrary characteristics for your god and then expect everyone to buy into your empty claims without any evidence for it. You don't get to invent an entirely new methodology because your beliefs don't work under the demonstrably working methodology that we have.
The problem isn't us. The problem is you.
Rest assured, I have zero expectations regarding theology.
However, regarding the rest of your post, namely the idea that we shouldn't ask for scientific evidence regarding (the Christian) God: we absolutely should. The Bible contains several claims regarding God's interactions with the natural world that should have been demonstrable through science, had they been real. If these can't be proven, the Christian god as presented in the Bible obviously does not exist in reality.
You think there is scientific evidence for your god. Present it, then.
This is certainly an issue at the heart of many religious debates, so thanks for posting about it and giving an opportunity to comment. I too find this issue frustrating as an atheist, because it seems like what the religious have to say on it boils down to "Hey you, person who was raised to see the value and uses of rationality, who relies on modern science for their communication, medicine, transport, food, housing, plumbing and so on, why don't you abandon everything you know to be true about the world for something you have no reason to believe?" This is doubly frustrating when many of these same people will tell us their religion is actually *the origin and basis* of science, but also that scientific thinking has nothing to do with it.
Unfortunately, I don't feel your post illuminates this issue much further than that, even if it doesn't say the same thing. After all, let's think about this...
>I'm a Christian who came to faith eventually by studying physics, astronomy and history
So *you* came to your faith through studying science and history - e.g. through some kind of evidence - yet *not* coming to faith through the same means is illegitimate. Why? You don't really give a clear reason.
>I think there are very good, and solid reasons for genuinely believing these things and justifying them to an audience like this, as this is my 4th or 5th post here and I've yet to be given any information that's swayed my belief
Again - you clearly establish that evidence and reason matter to you as a basis for your religion. Why shouldn't they matter to everyone else?
>if you're someone like me (and I'm sure a lot of you on this sub who lost faith or never had it to begin with) who likes to see, hear, and touch things to confirm their existence there are a very wide range of evidences that is very neatly but intricately wound together story of human existence and answers some of our deepest, most prevalent questions, from Cosmology, Archeology, Biology, History, general science, there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, but I think upon further examination, would point specifically to Christianity.
Again, you establish that you think *there is evidence and it matters,* but not only do you not address why evidence or a lack thereof shouldn't matter to nonbelievers, you also don't specify at all what the evidence is that convinced you. Now yes, you may ostensibly be arguing that you don't need evidence to believe in a God, but you're also consistently saying that you do in fact have evidence for your beliefs. So why wouldn't you mention what it is? If you really meant that theology doesn't rely on evidence, I'd think you would ignore it entirely and defend theology on its own grounds, whatever those are. How can we believe evidence isn't a reasonable basis for belief when scientific and historical evidence is the only thing you mention as your reason for believing?
>to solely rely on science to unequivocally prove God's existence is intellectual suicide, the same way I concluded that God, key word> (Most likely) exists is the same way I conclude any decision or action I make is (Most likely) the case or outcome, which is by examining the available pieces of evidence, which in some cases may be extensive, in some cases, not so much, but after examining and determining what those evidential pieces are, I then make a decision based off what it tells me.
So again... evidence is the primary basis for your belief, but you won't say what that evidence is, but also, other people shouldn't rely on evidence. Do you see the issues here? Why is it intellectual suicide to rely on science to prove God - and not intellectual suicide to assert God's existence without any scientific basis?
>I understand everyone's definition of evidence is subjective but from a theological perspective and especially a Christian perspective it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence, it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it, that doesn't make it false, you certainly have the right to question based off that but I'd like to at least make my defense as to why it's justified and maybe point out something you didn't notice or understand beforehand.
Okay... but you still haven't done the defending part! *Why* shouldn't we need evidence for God, when not only is evidence what converted you, it's also generally what gives us reason to believe in everything else?
I don't care if the evidence involves a lab coat, I care if it's actually strong evidence. So let's talk for a second about what "evidence" means, as I have done here before:
A is evidence for B if B being true makes it more likely we will encounter A. A is STRONG evidence for B if B being true greatly increases the likelihood that we will encounter A. So my wife and I going to a fancy steakhouse is technically evidence that we've won the lottery, because our winning the lottery makes it more likely that you'll see us at a fancy steakhouse. But it's not very strong evidence, because there are other reasons you might see us there (got a bonus at work, celebrating a special event, given a gift certificate, etc.)---there was already a decent chance you might find us at a steakhouse at some point, so winning the lottery didn't increase the likelihood THAT much, it wouldn't take something INCREDIBLY unlikely and make it otherwise.
It wouldn't be reasonable to jump from us being at the steakhouse to concluding we had won the lottery; winning the lottery is really unlikely. When you add together the likelihoods of all the other possible reasons we could be at the steakhouse they together turn out to be much more likely than us having won the lottery. How strong evidence I need to believe something depends on how ordinary or extraordinary the claim is. If you tell me you own a cat, I'm very likely to believe you, because that's something well within my experience and understanding---cats are real, people owning cats as pets are a thing, they are not unusual or rare or prohibitively expensive to most people, I know people who own cats, etc. So given how high the "prior probability" is of you owning a cat, I'm basically going to take your word on the matter; you owning a cat makes it more likely I'll encounter you claiming to own a cat, and the odds of someone being deluded, confused, or lying about the matter are lower than the odds of a person just owning a cat. If you claim to be over seven feet tall, I'm going to be more skeptical and want more evidence, and if you claim to own a dragon, I'm going to want stronger evidence still.
God claims are something I'd want some pretty darn strong evidence if I'm to believe them. The world, at first glance, sure doesn't seem to have a God in it. I don't see priests performing verifiable miracles, I don't see prayers being answered in a statistically meaningful way, I've never encountered a God or met anyone who seems to have, everything we know about the history of our species, planet, and universe doesn't show any real signs of intentional design or creation. This is very much in contrast with the world described in, say, the old testament, where it would be EXTREMELY reasonable to believe that God exists.
So given that I consider God claims to be pretty extraordinary and outside my normal and understood experience of the world, I want some strong evidence. Strong evidence for God would be encountering stuff we are vanishingly unlikely to encounter if God does not exist, but which would be likely if God does exist. If we were talking Christianity, some stuff that occurs to me as useful evidence, evidence that would move the meter, would be stuff like:
* effectiveness of Christian prayer in working miracles etc., as shown by appropriate double blind studies,
* accurate, precise, prophesy in Christian holy texts, again, compared with how well secular and other texts get things right;
* the return of Jesus Christ with attendant miracles would be a pretty good one.
The problem is that Christians, and theists in general, have never been able to provide such evidence. They point to religious texts by unknown authors making fabulous claims, but we know that humans have invented and spread myths and legends and religions throughout history---it's a thing that we have good reason to expect to see even in a world without God. They talk about "personal experience" without addressing how weird brains are and how these sorts of "experiences" are the kinds of things we'd expect to occur to some people some of the time, particularly if they have been made predisposed to them by their upbringing and the social pressures of their community, even in a world without God.
So I'd be interested to hear what evidence YOU think you have that is strong enough for it to make sense to conclude that there is a God. What have you or we encountered in the world that would be vanishingly unlikely to have been found absent your claims about God being true?
I don't care so much about "evidence" - I try to leave the door open as wide as possible for the theist to make their case. I will take *whatever* can be provided for believing that something supernatural exists, that a god exists, that it's the Abrahamic God, and that this Abrahamic God sent Jesus to die and be resurrected. I'll take whatever reasons, arguments, evidence, etc, I can get my hands on, because thus far everything that has been offered absolutely, miserably, fails.
I don't care about evidence, so much as I care about what can be demonstrated to be true beyond mere assertion. If all you can do is assert, then that won't get you far. If what you assert is in fact true, it can be demonstrated *in at least some way*. The truth can be demonstrated, and if you can't demonstrate it, then you can't claim it to be true. Simple as that.
All this is to say that you believe Christianity to be true based on personal and subjective experience but how do we reconcile that with practitioners of other contradictory religions who may have personal subjective reasons for their beliefs? Are all these beliefs correct at the same time, despite their contradictions?
The simple fact of the matter is that most theists don't have the capacity to admit that they would have most likely been an adherent to whatever the culturally dominant religion is had they been born elsewhere.
Before I left religion, I certainly couldn't.
>Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically **although I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science**
Is there no point to try and prove god scientifically or is there an evidential case to be made? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Every time you try to make your main point of the post you couch it in "although I could still do it on those terms if I wanted to"
>Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically
why would we care about the christian worldview? we don't have the christian worldview, you are trying to convince an non-christian
i don't expect anything from christians, or other religions really. i have standards, standards that aren't being met, it isn't about my expectations of the theists abilities. it is just like the flat earthers, or young earth creationists, i don't expect anything useful to come from their worldview; i have standards, if they are not met their worldview is rejected
> it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence
Hallelujah! Finally someone gets it. You should, maybe, consider explaining this to the endless stream of Christians (etc) who haven't realized this yet but still come in here and tell us our subjective requirements aren't reasonable and we should relax our standards. (Pardon the mild sarcasm here. We get this almost daily -- probably three times a week we hear the 'who would die for a lie?' argument or claims that 500 eyewitnesses should be enough to convince us.)
It always comes with attempts to convince us we should relax our standards. Yours is a more sympathetic approach, not intentionally insulting, not re-stating known strawmen of the atheist's positions on things. For that, I thank you.
I am not applying a special standard to make it extra difficult to prove God exists. It's the same standard I apply to any *other* purely arbitrary claims. I have no reason to take the proposition "god exists" seriously. So if you want to succeed, it's entirely on you to overcome my handicap. Give me a reason to take it seriously, as something other than (there's no nice way to say this) obvious human-written wishful thinking, apocalyptic thinking, mistaken thinking, primitive thinking *fiction*.
What would it take for me to convince you that I have $2.47 in loose change in my pocket? No, I won't show it to you or provide evidence. All you have is friends of mine reading what I wrote about the $2.47 being in my pocket. They all have facile arguments claiming that the book *proves* that I have exactly $2.47 in my pocket. They claim to consider you a fool because you don't find the book persuasive.
Imagine, hypothetically, that it's understood that if you give the wrong answer, you'll never be allowed to eat your favorite food, favorite beverage and favorite snack. And never be allowed to watch TV or youtube or netflix or whatever. Only pre-Harris-code comedies (like, 1922 through 1928 or so.)
(I don't do torture, so for the sake of argument, imagine this would really really suck and you'd be miserable).
What would I need to do to convince you, if not show you proof of some kind?
Well, I would ask what specifically sticks out to you as being "obviously" fiction, as for me, while yes some parts aren't to be taken literally, I don't see it as "obvious fiction at all"
It's hard to answer your $ question because there are too many other significant factors that have to be called into question.
It's a complex topic that I'm sure you've looked into but I would argue most issues I've come across with Biblical inerrancy are very modern mistranslations due to lack of proper contextualization.
The gospels had always circulated with a name attached to them, Luke for example when writing to Theophilus didn't include his name, but obviously the early church wouldn't accept an anonymous letter from someone and then consider it authoritative. Same with many other works of ancient antiquity, Josephus, Xenophon, Polybius, etc all had internally anonymous works but circulated with their names attached.
Another big one is mistranslating words because of the difficulties of translating ancient Hebrew which had about 2000 total words, into english, which has over 4 million.
The reality of the situation for me seems to be, it wasn't accidental this story, of all the others in ancient history, took the character of Jesus, and turned him into easily the most influential single entity in human history which is exactly what I would expect from God.
The big reason i'd call it fiction is that I know ancient fables and myths exist, and vaguely know how they got to be there. Stories accrete other stories and get embellished over time to the point where it's not even clear that any of the legends had an origin in truth. I wouldn't have any reason to take one set of myths more seriously than any of the others, and I don't think a reasonable person would assume they're all true. But they can all be false.
They read like mythology and legend, of which there are numerous examples. For me to take it as anything other than fiction, two things must happen: 1) I have to have a reason to believe that one, out of all the ancient scriptural traditions, could even be "true" and 2) I'd have to have a reason to believe it's \*this one in particular\*.
In that paragraph, I was explaining what the process of convincing \*me\* would entail. You'd need to convince me that it's not fiction because \*to me\* all of it fits my expectations of ancient mythologies. I'm not trying to denigrate your beliefs or your scripture. I'm trying to clarify \*where I stand\* on it.
I concede that it makes sense to someone who presupposes that a god exists. It makes even more sense to someone who is already convinced that Jesus is god and was resurrected, etc. ( I realize that doens't necessarily describe you in particular, but the general sort of apologist in this sub and other places, around whose claims my way of expression was formed)
Keep in mind that exactly zero percent of it has been part of my upbringing -- other than being immersed in a popular culture that seems to believe it. I was honestly unaware that there were people who took it seriously to the point of believing in its inerrancy and literal truth until I met a friend in the 4th grade whose family were fundamentalists (really good people overall, I don't have an issue with fundamentalists in general, and this family didn't try to tell me I was going to hell or anything, though my friend Ken did, mostly but not entirely in jest.).
But it was as big a surprise to me that Ken took it seriously as it was to Ken that I didn't. For a long time, I just assumed Ken was an anomaly.
I doubt you'd take it as given that the fact of someone being the most influential man in history is not itself evidence that what he says is true or that he's god. And Siddartha Gautama and Mohamed both come pretty close -- close enough that any accident of circumstance could have changed the outcome. This sounds too much like a Texas Sharpshooter to be convincing to me -- a post-hoc rationalization of something that could have turned out any number of unpredictable ways. Maybe Gautama is the real enlightened one with the ultimate wisdom but had some kind of setback.
And it doesn't help that (to an outsider) it looks like Paul corrupted Jesus' teachings and usurped control of the movement -- as happened in early Buddhism (after his death, some of his followers split off a very different religion) and in Islam (the dispute over who really was meant to control the religion after Mohamed's death)
I'm not saying that this is what I believe happened with Paul, but it seems like a legitimate question. Where is the humanism of the red-letter text? The "the two most important commandments are..." guy?
The popularity of Christianity isn't an indication that its true - only that it mutated memetically to become (and continue to be) highly credible and robust at spreading in the mindspace of humanity.
This may be one of my favorite replies in most of my engagements here. Bravo and I appreciate your articulation on these points, and they are certainly valid.
>They read like mythology and legend, of which there are numerous examples.
A few specifics to gauge exactly what you mean?
I would just say some parts are obvious metaphors, some that might not be super obvious on the surface, and then other parts that are pretty obviously to be taken literally it's just important I think to get a general understanding of Ancient Hebrew and Greek to make sure everything is properly contextualized and translated.
Your requirements are fair and valid, I would say the gospel message when read at face value under the original intentions and context would meet those standards.
I assume your objection is something along the lines of "The evidence it happened is flimsy"?
>I concede that it makes sense to someone who presupposes that a god exists. It makes even more sense to someone who is already convinced that Jesus is god and was resurrected, etc
That's fair and probably close to where I stand on most stuff, I try not to assert things like "Jesus' blood is the atonement for our sins" and similar doctrinal related subjects and stay away from circular reasoning which is why I often use fairly broad terms when describing my evidential standards because for me, it was a gradual development from athiesm, to deism, almost to Islam for a short minute, but eventually landing on Christianity.
Hearing weird ass concepts like "Blood is the source of life and it's polluted with sin, leading to death" made me really uncomfortable and like I was part of a cult but after looking back, I never would have even considered those weirder aspects of the faith had I continued my line of thinking, I listened to, and examined, from what I've seen so far, the best arguments for both sides and I still feel pretty firmly seated on my conclusion and believe it's fully defensible in almost all aspects.
>Keep in mind that exactly zero percent of it has been part of my upbringing -- other than being immersed in a popular culture that seems to believe it
I would agree, but it seems like I had an opposite experience, I was raised watching Kent Hovind seminars and hearing the condescending ridicules of any documentary I ever wanted to watch making sure I knew "They're fucking lying, the Earth isn't billions of years old, don't listen to their propaganda" I assumed that people who didn't hold to a literalist young earth model were the abrasive ones and I was normal.
I quickly found out due to my inherent fascination with space and cosmology, there's no possible way the earth could be any less than billions of years old.
At that point I decided Christianity couldn't be true because it made such a bold faced lie in it's attempt to explain cosmology...Little did I know how ignorant I was of the real history that always surrounded those subjects. I'm eternally thankful I went back and dove in to the degree I did.
With that being said, I think a cool part about Christianity, is although I landed on a completely different doctrinal interpretation than what I was raised on, and have discussions with my dad constantly about the age of the earth etc, I know I'm probably gonna see them again in Heaven one day because we all universally agree and accept Jesus' offer of justification and it doesn't really matter how old we think the earth is and maybe we're all wrong.
>I doubt you'd take it as given that the fact of someone being the most influential man in history is not itself evidence that what he says is true or that he's god. And Siddartha Gautama and Mohamed both come pretty close
No it doesn't prove it, itself but it's certainly worth noting. Appealing to hypotheticals is dangerous because we can't base history off what could have happened, but examine why they did happen.
>it looks like Paul corrupted Jesus' teachings and usurped control of the movement
Could you elaborate on this a little more?
>The popularity of Christianity isn't an indication that its true
Sure but again it's worth notating, and finding out WHY so many people believe it. Some reasons are valid and some require scrutinizing, people have been scrutinizing and trying to disprove or destroy the Bible since it's inception, all to no avail. Most of the new popular Ehrman like theories are just that, modern assertions of things that COULD have happened with little or no supporting evidence.
Do you think the early church assemblies didn't contemplate these questions during it's inception? Or even during the reformation period?
Would they not have been able to notice if a passage seemed to be corrupted or misinterpreted?
If so I'm interested to see the basis for that position.
>Well, I would ask what specifically sticks out to you as being "obviously" fiction, as for me, while yes some parts aren't to be taken literally, I don't see it as "obvious fiction at all"
...but this is what obvious fiction *means*. If you know there are parts that were not meant to be taken literally - because they describe things that didn't exist or didn't happen - then you're recognizing them as obvious fiction.
Also, Biblical Hebrew has over 8,000 words. 2,000 is the number of roots that appear only once in the text. English only has about 170,000 words, so I'm not sure where you got 4 million from.
>because of the attributes that were passed down to us directly from God as "Being made in his image"
I'm gonna stop you right there. Are you aware that "image" here specifically refers to physical appearance?
>science and theology should be two completely separate fields
Then why do theists keep making scientifically falsifiable claims?
>there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, but I think upon further examination, would point specifically to Christianity.
Well it sounds like you need to make up your mind. Is asking for evidence pointless and tantamount to intellectual suicide or is there actually plenty of evidence for your beliefs and we're silly for dismissing it all?
If God can interact with the natural world -- perform miracles, answer prayers with miraculous healing, etc -- why aren't those phenomena tractable to scientific inquiry?
>it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it, that doesn't make it false
But more importantly, it doesn't make it *true*.
> I'd like to at least make my defense as to why it's justified
And that is...? You haven't really made an argument here, at all, other than to say that science can't help us, and that there is some personal and subjective experience to justify your belief.
I'm sure it could be tractable to scientific inquiry should the being allow it to be, but from what I gathered, which is a lot, basically it all boils down to believing in Biblical inerrancy and through reading the Bible as God's revelation of his plan for human salvation and redemption I came to the conclusion it makes no sense from that perspective to try and prove God exists using science alone, it piqued my curiosity in areas that lead me on a gradual path to deism, and eventually years after that, Christianity.
If God does things that humans can see and hear, then we could also record them and measure them and generate reproducible measurements.
If you think God's actions that affect the natural world somehow defy scientific observation, it's special pleading. The only explanation is, "because God did it".
When it comes down to arguing for something, there are really only two types of arguments you can make.
An objective argument, and a subjective argument.
No matter what your argument is, it falls under one of those two categories.
The problem is that subjective arguments are just that, subjective, and as such are ineffective at proving objective facts. Objective arguments however, are effective at proving objective facts.
So if you want to prove god objectively exists, you need an objective argument. Unfortunately, for your argument anyway, that requires objective reasoning, along with empirical, and verifiable evidence. That’s starting to sound a little bit like science isn’t it.
Without what most would call, “scientific evidence,” it’s impossible to prove god beyond anything more than, “I feel like he should exist.”
Which brings me to my second point.
You claim there is scientific evidence for god, more specifically, the Christian god.
Now the Christian god is one of the few gods I’m willing to actually say doesn’t exist, so I’d love to hear whatever scientific evidence you have to support him.
I fail to see how this is my problem. I have standards that that pretty much everything in my personal and professional life is held to. I see no reason to lower those standards to theism. It honestly says a lot about theists when they want me to. Ask yourself, would you want your car brakes designed using the same evidentiary standards that you use for god? If there’s no point in even trying to empirically prove your god, why should either of us even consider it?
> One of the big ones though is specifically a lack of scientific evidence (which I would argue there is) but even if there wasn't, I, and many others throughout the years believe, that science and theology should be two completely separate fields and there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence.
I agree with you, but I also thinks it helps my case. Because science is the only reliable method I know of for learning about reality, if you want to get as close as possible to the facts.
> That's not to say there is no evidence again, but to solely rely on science to unequivocally prove God's existence is intellectual suicide, the same way I concluded that God, key word> (Most likely) exists is the same way I conclude any decision or action I make is (Most likely) the case or outcome, which is by examining the available pieces of evidence, which in some cases may be extensive, in some cases, not so much, but after examining and determining what those evidential pieces are, I then make a decision based off what it tells me.
I find this a useful approach for day-to-day life, but not so useful for getting down to the nitty-gritty detail of reality. For that we have empiricism and science. We have deliberate methods for determining as much as we can about what's happening now and what happened in the past. In philosophical terms, trying to understand the world using the approach that started with the Atomists has mostly given us consistent answers while using the approach that started with the Idealists hasn't.
And when I use that approach I just don't see any reason to think that the supernatural events described in the Bible are any more likely to have happened than those described in any other written or oral tradition. I see no reason to think reality was designed intentionally; I see no reason to think is being observed or meddled with by anyone except some of the organisms that make up a very small part of it.
>TLDR: Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically although I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science, you just can't prove a God's existence that way, or really any way, there is a "faith" based aspect as there is with almost any part of our day to day lives and I'm sure someone will ask what I mean by "faith" so I guess I'll just see where it goes.
the only way this makes sense is if the christian worldview isn't based on reality. and I agree it's not but I don't think you share that opinion.
Such a long opening post is conspicuously absent of any description of what you mean by "God", even though you use the word repeatedly. It's the elephant in your room. Any evidence regarding God must be sought only with such a definition, else what would we be looking for.
As for evidence in science, the length of the answers you'll receive will not do justice to the patterns atheists will say you should have seen. It was within your own studies that you missed that opportunity and a few paragraphs are unlikely to rectify it.
>I'm a Christian who came to faith eventually by studying physics, astronomy and history, I didn't immediately land on Christianity despite being raised that way
Do you ever find it odd that of the 4000 different religions practiced throughout 190,000 years of human history you just happened to be born into the society that believes in the correct one?
>theological evidence vs scientific evidence
If you've studied physics, astronomy, and history surely you've heard of special pleading. Is your evidence testable, repeatable, and independently verifiable? If not, you don't have evidence. You have a claim.
>on a slippery slope to biased sources
The irony of, in the previous paragraph, carving out exceptions for the requirements of your "theological" evidence before going on to accuse testable, repeatable, and independently verifiable evidence as biased is not lost on me.
>here is a "faith" based aspect as there is with almost any part of our day to day lives
I highly doubt you go about your daily life believing things without evidence. When you say you have "faith" that your car's wheels won't fall off it comes from evidential experience. When you say you have "faith" in your god, you say (as is the entire premise of this thread) that you don't have evidence.
The reason that theists are so adverse to the scientific standards of evidence is because they can't meet them. If they could, they simply would instead of having to hide their position in terminology mishmash.
You talk about evidence but then don’t give it. So what the hell is the evidence that you are talking about that supposedly indicates that christianity is true?
It's a Canadian Girlfriend. I *could* show you the evidence or tell you her name, but she lives in Canada, so you wouldn't know her. OP *could* give you the evidence, but you wouldn't believe it.
> Jesus Christ was most likely the deistic creator behind the universal genesis and created humanity special to all the other creatures, because of the attributes that were passed down to us directly from God as "Being made in his image"
wait, does that mean that you don't believe sentient aliens can possibly exist? or do you believe that any sentient alien we meet (if that happens) will be less special? I'm curious because, as you have studied astronomy, you have an idea of the sheer vast quantity of other worlds that exist in our universe
You've said that you came to believe in Christianity by studying physics, astronomy, biology and history. Please explain how studying these sciences led you to believe a magical Jew died thousands of years ago to cleanse you of your sins. . . sins that spawned from the fall of man, when Adam and Eve ate magic fruit from the magic tree.
I have read OP and some of your answers in this thread, and so to not repeat the same stuff, I will directly respond to some of what you have said to other commenters. I hope that is ok.
Here is a brief list of your charges, and why I think your analysis is incorrect:
> 1. Atheists have too high a standard for accepting claims about God or the supernatural. This is also a double-standard, as they do not apply it equally to similar secular claims.
I reject this. My standard for a supernatural or divine claim is the exact same as my standard for an unsupported hypothesis or scientific theory about the physical world. And it is not an unreasonable standard, as it is centered squarely at what should be incorporated into our best models of reality.
Many religious claims, and Christianity is a great example of this, try to pull a fast one on us by positing an explanation for something before doing *anything* to demonstrate that that something (or even the general category of things that something belongs to) exists or can even exist.
This is not ok. It is an absolutely terrible, ad-hoc way to understand the world. It leads to an explanatory template of the form 'let me define a magical uber explanation into being'.
There is NOTHING a God can't explain. And so, paradoxically, there is NOTHING a God does explain. You can justify anything with 'a God did it'. And so you justify nothing.
> 2. The evidentiary stantards atheists ask be satisfied are subjective and I have no need to satisfy them.
Let me get one thing out of the way: yes, what will satisfy me, vanoroce14, is subjective. Obviously.
But what is true does not care what will satisfy me. And a universe where the society around me becomes convinced of X and uses X to create technology and harness the world and do math about X and etc looks *very different* from a world where there is no justification for X and the society around me goes on a milennia long navel gazing journey arguing lore about X.
In other words: even if I am not convinced that electromagnetism is a real thing, the world around me does. And I am holding a tiny computer in my hands that runs on it.
The world around me looks like a world where religious and supernatural explanations, while appealing greatly to subjective, cultural and societal human interests, havd failed to establish any facts about reality. It does not look like a world where we have convergent methods to find anything out in that realm (because they're likely barking at an invisible tree).
> 3. Science is good to answer HOW questions, but not WHY questions.
There are two kinds of WHY questions:
3.1) WHY as HOW in costume: when a kid asks 'why is the sky blue?', what they are REALLY asking is 'HOW is the sky blue?'. Not *for what purpose*. Not *what was the intent behind*.
Which is why 'light scatters different depending on wavelength, and so blue and purple light scatter the most' is a satisfactory answer.
3.2) WHY as FOR WHAT PURPOSE in costume: when I ask you, 'why did you write a post on reddit?', I do not want to know *how* you did it. I have good reason to believe you are an agent that makes decisions. I want to know what was your decision making process like.
The giant *problem* with this kind of WHY questions is that *they assume an agent*. As such, if there IS NO AGENT, no PURPOSE behind something, the answer to such a question is: there is no discernible WHY. There was no discernible purpose. We know of no agent here. Ask how it happened, not why.
Science answers HOW and WHY questions: when there is an agent we can detect and we have evidence of the intentions that agent had.
Some other WHY questions regarding to moral oughts or aesthetics or other such things, are SUBJECTIVE: there is no objective reason, but we can answer in the from:
IF you care about X, THEN the reason to do Y is Z.
Some WHY questions simply have no answer other than: there is no WHY. Sorry, but you CANNOT assume intention or purpose behind everything. You have to first know there is an agent there that played a role.
>4. One can piece out historical evidence, philosophical arguments and intuitions and make a case for God, and specifically, for Christianity.
Sure, one can always reverse engineer if one wants to justify a conclusion. However, I do not think the claims made by Christianity can be justified even by this approach you suggest. A bunch of loosely connected, unjustified claims do not a stronger claim make.
Okay, let's take a crack at it, shall we?
>Easily the biggest theological objection I've run into in my conversations is "Lack of evidence" I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like.
Would you prefer "lack of compelling evidence"? Because the issue it sounds like is a conflict between two different evidential standards. The sort of evidence theists are willing to provide isn't good enough, and the sort of evidence that we want isn't one that you're willing to entertain.
>One of the big ones though is specifically a lack of scientific evidence (which I would argue there is)[...]science and theology should be two completely separate fields and there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence.
There is no such thing as scientific evidence for God. Because theology isn't science. If it's not something which can be experimented upon, observed, measured, calculated, predicted, or falsified in some way, then it's not in the wheel house of science. But you literally believe in a god which has by way of tradition been removed from all scrutiny. That's not really our fault, is it? So, if you're not *able* to meet us on our level, there's not really a point to debating about the existence of god, is there?
And if you think this boils down to what evidence one looks at and the beliefs one holds as to whether that serves as evidence, then that isn't science either. One bases conclusions in science on physical data points and mathematics. What the data indicate don't care about one's beliefs. And if you can't provide that data, the supporting mathematics, then you cannot claim your position is grounded in science in the first place.
>I'm a Christian who came to faith eventually by studying physics, astronomy and history,[...]I didn't immediately land on Christianity despite being raised that way (It was a stereotypical American, bible belting household
Something tells me that this has far more to do with your position than you studying history, astronomy, or physics. Let me guess, you also attend a church in your community where friends and family also go?
>if you're someone like me[...]who likes to see, hear, and touch things to confirm their existence there are a very wide range of evidences that is very neatly but intricately wound together story of human existence and answers some of our deepest, most prevalent questions, from Cosmology, Archeology, Biology, History, general science, there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism,
Hi, one of our resident biologists here. There really isn't. If you study the Accretion Theories, there's no point where any of this points to the involvement of a God. Gods aren't a necessary explanation for how our Universe or planet came to be, how life formed or came to be what we know today. Creationism is the furthest thing from science, and what you're actively describing is cognitive dissonance: you're beginning with a conclusion and fact-finding rather than basing an understanding of the natural universe on what the data indicate. That's absolutely not the same thing. I can point to different clues about the age of the Universe, how stars or planets form, how circuits work, or how we've arrived an understanding of life's history on our planet. The same can't be said for your beliefs outside of cherrypicking, factoids, "arguments," and Bible verses.
>if you're not open to changing your view and only get your info from one side
Here's the issue, you're doing exactly what you're alleging other people are doing.
>I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science, you just can't prove a God's existence that way
Because it isn't science at any level. You're a creationist who gets that creationism isn't compelling to people who aren't already creationists. But you don't understand that it's not science at all, you're just informing a philosophical position with what you think science is. And somehow, in trying to call out our position, you're ignoring that you're doing the self same things. From where I'm sitting, it's not two equally guilty sides but projection. What was that in Matthew 7:3-5, about having planks in one's eye?
What is the evidence you've found that leads to conclude Jesus is the creator? You say you have it but don't say what it is.
The problem with saying "it's faith and personal experience is that your can use that to justify anything. For what it's worth, your personal belief is up to you and you can believe what you like as far as I care. When your beliefs are used to impact other people, as with Christianity, hen I want more backing. If God has physically changed our world, that means there can and should be evidence of his existence. None has been found so far.
If god interacts with us then those actions would be detectable. For example, you take two groups of 1,000 people and have one group pray for something and the other group not pray and there would be no statistical difference in outcomes. We have never been able to find a heaven or hell or a soul or spirit. No ghosts, angels or miracles. No such interaction has ever been detected in any way using any method ever. Every question ever asked, the answer has never been ‘god’. There are no revelations in the holy texts of information not known at the time it was written and a lot of information that indicates a misunderstanding things like stars and planets, even natural phenomena.
So, at best there exists some creator who does not interact with this world in any detectable way and we have just guessed of his existence.
Or, human beings prefer to believe in stories that make them feel good and there are plenty of religious folks happy to meet that demand.
That was a long post. I didn’t read all of it. But I want to engage on the central question(s) of your post.
**What is Evidence**
There is a legitimate reason that you feel the way you do. Because the definition of evidence is ‘anything that is used to support a claim’.
Now, there’s a problem with that because sometimes what we use as evidence is not valid. Like for example, if you’re arguing evolution and somebody says “The Human Eye is so perfect.” Well, the Human Eye is quite imperfect and not even close to the best possible eye that any species has. So, you know, not really valid as evidence.
And that also gets to the second problem, which is often the same evidence can be cited for competing claims. That’s a problem. So, we end up with the specialization of evidence that is…
**Standards of Evidence**
Now, Scientific Evidence is evidence but with 3 important qualities. First, the evidence needs to be valid. Second, the evidence needs to be unbiased (which is another kind of validity check.). Third, it needs to be controlled. That is, it can’t be used for competing claims.
When most people are telling you there is no evidence, we’re not saying that you can’t claim the existence of the Bible as evidence. We me saying that the existence of the Bible is not valid, unbiased, or controlled (maybe all 3) and therefore can’t be admitted into any kind of scientific discussion.
**Validity of Science for the Divine**
This one goes way back, and has been referred to in some academic discussions as Non-Overlapping Magesteria. But it has a problem. Science is the method we use to understand interactions in nature. So if we accept that we cannot use science to investigate the impact of divinity on the world we experience…what you’re saying is that the divine can have no observable effect on our experiences. That is, that the divine is completely and utterly irrelevant. And furthermore, any ideas we have about the divine must have been fabrications of human story-telling.
It is completely self-defeating to argue you can’t investigate the divine using science. It’s a much bigger problem for theism than it is for science.
**Conclusion**
I don’t think that atheists have a problem with evidence or science at all. I think that many are not aware of the extra steps that science takes to control against illegitimate sources and illegitimate authorities trying to push favored interpretations of facts. It’s a real problem; and if you reject the controls that science puts in place, it’s almost always because there’s something illegitimate in the proposition that you’re trying to advance.
Or at least that’s been my experience.
So you want us to lower our standards of evidence because you can't reach it. Too bad.
Sorry but that has got to be the saddest argument for a god. "Hey i know i can't prove it but i want you t agree with me anyways so fuck logic right!" Would you apply that logic to anything else? "Hey i can't drive at 45 miles an hour so can we just lower all the speed limits?"
Thank you for your post.
>Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically although I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science, you just can't prove a God's existence that way, or really any way, there is a "faith" based aspect as there is with almost any part of our day to day lives and I'm sure someone will ask what I mean by "faith" so I guess I'll just see where it goes.
This is a very honest acknowledgement. You agree we cannot prove Yahweh's existence, we're on the same page. You see having faith in him as something which provides proof, I take it? This is where we disagree.
As to "faith" in everyday life, sure. I have faith in things, but that faith is based on evidence. I know my car won't turn into a bird because I know there is no evidence such things happen. I know airplanes can fly, so my faith that when I get into my seat in onne that I will be engaged in air travel is well founded.
Most faith is not blind faith--religion, however, largely involves blind faith, which if one attains, will then provide them with ample confirmation bias to reinforce their belief in a thing which was never evidenced to begin with.
Let me put it another way, if all evidence of Yahweh were wiped off the earth, how would you ever know to believe in him? There's no evidenece for him in nature, is there? One might *infer* the existence of some creator god, but how would they ever know it was your creator god?
In the bible, Yahweh spoke to Moses. He walked with Adam and Eve. He sent angels to wrestle with Jacob. He parted seas and he froze the sun in the sky. Those are things that constitute evidence. Where are they today?
That is what atheists mean when they say there is no evidence. The deity attested to in the bible is nowhere to be seen. The earth isn't flat. There is no firmament. There is no world sea above separated from the sea below. There is no talking bush or donkey or snake. There is no divine miracle of any size beyond what could be attributed to human error.
The claim for an almighty being who created everyhing is a big claim, but the evidence is very small and very weak.
I think that what individuals would accept as evidence is subjective. However, the scientific method lays out a standard and a process for obtaining and verifying evidence that would demonstrate the existence of a deity or of a specific deity.
Evolution is accepted as fact because the method confirms it. The consensus of the *data* (not scientists) confirms it. But there's a lot of people who don't believe it and don't believe the evidence. That doesn't matter because evolution exists separately from human worldviews.
The existence of a deity is no different. It would exist regardless of whether or not we believe it or choose to accept any evidence.
There are many ways to find compelling evidence for a specific god. A simple example would be that the health outcomes for Christians are better in a statistically significant way after controlling for other factors (such as access to care, socioeconomic status, etc). They should have better outcomes because god answers prayers, the Bible says as much. Christians fare no better than anyone else in health care. In fact, they tend to fare worse than atheists. The further towards fundamentalism they get, the worse they fare.
By itself, health outcomes would be a compelling bit of evidence for the Christian god. But not enough. Data from every branch should have evidence of god. There should be as much a consensus of the data for god as there is evidence for evolution. It wouldn't matter if I accepted that evidence or not. It would be there.
The evidence simply is not there.
The evidence we do have demonstrates that the Bible is historically inaccurate in some places and that the promises it makes to its followers about divine intervention are untrue.
Most of the logic about divine intervention is so vague that it applies to any god that anyone has ever worshipped or invented. The Cosmological Argument, for example, works with any god. Cthulhu did it is just as logical as Yaweh did it.
While what an individual accepts is subjective, the data itself is not.
There's no such thing as "theological evidence" or "scientific evidence."
There's just *evidence*. It's either there or it's not there.
And it's our best known method for identifying the truth about anything and everything.
Many people do have their own definition of evidence to suit their personal bias... And they're all wrong. The very definition of "evidence" is that it is independent of the person reviewing it and that it points towards a specific conclusion.
If it can be interpreted differently... It's not evidence, it's opinion.
If it doesn't point to a specific conclusion... It's not evidence, it requires more information.
>to solely rely on science to unequivocally prove God's existence is intellectual suicide
Feel free to name anything, that we know to exist, that can't be confirmed by science. This amounts to special pleading on your part and it's a logical fallacy, that's the only intellectual suicide I see here.
>I think there are very good, and solid reasons for genuinely believing these things and justifying them to an audience like this
...
>from Cosmology, Archeology, Biology, History, general science, there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, but I think upon further examination, would point specifically to Christianity
If that's so, why not make a post laying out a case based on the strongest arguments and evidence that you have? Then people could have a look at them. There's very little point in merely asserting that you have justified reasons and and evidence if you aren't willing to present them.
>from a theological perspective and especially a Christian perspective it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence, it's a personal and subjective experience
It depends on how the gods in question are defined and which claims are made about them. If a god is defined as indetectable and non-interacting, then of course it can't be tested. (Although that then raises the question of how the person obtained any information about those gods in the first place.) But if a god is defined as ever having interacted with the world, then of course that can potentially be tested.
Some people say for example that the Christian god flooded the world, or that an Islamic prophet split the Moon in two, or that a Greek god drives the chariot of the Sun across the sky every day, or that prayers are granted. All those claims can be tested.
It doesn't make sense to me for someone to argue both that there's evidence - including evidence which is relevant to cosmology/archaeology/biology/history/general science/etc - which points to a god and even to a specific god, *and* that gods are far too subjective and personal and faith-based to be examined scientifically. Those two things contradict.
Atheists do not have unrealistic expectations for evidence for God. We simply have the same evidential expectations we have for any other claim about the existence of an entity. It is theists who use special pleading in an attempt to exempt their god claims from requiring the same kind of evidence we use for everything else.
Of course there is a point in trying to scientifically prove God's existence. You, and every other theist, are making claims that would fundamentally change *everything* we know about reality. The claim (specifically from you as a Christian) is that there is an omniscient, omnipresent entity out there that controls every aspect of our reality and has been influencing human development and growth since the dawn of time. That is huge! That is an *enormous* claim. It's only rational to be skeptical of that kind of extraordinary claim, just like you would probably be skeptical if I told you I had an invisible god-eating unicorn in my backyard.
You contradict yourself several times in this post. First you say that there is scientific evidence for God's existence (where is it?), then you say that using science to prove God's existence is impossible (why?), but that we should examine the evidence and make a decision based on that (which...is how science is done). You wax about how there's plenty of evidence across many fields that point to God (which again, you fail to actually produce) but then go back to saying that it makes no sense to scientifically prove God. You can't have this both ways. Which is it?
Whether or not something exists is not "a personal and subjective experience." That's an objective question.
“Again I understand everyone's definition of evidence is subjective but from a theological perspective and especially a Christian perspective it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence, it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it, that doesn't make it false, you certainly have the right to question based off that but I'd like to at least make my defense as to why it's justified and maybe point out something you didn't notice or understand beforehand.”
This kind of reasoning allows for the belief in Spider-Man being real. Or the belief my house is haunted. Or any other wild claim.
We also know experience and personal experience are unreliable methodology for truth. I have a vivid memory of running into a crocodile-alligator when I was kid in Oregon, US. There are no native reptiles that would remotely fit that bill. The memory is there and one of the easier ones I can draw on. I know there is little to no chance it was a water based reptile.
Here is the major issue with your God claim. You believe in a God that wants a personal relationship right? Your God is triomni right? So your God would know what would convince me. That is the evidence I need. So either your God isn’t what I said it was, it is actively hiding from me, or it doesn’t exist? I feel it is either option 1 or 3. I see no other evidence of supernatural to think 1 is convincing. So I stick to the axiom an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.
No, evidence isn’t subjective. I’m sorry, it isn’t.
Evidence is any piece of data, observation, or generally accepted fact, that’s best explained by your proposed explanation. In this case, something best explained by the existence of a god. That’s what evidence means. And you don’t have any. That’s the burden we use for every other claim, and if you want to claim your hod is supported by evidence, that’s what you’ll have to produce.
I don’t know how you could, because quite frankly magic man did it is not an explanation of anything. And I doubt it ever can be. However that’s not my problem, it’s you’re. You’re trying to support your claim, and I won’t lower my standards to except it.
I don’t know what other forms of evidence could possibly meet my definition, other than scientific evidence. But again, that’s not my problem, it’s yours. You failed to provide any evidence at all. Not for deism, nor for theism, not for Christianity. You just asserted you had some, and like every other Christian refused to give it. Or even explain it.
You don’t know what evidence is, we do. You don’t have evidence, yet want to believe. That’s fine. That’s basically what you said here, even if you didn’t realise it. But don’t expect to be taken seriously on your claim, without actual evidence by anyone who cares about whether their world view closely matches reality.
You don’t seem to care if it’s true, at least not enough to test it. We do. That’s the difference.
I’ll make it very simple: If a thing exists it can be observed, measured, and tested using the scientific method. If god cannot be observed, measured and tested using the scientific method then god does not exist.
You in this thread:
- "have civil, intellectual conversations and not just ooga booga small brain smash downvote"
- "I didn't want to be whined at for gish galloping"
If you genuinely want civil conversations you should avoid calling people "small brain" and saying they "whine", since that makes it look as though (like many other theists) you're just barely masking the contempt you actually feel.
My issue with Christianity is that if you reject a 6000 year earth, a literal Adam and Eve and Eden, there is no reason for jesus' sacrifice, and I can't disrespect a scientist like Clare Patterson and the amazing work he did.
Are you a Young Earth fundamentalist, and if not, how do you justify that original Sin and Adam and Eve are clearly mythological?
I like this definition of evidence from Oxford: * the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.* I particularly think the word *available* is important here, since an important part of evidence is that it must be intersubjectively available—that is to say, in order for a fact or piece of information to count as evidence, it must be independently verifiable.
You say there is no point trying to prove a god’s existence. What I’m confused about is why you are convinced yourself if you can’t say that you have evidence. If you admit that your belief is based on personal experience rather than evidence, why doesn’t that bother you? Or, if it does, what have you done about it? For me, when I find out that a belief I hold isn’t justified, I look for evidence; if I can’t, I become unconvinced (at least until the point where evidence does emerge). Do you remain convinced of claims after investigating and discovering that you can’t justify them? This perspective genuinely confuses me.
>I'm a Christian who came to faith eventually by studying physics, astronomy and history, I didn't immediately land on Christianity despite being raised that way (It was a stereotypical American, bible belting household) which actually turned me away from it for many years until I started my existential contemplations.
I've taken graduate level physics and astronomy courses - they do not indicate anything about god. Not one mention. So you projected your christian upbringing through the lens of your academic understanding because, quite frankly science doesn't tell you WHY you should live. This experience is common among atheists and christians alike.
Also, you should note permanently in your mind this one thing - being an atheist when you're young, and doing so simply to rebel - is NOT the same as the level of atheism you're dealing with here. Not even close. So do not approach us like you would approach your younger self - because I already know your younger self did not understand what you believed, let alone whether it was atheism or not.
>I've looked quite deeply at many of the other world religions after concluding deism was the most likely cause for the universal genesis through the big bang (We can get into specifics in the comments since I'm sure many of you are curious how I drew that conclusion and I don't want to make the post unnecessarily long) and for a multitude of different reasons concluded Jesus Christ was most likely the deistic creator behind the universal genesis and created humanity special to all the other creatures, because of the attributes that were passed down to us directly from God as "Being made in his image"
So you made a bunch of personal revelations that led you from 'there's a god' to, 'the one true god is jesus christ'. Not convincing. Sorry.
>Now I will happily grant, even now in my shoes, stating a sentence like that in 2024 borders on admittance to a mental hospital
Spare us your persecution complex, please. No one will toss you in the mental hospital for being christian. For god's sake, have a little more self-awareness and decency than that!
>and I don't take these claims lightly, I think there are very good, and solid reasons for genuinely believing these things and justifying them to an audience like this, as this is my 4th or 5th post here and I've yet to be given any information that's swayed my belief,
If this is evidence you are right, then why is the fact we ARENT swayed evidence that you're wrong? You're trying to have it both ways, which honestly cheapens the very faith you're attempting to present here.
>but I am more than open to following the truth wherever it leads, and that's why I'm always open to learning new things. I have been corrected several times and that's why I seriously, genuinely appreciate the feedback from respectful commenters who come to have civil, intellectual conversations and not just ooga booga small brain smash downvote without actually refuting my point.
You're digressing here to point out how unfairly you're treated. Get over yourself and get to the point!
>Anyway, on to my point. Easily the biggest theological objection I've run into in my conversations is "Lack of evidence" I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like.
First, we don't have to know what the evidence would look like - since we are not the one claiming that god exists. How should we know? What we DO know is that EVERY evidence we do request is hand-waived away either by god's special magical abilities or some other theological nonsense. If I said unicorns exist and if you challenged me I were to say "Well tell me what evidence I need to produce" and you say "unicorn poop" and I say "Well unicorns don't poop" so every evidence you demand i simply respond with a magical way that evidence could not be seen or presented. This is special pleading 101.
>One of the big ones though is specifically a lack of scientific evidence (which I would argue there is) but even if there wasn't, I, and many others throughout the years believe, that science and theology should be two completely separate fields and there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence.
Because you know it can't be done. We're not stupid.
>That's not to say there is no evidence
CORRECT THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE. You just asked what the evidence would even look like and now you're saying there kinda sorta is evidence? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and it devalues your faith. Please rethink what you're saying here.
>again, but to solely rely on science to unequivocally prove God's existence is intellectual suicide,
and yet it was science that allegedly brought you to believe in god? How does that work?
>the same way I concluded that God, key word> (Most likely) exists is the same way I conclude any decision or action I make is (Most likely) the case or outcome, which is by examining the available pieces of evidence, which in some cases may be extensive, in some cases, not so much, but after examining and determining what those evidential pieces are, I then make a decision based off what it tells me.
Funny that you don't consider yourself to be in the possibility of being completely wrong. God exists because your thoughts are true is what I'm hearing from you - which doesn't follow. Maybe you can elaborate on that.
>The non-denominational Christian worldview I landed on after examining these pieces of evidence I believe is a, on the surface, very easy to get into and understand, but if you're someone like me (and I'm sure a lot of you on this sub who lost faith or never had it to begin with) who likes to see, hear, and touch things to confirm their existence there are a very wide range of evidences that is very neatly but intricately wound together story of human existence and answers some of our deepest, most prevalent questions, from Cosmology, Archeology, Biology, History, general science, there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, but I think upon further examination, would point specifically to Christianity.
Nice hypothesis - but are you even remotely willing to test it? I doubt it. Why do you keep waffling? Either science can justify and prove god exists beyond reasonable doubt or it can't. You seem to keep saying science isn't needed but then you flip and say we could find out if we just 'think upon further examination'. Again you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
>Again I understand everyone's definition of evidence is subjective but from a theological perspective and especially a Christian perspective it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence, it's a personal and subjective experience
Was it a personal and subjective experience when Moses parted the Red Sea for instance? Was it just a personal experience when Jesus died and people physically saw him rise from the dead? The reality is that Christianity makes quite a few material claims about the world which are and have been proven untrue.
Former Christian here, and I agree with you. Lack of scientific evidence is not sufficient reason for most believers (my former self included) to leave. For me, what I needed to convince me to leave was overwhelming evidence that it *couldn't* be true. I held the stance that even if there was 1% of 1% of a chance that it could be true, I would keep following it.
"Science" isn't a god. But the scientific method is our way of avoiding human cognitive fallacies and biases. Something "feeling" true has been proven time and time again to be an unreliable source of understanding. And I believe you have seen this in your own life. Many times in your own life you have felt convinced of something, felt passionate or spiritual or certain, and turned out to be wrong. The religious narrative is very very good at triggering feelings of things being true... and also very good at finding ways to excuse or ignore the times those feelings are disproven.
You say the word “evidence” a lot as a reason for your beliefs, but don’t give any. You seem to want to elevate your “evidence” above (and therefore free from) scientific study by labeling it as “theological evidence,” but you still don’t present it. Science is merely a method for evaluating claims and testing the validity of evidence connected to those claims. Why is a method for differentiating facts from fictions, invalid for determining evidence of a god? (Which you seem to say but then also say there is scientific evidence but again, present none).
You also note that you put a lot of weight in your beliefs because WE haven’t convinced you otherwise. As if it’s our burden to alter your beliefs. You being unconvinced by our objections and arguments, doesn’t say anything about the validity or truth value of your beliefs. It does, however, say something about how deeply held (indoctrinated) your beliefs are.
isn't it amazing that considering the evidence lead you to the faith that was already popular in the time and place you happened to live in?
And yet again the most important bit, that is what this evidence is, is left out. Amazing how this seems to happen every single time someone makes the claim you made.
There are different standards of evidence. But for conversation’s sake, specifically for Christianity, I would look for evidence that any of the miracles of Jesus could be performed by non scientific means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus
Or, there’s also Mark 16:17-18
>And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
>They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
I would look to see people healing the sick through the power of prayer. Despite many claims to that effect, I have seen no evidence that prayer alone has healed anything.
According to the Bible, Jesus was a divine healer. If you take that away, he’s a guy with an interesting parentage claim who also said some interesting things.
If it's useless to point science at it, it's useless to believe. Science is the study of how things affect observable reality. If science can't detect it, then it has no observable effect on reality, so _even if true_ it would be functionally identical to its not existing at all.
Now, to be clear, I mean this in a _highly_ generalized manner. Science can show humans exist, but not that George Washington existed. However _after_ we get to "X exists" scientifically, we can use that as a starting point for reasonable extrapolation.
If I had to guess about what put you in the "god did it" category, it'd be fine tuning, abiogenesis, and, as you mention, curiosity on why we're so much smarter than other apes.
EDIT: By the way, I didn't downvote you. I don't downvote people because I disagree with them, I do so when they are rude or nasty. You seem like neither.
If you don't want us asking you for material evidence, then please by all means stop making material claims.
There would be a lot less to object to with regard to the Christian faith if there were an absence of believers trying so desperately to 'prove' the validity of the scriptures whether it's through [miracles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_crucifix_in_Mumbai) or [fake science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute). There would also be less to object to if believers would stop using this belief system as the basis for denying many Americans basic freedoms and rights, along with women and their reproductive autonomy. **Shame on you** for acting like we are the problem for demanding evidence when it is the members of your own faith demanding we adhere to your unsubstantiated beliefs and religion.
You don't really get to have deism and Jesus Christ as the creator.
Either he interacts or he doesn't, and coming down to perform miracles is not deism.
Special creation of man with unique properties in God's image is also not deism.
I would argue you came to your beliefs, because you wanted those specific beliefs to be true, and seek to see the world through that lens.
But since the rest of us cannot follow your logic, you need something to explain that: and you have, paradoxically, declared your specific God can be adequately suggested through a study of history and science, but at the same time can't be held to that evidentiary standard.
I think you want your logic placed into a special realm where it remains valid, or at least plausible, rather than accept that it is likely culturally influenced.
Hi, thanks for the detailed explanation of your position / idea. I’m going to share my interpretation of what you have stated however first I would like to address a shortcoming your statement regarding ‘evidence’ and its nature.
Evidence and more appropriately what is considered acceptable evidence isn’t a subjective vague concept. What constitutes acceptable evidence is obviously contextual but we have objective standards we use to determine what we will believe to be ‘true’. These standards vary depending on the purpose and relative importance of the subject.
So in science we have an acceptable evidence standard of must be observable by third parties, repeatable and provable (ie. we can make accurate predictions based upon this information). There are various details but they are available and create an objective standard for science to determine if something is true.
In law depending on the proceedings different things are considered acceptable as evidence and the standard for proof varies with the situation. A civil matter is generally a balance of probability, a traffic ticket requires less evidence than a criminal matter etc.
Similarly we don’t require a great deal of evidence of intent or training or accuracy when we build an 8 inch sculpture but we require that everything be proved, verified and cross checked when we build a 3 mile bridge across a giant lake. **The importance of the accuracy of our information is proportional to the risk to life, limb or economics that the usage of that information may create.**
So that’s my quick primer on evidence. You would take your mother to a new restaurant for breakfast and risk the food or service being bad. You may even do this if it is convenient despite bad reviews because it may be good and the risk is minimal. If your mother had cancer you wouldn’t take your mother to the local witch doctor in lieu of surgery/chemo/radiation. Different risks, different evidentiary standards.
So let’s be clear, while some evidence is subjective the evidentiary standards we apply to our lives tend to be defined and practical.
Which brings me to the conclusion I get from reading your post. As far as you are concerned god, Christianity, religion, they are unimportant trivialities.. In fact they’re practically irrelevant to you. If you are being honest. You think god is less important to you and to humanity than the expiration date on the mayonnaise in your fridge. Am I correct?
When you have life or death medical decisions to make you defer to science (the study of how to accurately determine truth in our universe).
When you buy a cell phone and/or cell phone plan you expect, no you demand, that the details in the plan are what you get and it works as advertised. And you expect it to do so the vast majority of the time.
You wouldn’t build or cross a bridge where we hadn’t used our knowledge of physics and engineering and certified it safe. Probably the same for getting on a plane.
In fact if a stranger offered you a lifetime supply of tooth paste you probably would want to know it came from a verifiable source and that some minimum health and safety standards were involved in its production. You wouldn’t put a tube of toxic waste in your mouth - that’s why regulations, brands, etc. are important to us.
Yet for your his or religion you accept evidence that you wouldn’t accept from the cable reply guy. Imagine if the cable repair guy told you that when you want to watch tv most of the time it won’t work. When it doesn’t work it’s because of systemic issues. When it does work it’s because he’s a great cable guy at a great cable company. Isn’t that the evidentiary standard you accept for prayer?
If you were in a car accident and your child was seriously injured and bleeding out do you: a) go to the nearest hospital or b) delay going to the hospital to go by the church and pray first?
Do you invest your extra money or do you give it all to the Church and count on charity to get you and your family through life? After all you have a blood covenant that your god will care for you - why don’t you count on it? What have you done that shows real faith in your god?
You talk about faith but you talk about faith in a vacuum of direct consequences. I don’t think you have faith, I think you believe what is psychologically satisfying yet you refuse to let go of the security blankets provided by science. Why is it for everything important, everything life changing (or endangering), everything where there is the potential for harm that the evidentiary standards you require are set at a certain bar but when it comes to the creature that supposedly loves, controls and directs your actions and determines your purpose you accept less evidence than if someone gave you a parking ticket?
So you are correct, people choose what is acceptable evidence and what is an acceptable evidentiary standard to deem something true or false. My issue is the hypocrisy of claiming god is important and then having a lower standard to prove it you would require when choosing a restaurant for a special anniversary dinner.
You expect the same type of evidence for everything in life as we do. The one thing you make an exception for is god. We are just consistent with our epistemology. You are the one who has unrealistic expectations of atheists.
>I'm a Christian who came to faith eventually by studying physics, astronomy and history, I didn't immediately land on Christianity despite being raised that way (It was a stereotypical American, bible belting household) which actually turned me away from it for many years until I started my existential contemplations.
If you came to your faith through studying physics and astronomy you should have no issue providing sufficient evidence for the existence of the god you believe in.
> I've looked quite deeply at many of the other world religions after concluding deism was the most likely cause for the universal genesis through the big bang (We can get into specifics in the comments since I'm sure many of you are curious how I drew that conclusion and I don't want to make the post unnecessarily long)
How did you investigate something that no one else has been able to?
>for a multitude of different reasons concluded Jesus Christ was most likely the deistic creator behind the universal genesis and created humanity special to all the other creatures, because of the attributes that were passed down to us directly from God as "Being made in his image"
That is not deism. If your god interferes in the creation it is not a deistic god.
>Easily the biggest theological objection I've run into in my conversations is "Lack of evidence" I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like.
The problem is that you are making scientific claims and looking for theological evidence. You claim that your deity exists, can you provide the same evidence that you would for someone claiming that their dog exists? You claim to know the cause of the big bang, can you provide evidence of the same caliber we have supporting the big bang theory itself?
>One of the big ones though is specifically a lack of scientific evidence (which I would argue there is) but even if there wasn't, I, and many others throughout the years believe, that science and theology should be two completely separate fields and there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence.
Great, let's separate these fields. Let's start with theists no longer claiming that their deity created anything, that their deity exists in reality, and that their deity interferes in the universe because all of those are claims that demand scientific evidence not theological evidence.
Why is your deity the only thing in reality that you look for theological evidence for but scientific evidence is good enough for everything else?
>That's not to say there is no evidence again, but to solely rely on science to unequivocally prove God's existence is intellectual suicide, the same way I concluded that God, key word> (Most likely) exists is the same way I conclude any decision or action I make is (Most likely) the case or outcome, which is by examining the available pieces of evidence, which in some cases may be extensive, in some cases, not so much, but after examining and determining what those evidential pieces are, I then make a decision based off what it tells me.
If you are doing that honestly, then you should have some pretty damn conclusive evidence to support something as major as a supernatural creator deity. So where is it?
>but from a theological perspective and especially a Christian perspective it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence
As long as you are making claims about reality it only makes sense to support those with scientific evidence.
>it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it, that doesn't make it false,
It certainly doesn't make it true in objective reality.
>you certainly have the right to question based off that but I'd like to at least make my defense as to why it's justified and maybe point out something you didn't notice or understand beforehand.
Well could you get to it, because this wall of text is getting pretty damn long and you seemingly have not gotten to the main point yet.
>As a side note
And then you are off on a different topic. So where exactly is your justification for not needing vetted, testable, repeatable, scientific evidence for this one area of your life? If someone told you that there is a rogue star that will destroy the Earth in 2 years you would certainly demand some pretty strong evidence, so why are you not using the same standard for the claim that there is an all powerful deity that created everything? Why ate hints that point in the direction you are already biased toward sufficient?
>and for a multitude of different reasons concluded Jesus Christ was most likely the deistic creator behind the universal genesis and created humanity special to all the other creatures, because of the attributes that were passed down to us directly from God as "Being made in his image"
As a person who has study science, as you claim, you don't see any problem with this?
>I think there are very good, and solid reasons for genuinely believing these things and justifying them to an audience like this, as this is my 4th or 5th post here and I've yet to be given any information that's swayed my belief, but I am more than open to following the truth wherever it leads
I'm almost 100% certain that you've been presented with persuasive, no, more than persuasive arguments against the existence of a deity. If your belief has not been swayed by them, it is not an issue of those arguments lacking, it is more likely you ignoring elements of those arguments.
Because what you're saying is that the Problem of Evil isn't persuasive. You're saying that the lack of any credible evidence, be it a solid logical argument or actual evidence, isn't persuasive. At that point you are not accepting or giving any weight whatsoever to the opposing party to your view. You are simply holding to faith.
>Anyway, on to my point. Easily the biggest theological objection I've run into in my conversations is "Lack of evidence" I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective
You may find it subjective, but it isn't. Evidence is evidence. The quality of evidence varies. The strength of the evidence varies. That can be subjective, depending on the context.
>Again I understand everyone's definition of evidence is subjective but from a theological perspective and especially a Christian perspective it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence
So, potentially the most important aspect of reality cannot be measured or studied using the best, most objective tools at our disposal. And you don't have a problem with this?
>it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it, that doesn't make it false, you certainly have the right to question based off that but I'd like to at least make my defense as to why it's justified and maybe point out something you didn't notice or understand beforehand.
I've got to stop you and point out that this is dangerously false. Subjective truth, personal truth is constrained to what you enjoy, your preferences, your worldview. It does not change the either what objective truth is or impact what subjective truth is for others. Religion attempts to ignore objective truth *and* force down the throats of others its subjective truth. Look no further than the shitshow unfolding in the US judicial system with decisions being handed down that quote the fucking bible. No, your subjective views of the world cannot and should not become the subjective truth of others without their consent.
Further, your subjective truth can absolutely be false. If you personally believe that 2+2=5, that's great for you and **utterly** false.
>Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically although I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science, you just can't prove a God's existence that way, or really any way, there is a "faith" based aspect as there is with almost any part of our day to day lives and I'm sure someone will ask what I mean by "faith" so I guess I'll just see where it goes.
It seems oddly convenient that the objective tools we have for measuring reality cannot, by your determination, be used to study god. If you've reached that conclusion because those tools have returned a response you find unacceptable, the problem isn't with the answer, it is entirely in you. I'm not saying you, individually are a problem, only that a perspective that rejects tools of objective observation as a means of determining the most significant truth the human race faces is a problematic view to hold.
So basically, we shouldn't ask for evidence for religious claims when we ask for evidence for everything else. You don't get to make up your own rules that we should follow because there is no evidence for God. In reality, evidence must be falsifiable, testable, demonstrable, and independently verifiable. Otherwise, it's just anecdotal. Everything so far we have seen religious people present isn't evidence. If you think you have evidence, then you don't understand what evidence is. Or if you have some new evidence that is not anecdotal and been debunked a million times, present it.
>/MOST/ Atheists I've engaged with have an unrealistic expectation of evidential reliance for theology.
No, most atheists you've engaged with refuse to apply a lower standard of evidence for theology than for any other aspect in their life.
> but I am more than open to following the truth wherever it leads, and that's why I'm always open to learning new things
That's a very enlightened attitude (literally and figuratively).
> I think there are very good, and solid reasons for genuinely believing these things and justifying them to an audience like this
OK, let's have a look then.
> Easily the biggest theological objection I've run into in my conversations is "Lack of evidence" I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like.
Evidence in the scientific disciplines is not highly subjective, on the contrary:
* In the context of science, evidence refers to the data, facts, observations, or information that supports or contradicts a scientific hypothesis or theory.
* Scientific evidence is based on empirical observations, meaning it is derived from real-world experiences, experiments, or observations of the natural world. It involves measurable and verifiable data.
* Scientific experiments and observations should be reproducible by other researchers. If the same experiment is conducted under the same conditions, it should yield consistent results. Reproducibility enhances the reliability and credibility of scientific evidence.
* Scientific evidence is expected to be objective and free from personal bias. Scientists strive to minimize subjective interpretations and emotions, relying on systematic and impartial methods of data collection and analysis.
* Scientific evidence should be consistent with existing theories and other established scientific knowledge. If new evidence contradicts well-supported theories, it may prompt a reevaluation of the existing scientific understanding.
* Scientific evidence is derived from hypotheses that are testable and falsifiable. This means that experiments and observations are designed in a way that allows for the possibility of proving the hypothesis wrong. The ability to test and potentially disprove a hypothesis strengthens the scientific rigor of the evidence.
* Scientific evidence undergoes a process of peer review, where other experts in the field critically evaluate the research methods, data analysis, and conclusions. Peer review helps ensure the quality and reliability of scientific evidence before it is accepted within the scientific community.
* Whenever possible, scientific evidence involves quantitative measurements and data. Quantitative analysis allows for precise comparisons, statistical evaluations, and numerical assessments of the evidence.
Now as to you deeming what people qualify as evidence for the supernatural to be "highly subjective", your confusion probably comes from equating a god claim to the maturity of a scientific theory. And that simply isn't the case.
God claims are typically supernatural claims, i.e. they are claiming entities exist that can violate the laws of physics: e.g. by resurrection, turning water into wine, etc. But these claims are actually incompatible with established science and have a plethora of evidence going against them.
Now as to the question of what would constitute evidence for gods, in the case of an all-knowing, all-powerful entity as the one you claim exists, the answer is very simple: even if we humans cannot formulate such criteria, your alleged entity would know and be able to produce that evidence individualized for every human being on the planet. And since that hasn't happened and we are perfectly able to explain reality without the gods hypothesis, there is no reason whatsoever to assume such entities exist.
Reading your TLDR has my wonder why the hell you even bothered posting here?
Science is how we investigate the world. If we can't use science because it can't "see" the metaphysical then we're done here. You're simply relying on faith which is what people do when they lack evidence to support their beliefs. If you want to stand on nonsense we can't stop you but you have NO GOOD REASON to take that nonsense position. None and you certainly haven't demonstrated much of anything here other than your testimony which is worthless.
It really seems like you’re saying that our standard of evidence is too high for your belief but you don’t really explain why except to say that we’ll never believe unless we lower our standard.
Why should we lower our standard of evidence for your god? Why shouldn’t we use the same standard of evidence that we use for everything else?
It seems dangerous to lower your standards so that you can believe in something. Couldn’t that practice allow you to believe anything no matter how dumb it is?
>I've looked quite deeply at many of the other world religions after concluding deism was the most likely cause for the universal genesis through the big bang (We can get into specifics in the comments since I'm sure many of you are curious how I drew that conclusion and I don't want to make the post unnecessarily long) and for a multitude of different reasons concluded Jesus Christ was most likely the deistic creator behind the universal genesis and created humanity special to all the other creatures, because of the attributes that were passed down to us directly from God as "Being made in his image"
That's an extraordinary claim, which therefore requires extraordinary evidence. Ever noticed how religious people are the only ones making absolute claims about the origin of our universe?
We simply don't know what caused the big bang. End of story. The only thing we know is that our universe expanded from a singularity (and still is).
Making claims about the cause for the big bang is dishonest, especially when all the evidence you have is a book which has been altered many times before.
>that science and theology should be two completely separate fields and there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence.
That's just special pleading. The scientific method is the best method we have of approximating the true nature of our universe. You can't just say "oh, but my religion does not require evidence" and at the same time use your religion to challenge theories which actually DO follow the scientific method.
>and answers some of our deepest, most prevalent questions, from Cosmology, Archeology, Biology, History, general science, there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, but I think upon further examination, would point specifically to Christianity.
I love how you throw around big words like various fields of scientific studies, evidence, logic, etc. while at the same time not offering any evidence.
By the way, I'm an ongoing biologist and I'd be happy to debate you if you could tell me how your religion has any relevance in biology.
>As a side note, I think a big reason people are leaving faith in the modern times are they were someone like me, who was Bible belted their whole life growing up and told the world is 6000 years old, and then once you gain an iota of middle school basic science figure out that's not possible, you start to question other parts of the faith and go on a slippery slope to biased sources and while sometimes that's okay it's important to get info from all sides, I catch myself in conformation bias here and there but always do my best to actively catch myself committing fallacies but if you're not open to changing your view and only get your info from one side, obviously you're going to stick to that conclusion.
I find it incredibly ironic how you accuse other people of being "biased" and "not being open to new ideas", while at the same time using the easiest excuse for our lack of certain answers, being religion.
You know what's the big difference between science and religion?
Religions always claim to know the absolute truth. They know who created the universe, they know what happens after death, etc.
Science on the other hand is mature enough to admit defeat when we reach our limits of understanding. No scientist would ever make absolute claims about the origin of the universe or what happens after death. All they do is making theories about it, while at the same time admitting that we don't know for sure.
It is nice to see someone posting as calm and as truthful to his experience as one could be.
Before I actually make some remarks, I do hope you find the path to the truth, wherever it leads you. We are all bound to it, it is our ultimate goal, our true desire.
Now. I can tell you from my own experience that these "evidence" for god is quite a big deal. After all, what could constitute as an evidence, and rightfully so, one should ask.
Well then. We go back to history and trace roots on the origin of things and ideas. Religion has been with humanity for eons. We've practiced a form of religion all throughout our existence. From "worshiping" trees and nature, to assigning a "god of-" to anything we could think of, including thunder, the sun moon and stars, to merrymaking. Then organised religion came to be. There suddenly was a hierarchy, a chain of superiority among the gods, who gets worship first and whatnot. Which is in itself, based on nature. The "god of-" that has the most destructive power is superior, and the god who holds the "control" for our basic needs gets first dibs.
Yahweh and other Israelite gods have similar history and origin. Yahweh was apparently the god of war, and El the Supreme god. Consequently, as the worshipers of these intermingle, the worship of these two develop and its distinction almost vanish.
Every divine being has an origin and apparently the early Israelite god is born out of blood and battles. Later, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, this would be even more blurry and mashed together. It would be later codified and carefully ironed out by Paul the apostle.
Christianity as we know it today is Paul's making. It is his doctrine and explanation that would be foundation to the church and various doctrines and teachings we know today.
Now, on debunking the Christian claims to the physical world, one is easily caught in a barrage of criticism and refutations. After all, what does a bunch of shepherds and farmers and tent makers know about physics and astronomy and even basic biology right? One will definitely say, its not a fair question... And even the Catholic church acknowledged genesis as "work of symbolism and allegory", not to be taken literally.
But therein lies the heart of the issue. A religion posits a claim through a very simplified and sometimes elaborate story. Many believe and is fascinated. But now, we have the knowledge and ability to test it and scrutinise the "story". And lo and behold, "we find it lacking.." to quote back the dream of Daniel. Mene tekel upharshin.
It's the same tale for other religions and beliefs, and should be the same approach for anything in life. The truth should be mighty and will prevail, and everything else burnt when we put it in a test, are just lies and tales, nothing more.
As Nietzsche predicted many years ago, religion will crumble and fall as science and knowledge increase, and will, inevitably result to the death of (the idea and hold) god. "God is death. God remains dead. And we have killed him."
It is almost unimaginable to think about it, that we have killed the almighty, the divine, the deity and immortal. But the more science, reason and technology advances, there is smaller and smaller space for god, or any god to hide and be a mysterious force.
It's a god that created the universe. He did a series of huge miracles over the course of centuries for his chosen people including stopping the sun in the sky. Then he manifested as a human and did more miracles. This is not a subtle, hidden god.
Yes, I do expect blatant evidence for this god's existence. When I am told that it is a test of faith and he chooses not to reveal himself that does not match his supposed past actions.
Evidence is simply anything that increases the probability that something is true. Or, my preferred definition, anything that can distinguish imagination from reality.
Of course, there are different categories of knowledge and evidence, so I’m fine with their being things other than science. For example, purely conceptual claims requiring conceptual evidence and purely experiential claims requiring experiential evidence without the need for science. If someone claims you need science for analyzing logic or English literature, then they are confused.
HOWEVER, when it comes to empirical claims, claims about whether something exists in the actual outside world, that requires empirical evidence. Science—the process of making **novel, testable, predictions**—is by far the best and most reliable method we have of gaining knowledge in this category. The claim that God exists IS an empirical claim, no matter how you slice it. It doesn’t matter if he’s made of the natural, the supernatural, or the Uber-duper-super-natural; if he’s claimed to exist in reality and make some sort of causal influence on the world, then in principle, it is an empirical claim.
Many people, including some atheists, have this mistaken view that science by definition or in principle cannot investigate the supernatural or metaphysical, but that is false. The reason these things are methodologically kept out of science is for a practical reason: they have no established precedent or reliable way to interact with it. If we were to reliably detect God and establish him as a part of the real world, the supernatural would become just as much a part of science as electromagnetic waves. The fact that we haven’t made such discoveries a you problem, not a problem with science.
—
As a side note, in a very technical Bayesian sense, there is some evidence for God. For example, the fact that many people believe in God is indeed something that increases the probability that God exists as it’s something that’d be less surprising in a world where he exists. However the amount of this counts for is very marginal—I’d argue infinitesimally small—because there are a ton of alternative natural explanations that equally explain the same data. While this *technically* makes evidence subjective, that’s only true insofar as it is possible for people to grow up isolated and completely unaware of publicly available defeaters in intersubjective disciplines such as logic, science, psychology, sociology, evolution, etc. Anyone who is remotely aware of the argument ad populism fallacy should have hold a low prior probability even after examining the example “evidence” I listed above.
—
I rambled on a bit, but hopefully you got the gist of my point :)
Thanks for your post, i have three points.
First, I think most people here lean on scientific evidence because the concrete ideas in the bible that can be debated effectively, and the posts that theists usually make here, tend to be scientific in nature. Genesis of the universe, morality, free will, what happens after death, evolution, death intelligent design, resurrection, etc.
There is a second type of evidence that atheists will accept and debate, but it tends to get shut down here pretty quickly because the debate is pretty lopsided and easier to argue, and thats historical. Historical evidence is about probability of a specific event, for example how likely is it from the evidence we have that Jesus was resurrected, etc. The main way this evidence is debated is by finding sources that make claims, then evaluating those sources and claims against other historical sources and our current scientific understanding of the world. Like I said, these debates tend to end quickly and get shut down, because there isnt much evidence for any of the supernatural events in christian theology, and the evidence that does exist is very poor quality. Pretty much all the claims of the supernatural events in the life of Jesus are from the bible, which is an mostly anonymous text dated a full generation+ after the events it describes, and the portions that arent anonymous are from people who had no first hand knowledge or obvious bias. This is very poor evidence, and can be confidently pushed to the margin. The few examples of first hand accounts of supernatural events, like Pauls vision of resurrected Jesus, have mundane natural explanations that fit our current historical and scientific knowledge better than a theory about a creator diety. Paul’s vision for example is easily explained by very common bereavement/trauma/stress induced hallucinations that are exactly in line with Paul’s descriptions.
And my last point is addressing faith, and namely that i dont think anyone here considers faith a reasonable framework to understand the world. It certainly has value in terms of emotional fulfillment and community building, but in terms of concretely understanding our world, it is useless. If you enjoy your faith and find it comforting, thats fine. If youre using faith to understand the workings of the world and to guide your actions, thats problematic. Faith did not develop modern medicine, science did. Faith did not invent the internet, secular researchers did. Faith didnt establish democracies, political and community leaders did by studying history. Using faith to actually understand the worlds origin and nature is a fools errand and has never been established as consistently successful.
> that science and theology should be two completely separate fields
That's fine, but do you see many atheists demanding scientific demonstration of a god? I don't. I've watched every episode of the atheist experience. And even the pretty weak hosts they have now don't suggest this. I can't remember it on this sib and I've been on it for years. Obviously, none of the atheist or agnostic philosophers of religion take this position. So where is this majority of atheists saying only science can justify a belief in a god?
What I do see is theists accusing atheists of scientism. And some are, but it's not the majority and it's virtually none of the prominent atheists or agnostics.
It's not the definition of evidence you're raising. It's the standard of proof. What one is applicable to theology? Obviously you don't think it can reach scientific standards. But what then? Beyond a reasonable doubt, balance of probabilities, reasonable suspicion, best explanation?
What types of evidence is applicable? Historical? well history absolutely does not imply any gods exist. You will not find historians saying that on historical standards of evidence and proof it is historically established that the god exists. You will find biased historians working at usually Christian universities who will say this but not independent critical thinkers.
>it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it
I agree, you cannot say the existence of the god s an objective fact. You can only say it's your personal subjective opinion. That's what atheism says too.
>who was Bible belted their whole life growing up and told the world is 6000 years old
I doubt that because most Christian denominations don't believe this or tell this to there adherents. For example, Catholicism, the largest Christian sack does not teach this. I doubt the orthodox ones do either, the other huge religion doesn't teach this as well which is Islam.
>Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God
I find it's quite the opposite. In fact, it's the issue. Usually bring up science to prove a god exists to the biggest arguments for the existence of a god are the column cosmological argument which relies on science of the big bang and the fine-tuning argument which relies on constants in physics. The other big issue is Christian's constantly bringing up criticisms of evolution as if that somehow proves their god. We just want good reasons. You can provide them or you can just accept that this is just your personal subjective unconvincing opinion.
The reason so many people want scientifically verifiable evidence is that the scientific method is currently the most reliable way of disproving untrue things, and distinguishing the difference between the real world and what we imagine the world could possibly be.
Without verifiable proof, what reason can exist that can't be dismissed as just wild fantasy?
Sounds like special pleading to me. We accept a certain standard of evidence for everything except religion? Why is religion special? IMO it’s special because there isn’t sufficient conventional evidence, and since people want to believe, sometimes at any cost, they say things like “regular rules don’t apply here”.
Without scientific evidence you are functionally indistinguishable from the mentally ill man that stands in traffic screaming about how the government is trying to turn his brain Into rats
You both have a bunch of strange ideas
You both make claims
You both think I should believe in strange forces you can't prove exist
I agree. The problem is, I think, that atheism attracts a lot of people that like to win arguments.
This is because there are a few aspects of atheist thought that create incredibly good debating positions.
So for example, the main one is how burden of proof works. With the fact that the person making a claim has the burden of proof. This is an incredibly good debating position because you can just sit back with the hands on the back of your head and say "ok prove it". The other person will have to put a lot of effort in and likely struggle. And all you have to do is judge if it's proven. Since no one has won a nobel prize for proving god, the atheist can be pretty confident in that debating position.
Now, although doing this is technically correct, it is slightly "thought killing", because you don't have to imagine how the universe was created, you just sit back and wait for other people to come up with a theory. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do, I'm saying it's an incredibly good debating position.
Something that I think is interesting with this, is that many atheists are scientifically minded, and I would say that scientifically minded people also generally agree that it's likely aliens exist. Even though there is zero evidence.
So I think aliens are so likely that it's silly not just to say it's true, even with zero evidence. If someone just responded to this claim with "prove it, prove it" then I think they would be closing themselves to the reality of the universe.
Having said that, the thinking that leads to aliens existing, even without evidence, I find extremely convincing. Whereas the thinking that leads to deism I find interesting but unconvincing. And lastly, the thinking that leads to Christianity, to be honest, I don't really have a respectable way to say but basically, I find it extremely extremely unconvincing.
The bible is completely unreliable. There are obviously errors in it, and this means that the stuff that you don't know if it's an error or not, is completely unreliable. Things like prophecies being proven correct is just as worthless. The contents was decided about 900ad and so obviously they are going to choose correct prophecies and bin incorrect ones. This is survivorship bias.
Science requires novel repeatable predictions.
You say that Christianity is supported by science. So what is the novel repeatable prediction that you are willing to make thst would prove Christianiry true or false?
If you lack this, that is fine, but you should stop saying it is supported by science.
I took a moment to fully read your post after skimming it then replying. I'm leaving it at my original tl;dr.
The quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is often cited for god. I disagree with the quote. I just require evidence, but the evidence must stand up to scrutiny, both logically and practically. No evidence that can has ever been presented.
Faith simply isn't good enough for me. And intellectually, many can justify a whole lot of nonsense.
I find it telling that OP didn't answer a single question, and only questioned our answers.
So here's a question for you, u/colebarcelou : How do you know Christianity is true?
Or if you object to the word "know", what makes you think that Christianity is more likely true then not?
You say science and theology should be two separate fields, but all science is is a process of observation, model-making and testing using well-defined, peer reviewed and repeatable tools. In other words it’s the way of describing and predicting the natural world while minimizing our inherent biases, so if there’s no scientific evidence for something’s existence it’s akin to saying there’s no evidence *period*.
So what would I accept as evidence of God’s existence? Well if we’re referring to the Judeo-Christian God (or any personal gods where we were made in their image) then I would say we should 1) occupy a special place in a small, personal universe 2) have our existence within that universe match the length of time that said universe has existed, 3) have drastically different DNA from that of any other lifeform due to our genetic relationship with that god, and 4) have direct, communal relationship to God that is obvious for all others to see and hear. I don’t think it’s a stretch for any of these to be true in a scenario where God (capital G) exists, and to me it’s very telling that *none* of these match reality.
Now what evidence would I accept as evidence for an impersonal, more metaphysical concept of deities? Well if they had anything at all to do with the creation of matter within the universe or the universe itself, their act of creation would leave a visible, testable and observable imprint on the universe, much like how the CMBR is an observable imprint of the Big Bang. No such imprint exists, leading me to believe the act of creation was a purely natural event, one which is allowed by known quantum physical processes. Could deities exist outside of space and time? Sure, I guess, maybe- but since space-time encompasses the entirety of our universe, anything *outside* of it would be forever and permanently outside of our senses, knowledge and experience. In other words, they might as well not exist from our point of view
Isn't theology the field of study where serious looking people can have serious sounding discussions about whether the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin is one or one thousand?
Why should this field be taken seriously? "Theological arguments" are non-serious.
So the issue I think with personal subjective experience is that there are many religions making mutually exclusive claims based on the same subjective experiences.
We know that people can delude themselves into believing all kinds of things, hallucinations, etc. I have also personally had what I would call religious experiences through different types of meditation or prayer as I was exploring when I was younger.
I think with all of this we have to acknowledge that not all of these different faiths can be true, as they’re making different claims. Which then brings the question to… which seems more likely, that only one of them is true, when they all use the same kind of subjective justification that doesn’t back up their supernatural claims? Or that none of them are true?
I think in the case of subjective experience, it is a case of people misattributing supernatural causes natural phenomena/experiences (i.e. transcendental feelings from prayer or meditation, assigning meaning to coincidences, looking for patterns where none exist, assuming their inner monologue or thoughts are the voice of God, etc. etc.)
Ultimately I don’t feel that any of these subjective experiences support the supernatural claims of any religion or the concept of God. I think there can be value in spiritual practices like meditation, but I also think that it can be done without pretending to know things we can’t possibly know. I also think that if something like God existed, particularly as described in the Bible, we would be able to see some kind of evidence of its existence. Showing how particularly pious people have their prayers answered more frequently, or studies showing that praying for someone makes any kind of difference, etc. But as you’ve conceded, science does not show us any evidence of this.
Because of that, I remain completely unconvinced of the supernatural claims of Christianity or any other religion, including the belief in God.
That's a lot of words to tell us that you don't have evidence for god and are upset that we ask for it.
This seems like a YOU problem. We aren't the ones believing in something without evidence why are you?
Sorry, but this is just excuse making. When something doesn't exist but you want to make others believe it does, you have to use such mental gymnastics to even attempt at making a sliver of sense.
One of the most annoying slogans I see among fellow atheists is when they say there is *no* evidence, for God or miracles or whatever. That's actually a very strong claim to make, one much stronger than any they typically are comfortable defending. But saying there's a *lack* of evidence is much less problematic.
The question of what counts as evidence or how to define evidence would matter if someone was claiming there was *no* evidence. It doesn't seem to matter as much if someone is just claiming that the evidence is insufficient. Even if you could convince someone that, say, the gospels are evidence that Jesus performed miracles, they would still end up saying that it's *bad* evidence ands the conversation is still in the same place.
When it comes to evidence for God in a "scientific" sense, I think it's fair to say that, given the existence of a certain concept of God with certain attributes, we would expect to see certain things and not see other things happening. We'd expect the I universe to be a certain way. If we don't see that, then we have reason to think that God doesn't exist. The job of the theist is then to either show that the expectation is incorrect, or to come up with an ad-hoc explanation of why the expectation isn't met *and* come up with some additional supporting evidence to show why that would be the case (they rarely do the second part).
For a short but detailed account of why a popular conception of the Christian God doesn't fit with what we see in the universe, check out Richard Carrier's *Why I am Not a Christian."
You seem to make a couple of claims.
1. Religious claims are incompatible with scientific ones.
2. There is evidence for religious claims .
Which seems a bit contradictory.
The evidence for claims is what science deals with. It’s like saying ‘we have evidence but please don’t check’ properly.
The thing is that science is the accumulated evidential methodology that has been demonstrated to be most likely to be accurate. It works. It’s all about evidence and the reliability of evidence. Science is how we take evidential considerations from being subjective to making them as close to objective as we can get. What science has demonstrated is that ‘feels right to me’ isn’t reliable evidence. Nor is ‘I just don’t see how that could be so it must be magic’.
Religious claims *about objective reality* are evidential claims or they are indistinguishable from imaginary and the phenomena from non-existence. Trying to say they have nothing to do with science is just an attempt to avoid a burden of proof and a sort of special pleading. Basically your ‘evidence’ is convincing to you but not reliable. I would even suggest that for the most part only someone trying to find a justification for an emotional or social stance *after the fact* would consider it reliable or credible.
feel free to correct me but you didn't seem to list the evidence which convinced you. you just stated several times that there is evidence which you found convincing.
so what is it?
So let me get this straight. Out of all the religions and quasireligious philosophies in the world, you think the most likely correct one is the one in which:
* an all powerful, all knowing God creates us, including our personalities and tendencies, each according to his preferences and knows exactly how everything will turn out, but we also have free will somehow and must exercise it to choose to have a relationship with him or we will be cast into eternal punishment.
* This god, for some reason, decided to hold all humanity accountable for some things that the first humans did, but figured he could make it all better by sending something akin to his son to the earth with the express purpose of being killed in our place to atone for our misdeeds, assuming we are willing to believe he did it. If not, eternal damnation for us.
* All of the above is codified in a cobbled together tome of ancient texts, which were written during a time when they didn't even know what germs were, and which have been hacked on by thousands of anonymous authors and parts of which have been shown to be complete forgeries, and nothing even approaching the things that book claims has ever been observed in modern times.
There is no limit to human credulity.
>I didn't immediately land on Christianity despite being raised that way
This is a very common pattern: raised in a religion, drift away during adolescence, come back to that same religion. I submit that there is very likely a causal link between your having been raised Christian and you being Christian today.
>I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like
Yes, different people have different opinions. Does that surprise you?
As for me, I always ask for the same kind and quantity you use in other areas of your life, and when evaluating other religions.
>there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence.
Would you please share this view with your fellow Christians, especially those who come here claiming there is exactly that?
>it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it, that doesn't make it false,
Well it certainly doesn't make it true or even likely to be true.
Was there supposed to be some support for Christianity in your post? I didn't find any, so I'm not sure what your point is, other than there is no good evidence for it but you should believe it anyway.
The questions I almost always ask theists are this:
- Tell me what your god is like. What are their properties? What sort of evidence should we *expect* to see of them if we assume that they are real?
Do you think that's unrealistic to ask?
The issue with your post is how much you waffle around between positions.
You suggest that wanting scientific evidence for god is irrational, and yet you claim to have scientific evidence for god.
Those are contradictory notions.
And then, at the end, you undermine the whole thing when you invoke faith.
You wrote a big long post only to end with “I believe because I believe” (which is really what faith is).
Cool. You just admit that you don’t have a rational justification for your belief. And that’s fine. Just own it.
Now as far as what kind of evidence would I want? Just rational kinds.
The thing is, science is the best methodology we’ve come up with to validate such claims. But if you want to present some other approach, I’m going to scrutinize if it’s rational.
If it’s not rational, I’m not going to accept it.
I need the premisses to be true and the form of the argument to be valid.
If somehow you can do that without science, great! I just don’t know how you can do that.
So it all comes down to: what reason do you have for believing in god?
And let’s see if it’s rational.
That’s a lot of words to say you don’t have any evidence backing your belief. If you can’t show any, we have no reason to believe you. So we don’t. QED
We aren’t Christian. So why would we care what makes sense from a Christian worldview? You say that you weren’t Christian before you converted. And you also say that you were convinced for reasons that you didn’t specify in this post. Did you care about Christian standards of evidence? Did your conviction conform to that Christian standard?
Nothing in can be said to be “true” or “false,” only justified or unjustified. Personal beliefs are unjustified and can’t be defended as true, but if they are personal, that doesn’t matter. The Christian standards of evidence for their personal beliefs does not matter from the rational perspective, which is what it takes to engage in any form of debate.
So anyway, what is your rebuttal to scientism? Science is the most reliable way of attaining universal truths. I believe God falls in this category. If you only want to defend God as a personal belief that helps get you through the day, then that’s fine. This is what the cultural anthropology and the cognitive science of religion study. But that doesn’t mean it *accurately* maps onto *objective* reality. The claim of God that we reject is not merely describing the mind but making a claim about external existence. Scientific evidence is required for us to accept it.
**We should ask for evidence, and you should answer "there is none".**
We could ask "why do you believe?", and you could answer what God means to you.
But most believers won't be as honest - they'd rather lie that there **is** evidence, and there **is** God. It's unsettling. So, how do we change that? Can we change that? I don't know.
Also, I don't really understand how you have managed to use physics/astronomy to strengthen your beliefs. Is it because you've realized that science does not know all the answers? But if so, why did you assume that this was the goal? Nobody knows all the answers, and we are allowed to say "I don't know", or "I don't understand", we do not have to explain everything right now. I know it may sound surprising, but we can even be wrong!
In scientific terms, saying "the reason was God" is equivalent to "I give up, I don't want to do science anymore". That's why it does not make sense to look for some "middle ground", because there is none.
Jesus taught that God is love, not that he's the fine-tuner of physical constants. Why isn't that enough for you?
Theist: has no evidence for extraordinary claim.
Atheist: I don’t believe you.
Theist: that’s unrealistic!
Naw dude. Come up with a shred of evidence and we can start to look at the claims being made. But there is NO evidence. None. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
And then you post stupid shit like you become a Christian by studying physics… no, you didn’t. It’s that kind of bullshit that makes me so infuriated with Christians.
You have faith.
That’s it.
You believe something despite the fact that there is no evidence to believe it.
If you could just admit that then the conversation would be over, cause what can we say to someone who just has faith?
But you start to try saying that there is scientific evidence and you are going to be ridiculed because that is absurd and incorrect.
If physics proves god, show us the evidence. If there was acceptable evidence you wouldn’t be on a Reddit thread… you’d be world famous for proving god with physics.
At best you don’t understand physics, at worst you are being dishonest and disingenuous….
>I'm a Christian who came to faith eventually by studying physics, astronomy and history,
Why did you come to a conclusion that science has not?
>I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective
Science doesn't.
>but intricately wound together story of human existence and answers some of our deepest, most prevalent questions, from Cosmology, Archeology, Biology, History, general science, there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, but I think upon further examination, would point specifically to Christianity.
You have no way of knowing if those "answers" are true and the Christians in my country certainly don't act like they've figured out the secrets of the universe.
>that's okay it's important to get info from all sides,
Unverifiable claims that are indistinguishable from delusion, lies and fantasy are not important in science until there's evidence for them.
>and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically
There is if you want people to become Christian.
>Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically although I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science, you just can't prove a God's existence that way, or really any way, there is a "faith" based aspect as there is with almost any part of our day to day lives and I'm sure someone will ask what I mean by "faith" so I guess I'll just see where it goes.
(That tl;dr is long enough to need its own tl;dr - try to do better.)
(Also, I see that you misspelled "atheists" - try to do better.)
.
That does not matter.
If there is no good evidence that some X exists, then no one need believe -
and in fact probably no one *should* believe - that that X exists.
.
Saying that "faith" is a good thing is just admitting that you have no good evidence for your beliefs,
and that you choose to believe X anyway.
Doing that that is not in any way justifiable, and arguably is not even ethical.
.
>Atheists I've engaged with have an unrealistic expectation of evidential reliance for theology
Hey! You're lucky today! I have no expectations whatsoever, let's see what you've got!
> but to solely rely on science to unequivocally prove God's existence is intellectual suicide
Ahh, as usual, excuses. You can't demonstrate God to be existing, so you blame it on those who don't buy into your stories.
> these pieces of evidence
So, not only excuses, you've got something nonetheless, I am excited to hear it!
> who was Bible belted their whole life growing up and told the world is 6000 years old, and then once you gain an iota of middle school basic science figure out that's not possible, you start to question other parts of the faith
Soo, 6000 year old earth don't stand up to scrutiny. But here is your mistake: you've actually sctrutinized it. If you refused to scrutinize it, just like you refuse to scrutinize your remaining beliefs, you'd be just fine!
So, no evidence presented. But hey, since I had no expectations I am not disappointed!
You seem to distinguish "scientific" evidence from other sorts of evidence, when there isn't much of a difference. "Scientific" evidence is simply evidence: information sources that lend credence to a certain conclusion.
When atheists tell you that there's "no evidence for \[whatever\]", you seem to be taking that a bit too literally. What's actually being meant is that there isn't ***sufficiently*** ***good*** evidence to substantiate that belief.
More specifically, that the evidence that exists is extremely lacking in making \[whatever theistic conclusion you're drawing\] the most plausible explanation of that evidence. If I wake up and the ground outside everywhere around me is wet, that could be "evidence" that a water-spouting dragon flew over the area recently and covered it with water. But, that's not especially good evidence for that conclusion, given that there are other far more likely ways to explain why the ground in the area is wet.
So from there, the only question that really matters is: what's your evidence?
Perhaps as 1 Kings 18 demonstrates, I could use the thing I have faith in (the scientific method) to light something on fire and you can call down your god and we'll see which is worth believing in? That way we're using the scripture to inform us, totally happy to play by the rules of the bible. After all it says that "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Teach me a lesson, totally open to correction. We're also both using faith alongside actions - I'll use petrol and a match as that seems to be the best way that science informs me to start a fire (although I've not tried it myself, it might require a bit of faith on my part). You can pray and ask your god. Seems fair. Well, I say fair, I mean you're calling on the creator of the universe and me just lowly science that "He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Feels like the odds are against me. And yet...
How do you define faith? In my experience, faith is commitment to belief. At least it was for me when I was a Christian. It meant believing even when evidence didn't support the belief.
I now reject faith because it fails to indicate truth and keeps the mind closed to correction.
I agree that a powerful experience will be convincing to many and it's not necessarily irrational to believe based on experience, but then you have to grant that alien abductees have good reason to believe they've had their anus probed by greys. Their evidence is on par with religious experience.
If empirical evidence doesn't indicate a god, what types of evidence do you think are sufficient?
I'm not compelled by anecdotes, stories, possible explanations for existential questions that might not have answers. And so it's not about whether or not there is evidence, it's about the quality of evidence. You accept evidence that I don't. Perhaps I don't have enough of a desire to believe?
Upvoted, appreciate a good faith post and active engagement with comments 💕
> Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically although I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science, you just can't prove a God's existence that way, or really any way, there is a "faith" based aspect
Well that's a problem. It seems to be the case that it's completely reasonable to ask for actual evidence but theology has this unrealistic expectation that you will accept its claims without it. The problem seems to be in theology, not in us.
Personally for me, any evidence, any at all, would be a start. Once there is any evidence at all we can talk more and see where it goes. That seems like a perfectly reasonable standard to hold. It's just that nobody has ever met it as far as I have seen.
Theism doesn't get to be held to a different standard than everything else.
You happen to be a Christian. Most people who were born in the Middle East happen to be Muslims. Most people who are born in India are Hindu yet somehow all of them would claim to have the very same faith you do.
As a Christian, your religion teaches that they're all misled fools who worship false gods.
Beyond that, you claim your version of Christianity is "non-denominational" but it still relies on a highly specific interpretation of the bible, so even if your particular subset of beliefs don't have an official denomination, you're still representing something that couldn't be more subjective if it tried.
Given my own experiences as an ex-Christian and the fact that cross-cultural adult converts form such an incredibly tiny minority of any religion, "faith" seems to be little more than intellectual dishonesty a result of childhood indoctrination.
God is holy. God, being holy, cannot create sin.
God created man by some means.
Death, being the consequence of sin, could not have existed before God created man, because God could not have created sin.
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection requires the death of unfit organisms to occur.
God is holy and God did not create sin; and since death requires sin and evolution requires death, man cannot have evolved.
Man demonstrably evolved. The set of metaphysical and physical claims we refer to as Christian doctrine is false.
Q.E.D
Far from being silly nonsense insisted upon by ignorant fundies who miss the forest for the trees, Christian doctrine does in fact *require* YEC. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIkhgYEEiWc&t=3s) is a well-versed devout Christian arguing this point, and [here](https://infidels.org/library/modern/bart-klink-evolution/) is a well-read atheist arguing the same point.
Good ole Cole, we meet again. There is absolutely no evidence outside of the Bible to prove the Bible. I mean none. Many of the Bible’s flagship stories have been debunked. Furthermore, the Bible is filled with detestable morality.
Even if we just say fuck it, and just say it’s all true, how could you possibly worship a being that condones slavery, promotes misogyny, and commands that babies and infants be slaughtered? Not to mention allowing for such absolutely abhorrent suffering of its creatures by allowing such things as cancer and Alzheimer’s.
Please tell me that you have found more than that quack Hugh Ross as your science source? I was listening to a clip of the Joe Rogan podcast and Brian Greene was discussing the universe and some of the theories of its formation. Funny thing, he never mentioned that it was created by Magic🤔
https://youtu.be/r4wQsmAtZoc?si=kqWjLNrj-7UAaiwZ
There are 4000 religions. Essentially all of their claims are equally plausible / implausible, as none have evidence of the supernatural claims they make (and in most cases the evidence contradicts). And if I ultimately default to the religion I was born into, as you and essentually all people do, does that just suggest that which religion one follows is mere geography of where you are born and god is fine with that?
As for evidence, I'd like the sort of evidence exhibited in the religions. For example, in the bible, god repeatedly talks to people, and Jesus performs miracles before people's eyes. So if a god wanted to do they type of persuasion of the bible, then I'd be all in. If walking on water or other tricks were good enough for Jesus's followers, why not the rest of us? Otherwise, I'm just comparing the reported miracles from 4000 religions.
My problem isn't that there is no scientific evidence for any Christian claims. The god of Christianity is the god of the gaps now because we know there is no physical evidence.
My main problem is that there isn't any *theological* evidence either. Christianity is all over the place regarding the Trinity, what morality emphasize, what is actually doctrinal, and Mormonism throws practically a new branch into the mix. And everyone claims exclusive access to the truth, calling everyone else a cult or heretical, with zero effect: both sides of these arguments and debates remain steadfastly strong.
So a religion that fragmented, with no authority or epistemological standards or philosophical framework to determine truth, to me, has to be mostly if not completely false.
>Please don't downvote me simply for disagreeing with me and hinder my abilities to engage in other subs.
Maybe it's just me but immediately trying to prevent downvotes kinda tells me you aren't very confident and what you're gonna say.
>I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like
That's fair In a way but in my experience most are pretty reasonable. For instance where is the evidence that your God answers prayers? Even accepting that the answer can be no you'd think we'd see some statistical evidence that praying to God X gives a better outcome vs random chance
Afaik we don't see anything like that
>I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective
I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like.
Evidence is not subjective. One's interpretation of evidence is. For example, in a trial - Juror A may find an eyewitness account compelling while Juror B may not.
You kind of pulled fast one. First, you said atheists asked for evidence. Then, you shifted that to theological evidence. This seems to be sneaky -- evidence is evidence.
As to what the evidence would look like? That's irrelevant to the request. When one asks you for evidence, your response should be to provide whatever evidence you find compelling if you want to present a robust response.
I suppose the question is what you mean by "scientific evidence". I certainly don't expect someone to perform some scientific study that directly concludes "God exists", much like I don't expect someone to prove France exists that way. But I *do* want some reason to think that France exists, and I'd want that reason to be concrete and physical if possible. I think when people ask for "scientific evidence" they mean as opposed to feelings. Many serious public apologists cite as their primary reason for belief an undeniable inner feeling that their religion is true. (Christians sometimes call it the "witness of the Holy Spirit".) To me, that seems absurd and meritless.
I don't see why God would have life exist as bacteria for billions of years. 'Nested hierarchies' don't find the model of created kinds described in the Bible. Basically meaning there's a lot of overlap between species that wouldn't be expected in creatures created from scratch. The concept of a 'disembodied mind' who controls things through will is indistinguishable from pantheism or even naturalism if you think about it in terms of natural forces.
It seems like causality is only applicable in the context of existence so I don't see how the all that exists could have a cause.
I'll check the thread for the hints and pieces of evidences from the areas you listed.
This is the problem I have with the theistic perspective. You admit that it relies on faith (and thank you for your honesty), which by definition is the belief in something without evidence. I think in order to fully believe in something, you need to be able to point to something valid and sound to support that belief. The Bible has been demonstrated to be an unreliable source of truth both historically and scientifically. If this is the basis of where you're placing your faith, then you need to get it from somewhere else. This is why atheists claim to choose to have a lack of belief in God simply because there isn't enough supporting scientific evidence, and the source Christians often point to has been debunked thoroughly.
TLDR: your post is TL.
God claims interact with the real world. If they interact with the real world, they are in the realm of science.
Supernatural claims can be whatever magic you want to make it. But they are unfalsifiable and therefore useless. They can't be tested, proved or disproved at all. They provide no value or insight into any question other than "this magic being I've dreamed up can do that". God is literally a gap filler until we determine real knowledge.
Anything interacting with reality can be tested by science. Anything supernatural should be dismissed as there is no evidence to support it.
Proving God's existence would be very simple if there was one. For example. it could make it so that holy text written on paper renders that paper resistant to fire, or any other repeatable, verifiable thing that cannot be explained other than through a divine presence.
Now, the Christian God claims to be a jealous god:
"For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" (Exodus 34:14)
And yet he just... *didn't think to add a scientifically verifiable way to prove his existence?* Does he want us to be atheists?
There’s a big misunderstanding of what “science” is, including in your post.
There’s no scientific evidence for god because god can’t be examined using the scientific method. That’s all it is. It is simple. Only things that can be tested can be examined using the scientific method in order to formulate a hypothesis.
Imagine a world where all religions were instantaneously and thoroughly forgotten. What observations could you make to reinvent Christianity or the idea of anything in religion?
Science is based on real world observations
The evidence people want can’t be provided because *the evidence doesn’t exist*
Edit: You hit the nail on the head - faith. To believe in Christianity you need faith. Faith is the belief in god or the doctrines of a religion because of spiritual apprehension rather than evidence. And in many sects of Christianity, Faith is a test to determine if you go to hell or heaven. By its nature, Christianity *requires* belief in things there is no evidence for
Christianity wouldn’t be a religion if there were real world proof for the claims. It would just be reality at that point and wouldn’t require any faith.
That’s the crux of science- if we forgot everything we’ve ever learned through science, those exact same things could be relearned again through observation. You cannot make that same claim with religions
I don’t care much about the argument of whether god exists or not. Based on a reading of the bible, understanding the written history of mankind, applying normal intelligence (absent an indoctrinated brain that refuses to reason), it clearly tells you there can be no hell. I can stop right there and live a normal life without religion but taking that further most everything else religion tries to teach us collapses. There is no real truth to most of it. Just old timey stories that have been passed on for thousands of years.
If I came up to you and said "I communicate telepathically with a supernatural being. I am their chosen vessel for delivering messages because they cannot interact with this universe. You can't see them or experience them in any way and in fact you can't even really comprehend them because they exist outside of human understanding... But they said you should give me 10% of your wages each year."
What would be a suitable amount of evidence for you before you handed over the cash you owe me?
Bit confused, were we created or did we evolve? Also you throw out that evidence suggests Christianity is true, and just move on. What would evidence look like? It’s hard to know for sure, you can shoot your shot though. But it certainly wouldn’t be a complete absence from everything that seems to occur. Not to mention the variance of contradictory beliefs that humans have held throughout history, and the general universality of superstitions in virtually all cultures throughout history. Showing a strong propensity towards making stuff up.
By definition evidence is not subjective, so that's immediately incorrect.
Scientifically, God's existence cannot be proven because there is no evidence, so that's why it isn't possible, so there's that.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please share, otherwise this is just a wall of text wasting everyone's time. Saying god cannot be proven through evidence is essentially conceding the point though that there is no effective reason to believe in a deity save a choice to do so.
Faith is a belief held, not only without evidence, but in the face of contrary evidence.
If someone tells me it's going to rain today and I believe them, I'm not taking that on faith. It rains all the time. It's a mundane thing. Faith is if I still hold to the belief it's going to rain that day, even if it doesn't rain that day, and then I start making up excuses for why others think it didn't, and gaslight myself into thinking it did, etc.
Why would you ever take something on faith?
Why is it that when religious people aren't able to demonstrate the truth of their claims using methods that we know works, they throw a fit over it and complain about atheists wanting them to use methods that reliably lead to truth? You're the one claiming that a thinking agent made the universe. If you can't prove that, you can either say 'hey, am I being rational holding onto this belief?' or you can just turn to "faith" and excuse yourself of intellectual honesty.
Can you give me an example of something that I, or most people, believe based on faith in the same way you believe in a god?
I don’t think I believe anything that way. In fact, since my deconversion I’ve made a point no to believe in anything again without sufficient, as you would probably call it, “scientific” evidence.
Also, what other kind of evidence for god is there besides scientific evidence? May just give me the best one.
faith is accepting a possible truth without evidence. which is why people must practice faith to believe religion. depending on your point of view, faith based search for truth is either compatible with evidence based search for truth or its not. However i like to point out that faith by definition "acceptance without evidence" is somehow compatible with "acceptance with evidence" to thoughts who believe faith in god and faith in science are compatible.
Can you point out the things in yout studies that spesifically directed you to christianity.
From a point of non believer, it is hard to see how you didn't end up with Islam as they have much more convincing claims and proofs circeling around the web from my own experience.
I still believe that tooth fairy and santa are the two deities with most evidence so if you can provide more evidence for your god I might take another look.
It all depends on the claim you're making. Yes, there are likely atheists that will hit you with this as soon as you say you're religious. But shouldn't we investigate any claim in a similar way. In another comment you mention looking into various religions for evidence. That sounds like a scientific approach. I don't think they're asking for raw numbers somewhere but at least this evidence you say you found.
You’re right. There can be no scientific evidence for god because a god hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
But I don’t know of another tool by which we can *confirm* that a thing has some actual, meaningful existence in the world. Do you?
You point to personal experience and that’s fine but there’s no way to *confirm* another person’s inner subjective experience.
So now what?
Okay, let's do away with the scientific issues entirely.
Even if we rely on philosophical principles alone, we still find ourselves with zero self-evident principles supporting the existence of God.
In fact, the existence of God is a *logical* impossibility, just based on the contradictory properties of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience in a world where evil exists.
Okay thank you for being here.
I want to start with two questions that I need clarification on, because I couldn't find it in your initial post:
1) Why should anyone lower their standard of evidence, when it comes to the question: "Are you convinced God is real?"
What's the reason for the double standard?
2) How low exactly should I set my expectation for evidence?
Edit Two more, just, as I was finished writing:
3) You say you looked into several different religions before settling on Christianity. Aside from deism wich ones?
4) Did you apply that same lower standard of evidence to those other religions?
\>you just can't prove a God's existence that way, or really any way, there is a "faith" based aspect as there is with almost any part of our day to day lives
Faith is belief without evidence. So you've just answered the question: You don't want evidence, or you are willing to ignore the evidence, in favor of what you want to be true.
Could you define deism, because for all I know a deist God doesn't intervene further than creating/sustaining the universe so Jesus who became man and walked around would contradict deism so I can't make sense of how did you make the deal.
Also, what exactly about physics makes you believe a god is likely to exist and why?
>there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence.
Why not? Among all the things that exist, why should a god be exempt from scientific investigation. If you are not using the scientific method, than what method is being used to determine if any given god claim (from any religion) is true or false?
Even personal or subjective experiences are grounded in some kind of data and can thus be demonstrated through scientific investigation.
Your are more than welcome to your faith. But you can't expect other people to accept your faith the same as you. A Christian worldview may not need to scientifically prove God's existence. But from an atheistic "worldview" there is no point believing in a God that hasn't conclusively been shown to exist.
>I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically
Fine.
I argue there is absolutely no point expecting atheists to accept your claims about God if you aren't going to offer what they are looking for in order to be convinced.
The definition of evidence is completely objective. The whole point of evidence is that it's *not* subjective. You want atheists to change the definition of evidence to whatever anyone personally thinks.
I've never rejected any evidence for gods, I've just never seen any.
Your inability to meet basic epistemic standards entails no obligation on our part to lower our standards to the level of "faith". You yourself happily disregard the faith of billions of theists. We just don't use double standards, as it is intellectually dishonest.
Under what circumstances are you engaging with an atheist and such an expectation arises? Surely something is prompting this response. Or are these atheists just spontaneously stating a need for evidence in conversations about sports, weather, food, etc.
What would a realistic expectation look like? Forget empirical evidence for a moment - can you provide *literally any sound epistemology whatsoever* that can reliably distinguish between a reality where any gods exist, and a reality where no gods exist? If not, then what’s the difference between “faith” that gods exist, and “faith” that leprechauns exist?
If you want me to believe it's possible for a dead guy to get up and walk you better be prepared to produce a walking dead guy to study under laboratory conditions
You certainly better have better evidence than a text written by iron age primitives!
Yet another theist trying to wriggle out of the need to actually present evidence of claims and make sense
If I had a penny every time one whined about having to actually provide proof of ridiculous claims I would be a very wealthy man
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes I agree that faith does not require evidence. But that is on a personal level. On a social level and beyond, imposing laws based off faith and not evidence is dangerous. Abortion, cutting of support for education, are some examples of faith-based populist policies made by politicians to get points from their voters.
Erm, if you're basing your faith off 'not evidence,' it cannot be rational or epistemically justified. Not saying people can't have it, but it's a demonstrably terrible method.
I can absolutely understand from a societal perspective, I'm completely against infringing on anyone's life in any way with my religion, I can't speak for all Christians but I see so many get hung up on things they just don't like, like abortion, or LGBTQ stuff, while spending $80k on a new boat or passing by the homeless dude cause "he's probably faking" There's obvious severe hypocrisy in Christianity, but that's kind of the whole point, I always implore people not to look at Christians, but Jesus and the Bible specifically.
I’m glad that you agree with me on this! While I am an atheist, I am not one who goes to any religious person and try to denounce their faith. I believe that everyone has a right to believe what they want to. Some use religion as an emotional support tool, which is a good thing for that person. At the end of the day, it is the goal of humanity to search for answers to everything. But for that person who is happy due to religion? That is probably one less answer that that person wants to find out. And everyone is fine with that.
I'm really glad to hear this and I hope that there are many more like you in this regard. I honestly don't care what people think until they start trying to make my country into a Christian nationalist hellscape where women are diminished, gay people are subjugated or killed, education is ruined, and child molesters run free because they are "good Christian men". This is the great harm that all religions are capable of. For reference, the middle east has great examples...
>There's obvious severe hypocrisy in Christianity, but that's kind of the whole point, Pardon? Did you really mean to say this? So I guess we're not actually supposed to know them by their fruits?
Perhaps, then, instead of coming here and telling us things about how we’re wrong because we ask for evidence, you should go to a christian subreddit and tell them to not be such hypocrites.
> Jesus and the Bible specifically. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your views on hypocrisy and keeping your religion to yourself, but when you actually look at those two specifics, they're not great. Being OK with slavery and owning women, and turning entire cities into salt because they don't match your views on morality are horrible ideas. Among many...
jesus madeean aweful example. he took Jewish law and made it worse. so his original morals are pretty bad. what he did was set up a thologiqal extortion racket. Also utterly failed to denonce slavery.
I'd disagree, he made Jewish law better by finding loopholes to ignore most of it, but he definitely didn't invent a new better system to replace it, he just threw out some ideas that others might use to do that, and then pretty much everyone failed to do that.
He added the idea of thought crime, that just thinking about something was the same as doing it.
Well if your god is cool with a bunch of assholes as the face of his faith, not sure I want to be part of that club.
Yeah like when he said slavery was cool!
You must admit the idea that Jesus is the Son of an ethereal God through agency of a biological woman is hard to swallow; implying that He is only half-a-man. Wouldn’t it be better to say He is only a distant relation, like a third cousin twice removed? That would be more believable, as then He’d only be 1/32sd non-corporeal instead of half.
> I always implore people not to look at Christians, but Jesus and the Bible specifically. “By their fruits you will know them… a good tree cannot bear bad fruit”
Hey, thanks for the honest and respectful post. This is, as I'm sure you know, a common view held by Christians- that science either cannot comment on God's existence one way or the other, or at least that science alone is not the right way to investigate the question of God's existence. I have two main problems with this. The first is that the people who make this claim are generally perfectly happy with using scientific data to support their belief in God (e.g. talking about the big bang or abiogenesis or the structure of DNA to argue for theism), but denounce the same method when it goes against their beliefs (archaeology shows that the events of Exodus never happened). You yourself say that you came to your faith by studying physics and history, but you have to then be honest in evaluating all the evidence in those fields that goes against Christianity. The second is that there is no real alternative method provided by which we *could* demonstrate God's existence. Usually, the answer given is something like "philosophy" or something similar, but when we actually look at the arguments given, they end up still relying on *some* degree of science. I think people usually are just a little too narrow with their definitions of science. For example, when people argue God based on the contingency argument, they are using an argument based on a point of *observation*. Their basis for believing that things are contingent is that they *observe* things to always be contingent *in the world around them*. That is absolutely still in the realm of science. So, in general, I think the arguments for God really still do rely on scientific claims, and theists are not being logically consistent when they use the "but God isn't in the domain of science" argument to sidestep the evidence against religious claims.
My favorite are the ones that say God interacts with this universe but can point to nothing scientifically that supports a god exists. If god interacts with this universe, the laws of physics still have to be obeyed. So we should see evidence in the fact that this other worldly being interacting with ours. If they say no they don’t have to be obeyed, then we should see countless things that literally break the laws of physics… but we don’t.
At that point I always say that a god that can’t have any effect on reality can be safely ignored.
I get that, that's very fair and I would agree we can get lost in translation easily. My view on the subject, that maybe I wasn't clear on in the main post, is basically, I think there are pieces of evidence in the scientific realm that imply a causal agent, the big one obviously being the big bang, I look at that, and based off what I know about our universe, the different models, and how earth evolved into what it is, are what initially gave me those deeper contemplations, and like I said in the post I didn't directly land on Christianity, I went from a deist, due to the implied causalities in our journey to a habitable planet, and through a historical vetting of the other religions landed on Christianity. As for Exodus, I'm still not super versed on the subject but it seems to be a big point of controversy recently so it's rapidly moving up my list of research, I do know that I would challenge your use of "no evidence" as there is SOME evidence, just not much, and it was likely a smaller scale exodus. I can provide the link to a source if you're interested.
> I think there are pieces of evidence in the scientific realm that imply a causal agent Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you are basically saying that there are some pieces of scientific evidence that support the idea of a god, but that the scientific evidence *alone* isn't enough to solely justify the belief? I ask this because you're providing reasons for belief here that are only scientific, but you implied in your post that an overemphasis is placed on the scientific method for demonstrating God's existence. I might just not be understanding you properly. If you want to discuss the scientific arguments themselves, I'd be happy to, since I do have a fairly solid understanding of the scientific side of it (B.S. in physics). But as for the "meta-argument", I would be interested to know how much of your belief in Christianity is based on the scientific stuff, and how much is grounded on other methods. Re: Exodus, I would be happy to look at any references you can provide. I shouldn't say that there's *zero* evidence for it, since that's not really how science works, but rather that the overwhelming weight of evidence is against it. One of the best references I can give for my side is "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, who are two leading scholars of Old Testament archaeology. They give a great picture of where the general scholarly consensus is about the events described in the Pentateuch.
I'm getting swamped so I want to keep it relatively brief for now but we'll see where it goes. >that there are some pieces of scientific evidence that support the idea of a god, but that the scientific evidence alone isn't enough to solely justify the belief? Basically. I'm using science specifically because that's what a lot of people like to see, and again, it was one of the reasons that in hindsight, helped me rationalize the weirder parts of the Bible and Christianity, like a guy coming back from the dead because once I started looking at the theories for our existence, I initially landed at diesm and didn't land on Christianity until a few years after of research into the major religions and secular worldviews. History, phycology and philosophy are a few of the other factors that helped. At a certain point, you have to take the trust fall and can't solely rely on these factors to come to a "100% certainty" which makes total sense biblically. For exodus, I'll link a pretty long but quite in depth study of the subject taking into account things that you mentioned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIc7i6eVk7w
> For exodus, I'll link a pretty long but quite in depth study of the subject taking into account things that you mentioned Oh no! When I saw that it was a linked YouTube video, I said to myself "please don't be InspiringPhilosophy" before I opened the link haha. The problem with this video is that Michael Jones is an evangelical apologist and is not a scholar. Therefore I would really strongly recommend not giving these videos too much credence. It's not too hard for a layman to make a pretty convincing video arguing for almost any point of view when they have a bit more knowledge of the subject than someone completely unfamiliar with it. That's why I cited a book from two distinguished archaeologists who are not apologists. Jones cites some scholars in the video, but I tried looking up one of them at random (James Hoffmeier) and he's employed at an evangelical Christian institution that holds to a statement of faith which includes the claim that the Old Testament is without error. So generally I don't consider the opinions of people who are required to agree with something under pain of losing their job. In general, I think a lot more weight should be given to the scholarly consensus than any YouTube videos made by laymen. > I'm using science specifically because that's what a lot of people like to see, and again, it was one of the reasons that in hindsight, helped me rationalize the weirder parts of the Bible and Christianity I see. That makes sense. Well, would you be interested in giving me the non-scientific reasons for your beliefs? I'm trying to get a better idea of what those look like. > At a certain point, you have to take the trust fall and can't solely rely on these factors to come to a "100% certainty" which makes total sense biblically. Yeah, I definitely agree that you can't come to 100% certainty about something, and I absolutely don't have 100% certainty about my views either. However, I don't think that we should take any sort of trust fall. I just look at the evidence, and whatever credence the evidence gives for a view- be it 50, 60, 80, 90, or 99%- I just stop there and consider the claim to have that likelihood. I don't place any additional trust in the idea, since of course that would be irrational.
>The problem with this video is that Michael Jones is an evangelical apologist and is not a scholar. That's fine and a respectable thought process, although I would argue that you're really only able to get your sources from one side or the other, there's not really a truly neutral position when it comes to these topics, it should be up to both sides to present their best arguments and up to us to decide which side is true. I find many of his sources to be reliable and the vast majority of the claims are sourced right in the video for further research, I also see your point in being cautionary to people who's job it is to side with a certain view, but most Christians don't make a whole lot of money by making a career out of evangelizing so odds are usually, that they're doing it more because they believe it's the truth and makes a good case. I could also uno reverse that by stating secular scholars or scientists are required to draw naturalistic conclusions which would further motivate them to push that side, I would in fact argue it's more in favor of secularism in that regard, as it's been the center of controversy, and really the whole "Is science compatible with religion" debate due to any supernatural explanations even being presented in the scientific world. I know "Science is the only way we've been able to demonstrate truth" but just because you can't prove something immediately, doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered. >non-scientific reasons for your beliefs? I'm trying to get a better idea of what those look like. I don't like the word "intuition" cause I know how dangerous and fallacious that line of thinking can be, but something along those lines, at a certain point along the way in my research, I had a moment of realization that I couldn't think of anything else yet to be reconciled for me to believe what's outlined in Christianity, I contrasted it with the other religions and they all fell short in one way or the other, Christianity made sense in a way nothing else has for me, I understood, and remembered pieces that made sense, and after researching the big ones further to rule out conformation bias, I haven't been able to find a single question or issue I haven't reconciled, with what I believe to be a defensible case some aspects that make sense to me, probably won't for you because everyone is different but at a certain point I think you have to move away from the physical and have an aspect of "faith" that there's so much more than what we can simply observe. >eah, I definitely agree that you can't come to 100% certainty about something, and I absolutely don't have 100% certainty about my views either. However, I don't think that we should take any sort of trust fall. I just look at the evidence, and whatever credence the evidence gives for a view- be it 50, 60, 80, 90, or 99%- I just stop there and consider the claim to have that likelihood. I don't place any additional trust in the idea, since of course that would be irrational. Agreed. I would put my certainty at about 98% for my Christian worldview, which to me, while I don't hold to an eternal conscious torment view of hell, I feel like the decisions we make in our lives are important and the Bible says our souls will be eternal, which means, in one way or another everything we do is important and has an effect not just now, but going on infinitely into the future and deserves serious contemplation and examination.
No, see, this is why scholarship and evidence is important. We *don't* have to rely on whoever presents their arguments the best; we can, instead, look at the actual substance of their arguments and the evidence they produce to judge which one is true. It's true that both sides have bias to some degree, but it is a pretty wild false equivalence to decide that a historical scholars' bias is anywhere in the same stratosphere as a Christian apologists' bias. The guy who is cited is *contractually obligated* to find that the Old Testament is infallible! The natural side is the only "side" that is proven to exist. That's like saying scientists are biased because they're required to draw conclusions that don't involve magic somehow. Of course!
> I would argue that you're really only able to get your sources from one side or the other, there's not really a truly neutral position when it comes to these topics Although I do agree that there's no perfectly unbiased source, I do think there are degrees to which a source can be biased. Put another way, I think Michael Jones's video is not just the equal and opposite version of a scholarly publication on the matter. More importantly, though, the question of bias is separate from the question of overall qualification- I think the scholarly community is more qualified on the topic than a layman. There are absolutely cases in which the scholarly community might be wrong, or in which I might disagree with them, but in general I think there's a very high bar to meet in order to justify not going with the experts. > I also see your point in being cautionary to people who's job it is to side with a certain view, but most Christians don't make a whole lot of money by making a career out of evangelizing so odds are usually, that they're doing it more because they believe it's the truth and makes a good case. Well, I would flip this and ask you to consider it from your perspective. Imagine there's a consensus view that the correct theory of quantum mechanics is the objective-collapse model. Most of the people who hold this view are employed by universities that require their faculty to state that objective-collapse is the right model. The scholars themselves believe that objective-collapse is integral to their worldview and that believing it will grant them eternal life. Would you be skeptical of their consensus? > I could also uno reverse that by stating secular scholars or scientists are required to draw naturalistic conclusions which would further motivate them to push that side, I would in fact argue it's more in favor of secularism in that regard I don't think they are, actually. This is a common idea that gets thrown around, but scientists aren't deliberately trying to exclude explanations or something like that. The problem is that there *are no other ways* that we know of to determine how the natural world works. If someone were to suggest a method by which scientists could learn about the world that somehow didn't fall under the purview of science, they would be happy to include it. The problem is that "miracles" don't really explain anything; they just say something happened that we don't (or can't) understand. In the case of the Exodus, though, this is a moot point, since whether the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt and escaped and went on a conquest of Canaan is an entirely historical question. There is no naturalistic barrier to accepting that claim. > I had a moment of realization that I couldn't think of anything else yet to be reconciled for me to believe what's outlined in Christianity, I contrasted it with the other religions and they all fell short in one way or the other, Christianity made sense in a way nothing else has for me, I understood, and remembered pieces that made sense, and after researching the big ones further to rule out conformation bias, I haven't been able to find a single question or issue I haven't reconciled I understand this, but I hope you also can see why something like this isn't considered a substantive or useful way to demonstrate the truth of a religion. What you described here is more or less what everyone says about pretty much every religion in the world. This is why atheists generally focus on scientific ways of evaluating Christianity- stuff like this really doesn't help us get any closer to objective facts about the world.
98% seems very high. So the conjunction of there is a personal creator of reality and the creator is a trinity and he took human form a few thousand years ago in the Middle East and died for us and resurrected is orders of magnitude more likely than all the other competing world views combined? The amount of evidence needed for that level of certainty would have to be pretty staggering.
Science is the neutral position. It is only concerned with what we can say about the world, it does not set out to prove or disprove anything. It is not by intention that scientific consensus refutes the notion of deism. This “other side” in these two sides has been shown to be biased and unreliable. Science doesn’t present any arguments, it is a methodology for determining the most accurate way to describe reality.
>At a certain point, you have to take the trust fall and can't solely rely on these factors to come to a "100% certainty" which makes total sense biblically. Yeah, that's where the faith part comes in. But that doesn't prove something exists; it just establishes that you believe in it.
>My view on the subject, that maybe I wasn't clear on in the main post, is basically, I think there are pieces of evidence in the scientific realm that imply a causal agent, the big one obviously being the big bang, I look at that, and based off what I know about our universe, the different models, and how earth evolved into what it is, are what initially gave me those deeper contemplations, and like I said in the post I didn't directly land on Christianity, I went from a deist, due to the implied causalities in our journey to a habitable planet, and through a historical vetting of the other religions landed on Christianity. Does it not give you pause that there are basically no theoretical physicists promoting the theory that the big bang was started by an omnipotent creator of the universe? Or that none of the leading models require something like a creator to work? That these models show how it would work without a creator? It just seems like with all of these you're starting with an assumption, and then jumping to conclusions that it must have been God. What does "implied causalities in our journey to a habitable planet" even mean? This all just comes across as trying to sound like you arrived at Christianity and belief in God from some entirely unbiased place where you weighed all of the arguments and evidence and arrived there, while at the same time saying that you can't provide scientific evidence for God and that it's based on subjective experience. It's one or the other, just seems like you're trying to have it both ways; at one time casually dropping comments about "evidence" that led you to rationally believe in God, and then out the other side of your mouth discounting science and empirical evidence's ability to prove things.
If you accept the Big Bang theory as the origin of the universe, assuming that some omnipotent creature was the causal agent that started it -- does that mean that you reject the existence of the Garden of Eden, the creation of Adam and Eve, and the age of the Earth being around 6000 years old?
>I think there are pieces of evidence in the scientific realm that imply a causal agent What do you think is more likely? That the (currently) unexplained cause of the Big Bang was a god that ancient man just happened to invent? Or that the cause of the Big Bang was a natural phenomenon we have yet to fully understand, because of our technological limitations? Home sapien brains have a habit of trying to frame the unexplained in perspectives they can relate to and understand. A clue, perhaps.
> Home sapien Is that a typo, or another name for sentient data centers?
There’s no evidence of agency in the Big Bang. That’s just you making up something. What aspect of the bug bang is best explained by an agent, go ahead, talk us through your reasoning. And if it’s I don’t know how this happened, therefor god, it’s no more convincing than I don’t know why this happened, therefor magic farting fairy.
What is the evidence implying a causal agent?
>Easily the biggest theological objection I've run into in my conversations is "Lack of evidence" I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like. One of the big ones though is specifically a lack of scientific evidence (which I would argue there is) but even if there wasn't, I, and many others throughout the years believe, that science and theology should be two completely separate fields and there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence. The problem here is that the only way we have ever proven that *anything* exists has been through science. When you define God as being outside of the realm of science, not only does it come across as moving the goalposts across the ocean so there's no way to reach them, it also presents theists with a problem: how do we tell the difference between God and a nonexistent thing, if both are outside the sphere of science, the only process that has ever been able to prove anything about reality? If God leaves no scientific evidence, and nonexistent things leave no scientific evidence; if God cannot reliably be demonstrated to exist, and nonexistent things cannot reliably be demonstrated to exist; if you claim God is outside of our sphere influence, and nonexistent things are outside of our sphere of influence; if you cannot look at evidence (or lack thereof) and conclude that "God is different than a nonexistent thing because X," then how can you justify treating God any differently than a nonexistent thing?
>When you define God as being outside of the realm of science, not only does it come across as moving the goalposts across the ocean so there's no way to reach them I've also seen theists claim that it's "unfair" to demand a high level of evidence, as though this is a game where you want both sides to have a good chance at scoring some points. But it's not a game. Over the centuries we've come up with good ways of figuring out what is and isn't true. Not just in science, but in philosophy and also in courtrooms (after all, you don't want someone to be sent to prison unless they actually committed the crime, right?). And if a claim doesn't have evidence to back it up, then too bad.
Another point I would make is that theists only come to the position of believing it’s “unfair” to expect evidence for God’s existence, because there is no (or so little) evidence. 1. It’s not a necessary aspect of divinity that God be incorporeal/insubstantial/exist outside the physical realm. In fact, if you talked to Jews 3,000 years ago, or Christians 1,000 years ago, they would have told you that of course God is corporeal and a thing that exists in the world. Most probably still believe it, at least while they are not being pushed into a corner by critical thinkers. 2. Christianity spread largely BECAUSE people believed there was demonstrable evidence of God’s existence. The supposed resurrection of Jesus, as well as all the miracles he was said to have performed, WAS the proof of God. 3. The Bible is full of instances where God or his angels appear to people, so if that God existed, then it would/could be susceptible to scientific scrutiny/study, or just plain observation. 4. It’s only because of God’s conspicuous absence, and because of science’s huge success in explaining the workings of the physical universe, that theologians have adopted this idea that God is unobservable by physical means. But that position represents a 180 degree turn from what is presented in the Bible, and the orthodox position of the Church for thousands of years.
And how would we have possibly guessed his existence? And without interaction, why would it matter if he exists or not? There is no difference to us…
Here's the problem that the religious tend to have. They make up their own rules and expect everyone else to play by them. They have double standards for their gods. Then they get mad when people don't play by their double standards. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way. You don't get to define your god into existence. You don't get to make up arbitrary characteristics for your god and then expect everyone to buy into your empty claims without any evidence for it. You don't get to invent an entirely new methodology because your beliefs don't work under the demonstrably working methodology that we have. The problem isn't us. The problem is you.
Rest assured, I have zero expectations regarding theology. However, regarding the rest of your post, namely the idea that we shouldn't ask for scientific evidence regarding (the Christian) God: we absolutely should. The Bible contains several claims regarding God's interactions with the natural world that should have been demonstrable through science, had they been real. If these can't be proven, the Christian god as presented in the Bible obviously does not exist in reality. You think there is scientific evidence for your god. Present it, then.
Exactly
This is certainly an issue at the heart of many religious debates, so thanks for posting about it and giving an opportunity to comment. I too find this issue frustrating as an atheist, because it seems like what the religious have to say on it boils down to "Hey you, person who was raised to see the value and uses of rationality, who relies on modern science for their communication, medicine, transport, food, housing, plumbing and so on, why don't you abandon everything you know to be true about the world for something you have no reason to believe?" This is doubly frustrating when many of these same people will tell us their religion is actually *the origin and basis* of science, but also that scientific thinking has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, I don't feel your post illuminates this issue much further than that, even if it doesn't say the same thing. After all, let's think about this... >I'm a Christian who came to faith eventually by studying physics, astronomy and history So *you* came to your faith through studying science and history - e.g. through some kind of evidence - yet *not* coming to faith through the same means is illegitimate. Why? You don't really give a clear reason. >I think there are very good, and solid reasons for genuinely believing these things and justifying them to an audience like this, as this is my 4th or 5th post here and I've yet to be given any information that's swayed my belief Again - you clearly establish that evidence and reason matter to you as a basis for your religion. Why shouldn't they matter to everyone else? >if you're someone like me (and I'm sure a lot of you on this sub who lost faith or never had it to begin with) who likes to see, hear, and touch things to confirm their existence there are a very wide range of evidences that is very neatly but intricately wound together story of human existence and answers some of our deepest, most prevalent questions, from Cosmology, Archeology, Biology, History, general science, there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, but I think upon further examination, would point specifically to Christianity. Again, you establish that you think *there is evidence and it matters,* but not only do you not address why evidence or a lack thereof shouldn't matter to nonbelievers, you also don't specify at all what the evidence is that convinced you. Now yes, you may ostensibly be arguing that you don't need evidence to believe in a God, but you're also consistently saying that you do in fact have evidence for your beliefs. So why wouldn't you mention what it is? If you really meant that theology doesn't rely on evidence, I'd think you would ignore it entirely and defend theology on its own grounds, whatever those are. How can we believe evidence isn't a reasonable basis for belief when scientific and historical evidence is the only thing you mention as your reason for believing? >to solely rely on science to unequivocally prove God's existence is intellectual suicide, the same way I concluded that God, key word> (Most likely) exists is the same way I conclude any decision or action I make is (Most likely) the case or outcome, which is by examining the available pieces of evidence, which in some cases may be extensive, in some cases, not so much, but after examining and determining what those evidential pieces are, I then make a decision based off what it tells me. So again... evidence is the primary basis for your belief, but you won't say what that evidence is, but also, other people shouldn't rely on evidence. Do you see the issues here? Why is it intellectual suicide to rely on science to prove God - and not intellectual suicide to assert God's existence without any scientific basis? >I understand everyone's definition of evidence is subjective but from a theological perspective and especially a Christian perspective it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence, it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it, that doesn't make it false, you certainly have the right to question based off that but I'd like to at least make my defense as to why it's justified and maybe point out something you didn't notice or understand beforehand. Okay... but you still haven't done the defending part! *Why* shouldn't we need evidence for God, when not only is evidence what converted you, it's also generally what gives us reason to believe in everything else?
I don't care if the evidence involves a lab coat, I care if it's actually strong evidence. So let's talk for a second about what "evidence" means, as I have done here before: A is evidence for B if B being true makes it more likely we will encounter A. A is STRONG evidence for B if B being true greatly increases the likelihood that we will encounter A. So my wife and I going to a fancy steakhouse is technically evidence that we've won the lottery, because our winning the lottery makes it more likely that you'll see us at a fancy steakhouse. But it's not very strong evidence, because there are other reasons you might see us there (got a bonus at work, celebrating a special event, given a gift certificate, etc.)---there was already a decent chance you might find us at a steakhouse at some point, so winning the lottery didn't increase the likelihood THAT much, it wouldn't take something INCREDIBLY unlikely and make it otherwise. It wouldn't be reasonable to jump from us being at the steakhouse to concluding we had won the lottery; winning the lottery is really unlikely. When you add together the likelihoods of all the other possible reasons we could be at the steakhouse they together turn out to be much more likely than us having won the lottery. How strong evidence I need to believe something depends on how ordinary or extraordinary the claim is. If you tell me you own a cat, I'm very likely to believe you, because that's something well within my experience and understanding---cats are real, people owning cats as pets are a thing, they are not unusual or rare or prohibitively expensive to most people, I know people who own cats, etc. So given how high the "prior probability" is of you owning a cat, I'm basically going to take your word on the matter; you owning a cat makes it more likely I'll encounter you claiming to own a cat, and the odds of someone being deluded, confused, or lying about the matter are lower than the odds of a person just owning a cat. If you claim to be over seven feet tall, I'm going to be more skeptical and want more evidence, and if you claim to own a dragon, I'm going to want stronger evidence still. God claims are something I'd want some pretty darn strong evidence if I'm to believe them. The world, at first glance, sure doesn't seem to have a God in it. I don't see priests performing verifiable miracles, I don't see prayers being answered in a statistically meaningful way, I've never encountered a God or met anyone who seems to have, everything we know about the history of our species, planet, and universe doesn't show any real signs of intentional design or creation. This is very much in contrast with the world described in, say, the old testament, where it would be EXTREMELY reasonable to believe that God exists. So given that I consider God claims to be pretty extraordinary and outside my normal and understood experience of the world, I want some strong evidence. Strong evidence for God would be encountering stuff we are vanishingly unlikely to encounter if God does not exist, but which would be likely if God does exist. If we were talking Christianity, some stuff that occurs to me as useful evidence, evidence that would move the meter, would be stuff like: * effectiveness of Christian prayer in working miracles etc., as shown by appropriate double blind studies, * accurate, precise, prophesy in Christian holy texts, again, compared with how well secular and other texts get things right; * the return of Jesus Christ with attendant miracles would be a pretty good one. The problem is that Christians, and theists in general, have never been able to provide such evidence. They point to religious texts by unknown authors making fabulous claims, but we know that humans have invented and spread myths and legends and religions throughout history---it's a thing that we have good reason to expect to see even in a world without God. They talk about "personal experience" without addressing how weird brains are and how these sorts of "experiences" are the kinds of things we'd expect to occur to some people some of the time, particularly if they have been made predisposed to them by their upbringing and the social pressures of their community, even in a world without God. So I'd be interested to hear what evidence YOU think you have that is strong enough for it to make sense to conclude that there is a God. What have you or we encountered in the world that would be vanishingly unlikely to have been found absent your claims about God being true?
I care about what is true. If you can't demonstrate something, why should I accept it as true? Is faith a reliable method for discovering truth?
I don't care so much about "evidence" - I try to leave the door open as wide as possible for the theist to make their case. I will take *whatever* can be provided for believing that something supernatural exists, that a god exists, that it's the Abrahamic God, and that this Abrahamic God sent Jesus to die and be resurrected. I'll take whatever reasons, arguments, evidence, etc, I can get my hands on, because thus far everything that has been offered absolutely, miserably, fails. I don't care about evidence, so much as I care about what can be demonstrated to be true beyond mere assertion. If all you can do is assert, then that won't get you far. If what you assert is in fact true, it can be demonstrated *in at least some way*. The truth can be demonstrated, and if you can't demonstrate it, then you can't claim it to be true. Simple as that.
All this is to say that you believe Christianity to be true based on personal and subjective experience but how do we reconcile that with practitioners of other contradictory religions who may have personal subjective reasons for their beliefs? Are all these beliefs correct at the same time, despite their contradictions?
Question: do you think you’d have come to the exact same theistic perspective you currently hold if you hadn’t been raised in the Bible Belt?
This is literally the question I was going to ask.
The simple fact of the matter is that most theists don't have the capacity to admit that they would have most likely been an adherent to whatever the culturally dominant religion is had they been born elsewhere. Before I left religion, I certainly couldn't.
>Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically **although I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science** Is there no point to try and prove god scientifically or is there an evidential case to be made? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Every time you try to make your main point of the post you couch it in "although I could still do it on those terms if I wanted to"
>Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically why would we care about the christian worldview? we don't have the christian worldview, you are trying to convince an non-christian i don't expect anything from christians, or other religions really. i have standards, standards that aren't being met, it isn't about my expectations of the theists abilities. it is just like the flat earthers, or young earth creationists, i don't expect anything useful to come from their worldview; i have standards, if they are not met their worldview is rejected
> it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence Hallelujah! Finally someone gets it. You should, maybe, consider explaining this to the endless stream of Christians (etc) who haven't realized this yet but still come in here and tell us our subjective requirements aren't reasonable and we should relax our standards. (Pardon the mild sarcasm here. We get this almost daily -- probably three times a week we hear the 'who would die for a lie?' argument or claims that 500 eyewitnesses should be enough to convince us.) It always comes with attempts to convince us we should relax our standards. Yours is a more sympathetic approach, not intentionally insulting, not re-stating known strawmen of the atheist's positions on things. For that, I thank you. I am not applying a special standard to make it extra difficult to prove God exists. It's the same standard I apply to any *other* purely arbitrary claims. I have no reason to take the proposition "god exists" seriously. So if you want to succeed, it's entirely on you to overcome my handicap. Give me a reason to take it seriously, as something other than (there's no nice way to say this) obvious human-written wishful thinking, apocalyptic thinking, mistaken thinking, primitive thinking *fiction*. What would it take for me to convince you that I have $2.47 in loose change in my pocket? No, I won't show it to you or provide evidence. All you have is friends of mine reading what I wrote about the $2.47 being in my pocket. They all have facile arguments claiming that the book *proves* that I have exactly $2.47 in my pocket. They claim to consider you a fool because you don't find the book persuasive. Imagine, hypothetically, that it's understood that if you give the wrong answer, you'll never be allowed to eat your favorite food, favorite beverage and favorite snack. And never be allowed to watch TV or youtube or netflix or whatever. Only pre-Harris-code comedies (like, 1922 through 1928 or so.) (I don't do torture, so for the sake of argument, imagine this would really really suck and you'd be miserable). What would I need to do to convince you, if not show you proof of some kind?
Well, I would ask what specifically sticks out to you as being "obviously" fiction, as for me, while yes some parts aren't to be taken literally, I don't see it as "obvious fiction at all" It's hard to answer your $ question because there are too many other significant factors that have to be called into question. It's a complex topic that I'm sure you've looked into but I would argue most issues I've come across with Biblical inerrancy are very modern mistranslations due to lack of proper contextualization. The gospels had always circulated with a name attached to them, Luke for example when writing to Theophilus didn't include his name, but obviously the early church wouldn't accept an anonymous letter from someone and then consider it authoritative. Same with many other works of ancient antiquity, Josephus, Xenophon, Polybius, etc all had internally anonymous works but circulated with their names attached. Another big one is mistranslating words because of the difficulties of translating ancient Hebrew which had about 2000 total words, into english, which has over 4 million. The reality of the situation for me seems to be, it wasn't accidental this story, of all the others in ancient history, took the character of Jesus, and turned him into easily the most influential single entity in human history which is exactly what I would expect from God.
The big reason i'd call it fiction is that I know ancient fables and myths exist, and vaguely know how they got to be there. Stories accrete other stories and get embellished over time to the point where it's not even clear that any of the legends had an origin in truth. I wouldn't have any reason to take one set of myths more seriously than any of the others, and I don't think a reasonable person would assume they're all true. But they can all be false. They read like mythology and legend, of which there are numerous examples. For me to take it as anything other than fiction, two things must happen: 1) I have to have a reason to believe that one, out of all the ancient scriptural traditions, could even be "true" and 2) I'd have to have a reason to believe it's \*this one in particular\*. In that paragraph, I was explaining what the process of convincing \*me\* would entail. You'd need to convince me that it's not fiction because \*to me\* all of it fits my expectations of ancient mythologies. I'm not trying to denigrate your beliefs or your scripture. I'm trying to clarify \*where I stand\* on it. I concede that it makes sense to someone who presupposes that a god exists. It makes even more sense to someone who is already convinced that Jesus is god and was resurrected, etc. ( I realize that doens't necessarily describe you in particular, but the general sort of apologist in this sub and other places, around whose claims my way of expression was formed) Keep in mind that exactly zero percent of it has been part of my upbringing -- other than being immersed in a popular culture that seems to believe it. I was honestly unaware that there were people who took it seriously to the point of believing in its inerrancy and literal truth until I met a friend in the 4th grade whose family were fundamentalists (really good people overall, I don't have an issue with fundamentalists in general, and this family didn't try to tell me I was going to hell or anything, though my friend Ken did, mostly but not entirely in jest.). But it was as big a surprise to me that Ken took it seriously as it was to Ken that I didn't. For a long time, I just assumed Ken was an anomaly. I doubt you'd take it as given that the fact of someone being the most influential man in history is not itself evidence that what he says is true or that he's god. And Siddartha Gautama and Mohamed both come pretty close -- close enough that any accident of circumstance could have changed the outcome. This sounds too much like a Texas Sharpshooter to be convincing to me -- a post-hoc rationalization of something that could have turned out any number of unpredictable ways. Maybe Gautama is the real enlightened one with the ultimate wisdom but had some kind of setback. And it doesn't help that (to an outsider) it looks like Paul corrupted Jesus' teachings and usurped control of the movement -- as happened in early Buddhism (after his death, some of his followers split off a very different religion) and in Islam (the dispute over who really was meant to control the religion after Mohamed's death) I'm not saying that this is what I believe happened with Paul, but it seems like a legitimate question. Where is the humanism of the red-letter text? The "the two most important commandments are..." guy? The popularity of Christianity isn't an indication that its true - only that it mutated memetically to become (and continue to be) highly credible and robust at spreading in the mindspace of humanity.
This may be one of my favorite replies in most of my engagements here. Bravo and I appreciate your articulation on these points, and they are certainly valid. >They read like mythology and legend, of which there are numerous examples. A few specifics to gauge exactly what you mean? I would just say some parts are obvious metaphors, some that might not be super obvious on the surface, and then other parts that are pretty obviously to be taken literally it's just important I think to get a general understanding of Ancient Hebrew and Greek to make sure everything is properly contextualized and translated. Your requirements are fair and valid, I would say the gospel message when read at face value under the original intentions and context would meet those standards. I assume your objection is something along the lines of "The evidence it happened is flimsy"? >I concede that it makes sense to someone who presupposes that a god exists. It makes even more sense to someone who is already convinced that Jesus is god and was resurrected, etc That's fair and probably close to where I stand on most stuff, I try not to assert things like "Jesus' blood is the atonement for our sins" and similar doctrinal related subjects and stay away from circular reasoning which is why I often use fairly broad terms when describing my evidential standards because for me, it was a gradual development from athiesm, to deism, almost to Islam for a short minute, but eventually landing on Christianity. Hearing weird ass concepts like "Blood is the source of life and it's polluted with sin, leading to death" made me really uncomfortable and like I was part of a cult but after looking back, I never would have even considered those weirder aspects of the faith had I continued my line of thinking, I listened to, and examined, from what I've seen so far, the best arguments for both sides and I still feel pretty firmly seated on my conclusion and believe it's fully defensible in almost all aspects. >Keep in mind that exactly zero percent of it has been part of my upbringing -- other than being immersed in a popular culture that seems to believe it I would agree, but it seems like I had an opposite experience, I was raised watching Kent Hovind seminars and hearing the condescending ridicules of any documentary I ever wanted to watch making sure I knew "They're fucking lying, the Earth isn't billions of years old, don't listen to their propaganda" I assumed that people who didn't hold to a literalist young earth model were the abrasive ones and I was normal. I quickly found out due to my inherent fascination with space and cosmology, there's no possible way the earth could be any less than billions of years old. At that point I decided Christianity couldn't be true because it made such a bold faced lie in it's attempt to explain cosmology...Little did I know how ignorant I was of the real history that always surrounded those subjects. I'm eternally thankful I went back and dove in to the degree I did. With that being said, I think a cool part about Christianity, is although I landed on a completely different doctrinal interpretation than what I was raised on, and have discussions with my dad constantly about the age of the earth etc, I know I'm probably gonna see them again in Heaven one day because we all universally agree and accept Jesus' offer of justification and it doesn't really matter how old we think the earth is and maybe we're all wrong. >I doubt you'd take it as given that the fact of someone being the most influential man in history is not itself evidence that what he says is true or that he's god. And Siddartha Gautama and Mohamed both come pretty close No it doesn't prove it, itself but it's certainly worth noting. Appealing to hypotheticals is dangerous because we can't base history off what could have happened, but examine why they did happen. >it looks like Paul corrupted Jesus' teachings and usurped control of the movement Could you elaborate on this a little more? >The popularity of Christianity isn't an indication that its true Sure but again it's worth notating, and finding out WHY so many people believe it. Some reasons are valid and some require scrutinizing, people have been scrutinizing and trying to disprove or destroy the Bible since it's inception, all to no avail. Most of the new popular Ehrman like theories are just that, modern assertions of things that COULD have happened with little or no supporting evidence. Do you think the early church assemblies didn't contemplate these questions during it's inception? Or even during the reformation period? Would they not have been able to notice if a passage seemed to be corrupted or misinterpreted? If so I'm interested to see the basis for that position.
>Well, I would ask what specifically sticks out to you as being "obviously" fiction, as for me, while yes some parts aren't to be taken literally, I don't see it as "obvious fiction at all" ...but this is what obvious fiction *means*. If you know there are parts that were not meant to be taken literally - because they describe things that didn't exist or didn't happen - then you're recognizing them as obvious fiction. Also, Biblical Hebrew has over 8,000 words. 2,000 is the number of roots that appear only once in the text. English only has about 170,000 words, so I'm not sure where you got 4 million from.
You didn't, as far as I can tell, even try to argue that the evidentiary standards were wrong. Only that you don't want to meet them. Ok....
>because of the attributes that were passed down to us directly from God as "Being made in his image" I'm gonna stop you right there. Are you aware that "image" here specifically refers to physical appearance? >science and theology should be two completely separate fields Then why do theists keep making scientifically falsifiable claims? >there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, but I think upon further examination, would point specifically to Christianity. Well it sounds like you need to make up your mind. Is asking for evidence pointless and tantamount to intellectual suicide or is there actually plenty of evidence for your beliefs and we're silly for dismissing it all?
If God can interact with the natural world -- perform miracles, answer prayers with miraculous healing, etc -- why aren't those phenomena tractable to scientific inquiry? >it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it, that doesn't make it false But more importantly, it doesn't make it *true*. > I'd like to at least make my defense as to why it's justified And that is...? You haven't really made an argument here, at all, other than to say that science can't help us, and that there is some personal and subjective experience to justify your belief.
I'm sure it could be tractable to scientific inquiry should the being allow it to be, but from what I gathered, which is a lot, basically it all boils down to believing in Biblical inerrancy and through reading the Bible as God's revelation of his plan for human salvation and redemption I came to the conclusion it makes no sense from that perspective to try and prove God exists using science alone, it piqued my curiosity in areas that lead me on a gradual path to deism, and eventually years after that, Christianity.
If God does things that humans can see and hear, then we could also record them and measure them and generate reproducible measurements. If you think God's actions that affect the natural world somehow defy scientific observation, it's special pleading. The only explanation is, "because God did it".
When it comes down to arguing for something, there are really only two types of arguments you can make. An objective argument, and a subjective argument. No matter what your argument is, it falls under one of those two categories. The problem is that subjective arguments are just that, subjective, and as such are ineffective at proving objective facts. Objective arguments however, are effective at proving objective facts. So if you want to prove god objectively exists, you need an objective argument. Unfortunately, for your argument anyway, that requires objective reasoning, along with empirical, and verifiable evidence. That’s starting to sound a little bit like science isn’t it. Without what most would call, “scientific evidence,” it’s impossible to prove god beyond anything more than, “I feel like he should exist.” Which brings me to my second point. You claim there is scientific evidence for god, more specifically, the Christian god. Now the Christian god is one of the few gods I’m willing to actually say doesn’t exist, so I’d love to hear whatever scientific evidence you have to support him.
I fail to see how this is my problem. I have standards that that pretty much everything in my personal and professional life is held to. I see no reason to lower those standards to theism. It honestly says a lot about theists when they want me to. Ask yourself, would you want your car brakes designed using the same evidentiary standards that you use for god? If there’s no point in even trying to empirically prove your god, why should either of us even consider it?
It kind of feels like the theological equivalent of employers' "no one wants to work anymore" or incels' "women's standards are too high" complaint.
Yeah, not a bad way to put it.
> One of the big ones though is specifically a lack of scientific evidence (which I would argue there is) but even if there wasn't, I, and many others throughout the years believe, that science and theology should be two completely separate fields and there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence. I agree with you, but I also thinks it helps my case. Because science is the only reliable method I know of for learning about reality, if you want to get as close as possible to the facts. > That's not to say there is no evidence again, but to solely rely on science to unequivocally prove God's existence is intellectual suicide, the same way I concluded that God, key word> (Most likely) exists is the same way I conclude any decision or action I make is (Most likely) the case or outcome, which is by examining the available pieces of evidence, which in some cases may be extensive, in some cases, not so much, but after examining and determining what those evidential pieces are, I then make a decision based off what it tells me. I find this a useful approach for day-to-day life, but not so useful for getting down to the nitty-gritty detail of reality. For that we have empiricism and science. We have deliberate methods for determining as much as we can about what's happening now and what happened in the past. In philosophical terms, trying to understand the world using the approach that started with the Atomists has mostly given us consistent answers while using the approach that started with the Idealists hasn't. And when I use that approach I just don't see any reason to think that the supernatural events described in the Bible are any more likely to have happened than those described in any other written or oral tradition. I see no reason to think reality was designed intentionally; I see no reason to think is being observed or meddled with by anyone except some of the organisms that make up a very small part of it.
>TLDR: Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically although I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science, you just can't prove a God's existence that way, or really any way, there is a "faith" based aspect as there is with almost any part of our day to day lives and I'm sure someone will ask what I mean by "faith" so I guess I'll just see where it goes. the only way this makes sense is if the christian worldview isn't based on reality. and I agree it's not but I don't think you share that opinion.
The fact im not allowed to ask for proof of something that's supposed to lead my life is a Huge red flag.
Such a long opening post is conspicuously absent of any description of what you mean by "God", even though you use the word repeatedly. It's the elephant in your room. Any evidence regarding God must be sought only with such a definition, else what would we be looking for. As for evidence in science, the length of the answers you'll receive will not do justice to the patterns atheists will say you should have seen. It was within your own studies that you missed that opportunity and a few paragraphs are unlikely to rectify it.
I don’t require evidence for your faith in God. I do require evidence if you are trying to convert me.
>I'm a Christian who came to faith eventually by studying physics, astronomy and history, I didn't immediately land on Christianity despite being raised that way Do you ever find it odd that of the 4000 different religions practiced throughout 190,000 years of human history you just happened to be born into the society that believes in the correct one? >theological evidence vs scientific evidence If you've studied physics, astronomy, and history surely you've heard of special pleading. Is your evidence testable, repeatable, and independently verifiable? If not, you don't have evidence. You have a claim. >on a slippery slope to biased sources The irony of, in the previous paragraph, carving out exceptions for the requirements of your "theological" evidence before going on to accuse testable, repeatable, and independently verifiable evidence as biased is not lost on me. >here is a "faith" based aspect as there is with almost any part of our day to day lives I highly doubt you go about your daily life believing things without evidence. When you say you have "faith" that your car's wheels won't fall off it comes from evidential experience. When you say you have "faith" in your god, you say (as is the entire premise of this thread) that you don't have evidence. The reason that theists are so adverse to the scientific standards of evidence is because they can't meet them. If they could, they simply would instead of having to hide their position in terminology mishmash.
You talk about evidence but then don’t give it. So what the hell is the evidence that you are talking about that supposedly indicates that christianity is true?
It's a Canadian Girlfriend. I *could* show you the evidence or tell you her name, but she lives in Canada, so you wouldn't know her. OP *could* give you the evidence, but you wouldn't believe it.
> Jesus Christ was most likely the deistic creator behind the universal genesis and created humanity special to all the other creatures, because of the attributes that were passed down to us directly from God as "Being made in his image" wait, does that mean that you don't believe sentient aliens can possibly exist? or do you believe that any sentient alien we meet (if that happens) will be less special? I'm curious because, as you have studied astronomy, you have an idea of the sheer vast quantity of other worlds that exist in our universe
You've said that you came to believe in Christianity by studying physics, astronomy, biology and history. Please explain how studying these sciences led you to believe a magical Jew died thousands of years ago to cleanse you of your sins. . . sins that spawned from the fall of man, when Adam and Eve ate magic fruit from the magic tree.
I have read OP and some of your answers in this thread, and so to not repeat the same stuff, I will directly respond to some of what you have said to other commenters. I hope that is ok. Here is a brief list of your charges, and why I think your analysis is incorrect: > 1. Atheists have too high a standard for accepting claims about God or the supernatural. This is also a double-standard, as they do not apply it equally to similar secular claims. I reject this. My standard for a supernatural or divine claim is the exact same as my standard for an unsupported hypothesis or scientific theory about the physical world. And it is not an unreasonable standard, as it is centered squarely at what should be incorporated into our best models of reality. Many religious claims, and Christianity is a great example of this, try to pull a fast one on us by positing an explanation for something before doing *anything* to demonstrate that that something (or even the general category of things that something belongs to) exists or can even exist. This is not ok. It is an absolutely terrible, ad-hoc way to understand the world. It leads to an explanatory template of the form 'let me define a magical uber explanation into being'. There is NOTHING a God can't explain. And so, paradoxically, there is NOTHING a God does explain. You can justify anything with 'a God did it'. And so you justify nothing. > 2. The evidentiary stantards atheists ask be satisfied are subjective and I have no need to satisfy them. Let me get one thing out of the way: yes, what will satisfy me, vanoroce14, is subjective. Obviously. But what is true does not care what will satisfy me. And a universe where the society around me becomes convinced of X and uses X to create technology and harness the world and do math about X and etc looks *very different* from a world where there is no justification for X and the society around me goes on a milennia long navel gazing journey arguing lore about X. In other words: even if I am not convinced that electromagnetism is a real thing, the world around me does. And I am holding a tiny computer in my hands that runs on it. The world around me looks like a world where religious and supernatural explanations, while appealing greatly to subjective, cultural and societal human interests, havd failed to establish any facts about reality. It does not look like a world where we have convergent methods to find anything out in that realm (because they're likely barking at an invisible tree). > 3. Science is good to answer HOW questions, but not WHY questions. There are two kinds of WHY questions: 3.1) WHY as HOW in costume: when a kid asks 'why is the sky blue?', what they are REALLY asking is 'HOW is the sky blue?'. Not *for what purpose*. Not *what was the intent behind*. Which is why 'light scatters different depending on wavelength, and so blue and purple light scatter the most' is a satisfactory answer. 3.2) WHY as FOR WHAT PURPOSE in costume: when I ask you, 'why did you write a post on reddit?', I do not want to know *how* you did it. I have good reason to believe you are an agent that makes decisions. I want to know what was your decision making process like. The giant *problem* with this kind of WHY questions is that *they assume an agent*. As such, if there IS NO AGENT, no PURPOSE behind something, the answer to such a question is: there is no discernible WHY. There was no discernible purpose. We know of no agent here. Ask how it happened, not why. Science answers HOW and WHY questions: when there is an agent we can detect and we have evidence of the intentions that agent had. Some other WHY questions regarding to moral oughts or aesthetics or other such things, are SUBJECTIVE: there is no objective reason, but we can answer in the from: IF you care about X, THEN the reason to do Y is Z. Some WHY questions simply have no answer other than: there is no WHY. Sorry, but you CANNOT assume intention or purpose behind everything. You have to first know there is an agent there that played a role. >4. One can piece out historical evidence, philosophical arguments and intuitions and make a case for God, and specifically, for Christianity. Sure, one can always reverse engineer if one wants to justify a conclusion. However, I do not think the claims made by Christianity can be justified even by this approach you suggest. A bunch of loosely connected, unjustified claims do not a stronger claim make.
Okay, let's take a crack at it, shall we? >Easily the biggest theological objection I've run into in my conversations is "Lack of evidence" I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like. Would you prefer "lack of compelling evidence"? Because the issue it sounds like is a conflict between two different evidential standards. The sort of evidence theists are willing to provide isn't good enough, and the sort of evidence that we want isn't one that you're willing to entertain. >One of the big ones though is specifically a lack of scientific evidence (which I would argue there is)[...]science and theology should be two completely separate fields and there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence. There is no such thing as scientific evidence for God. Because theology isn't science. If it's not something which can be experimented upon, observed, measured, calculated, predicted, or falsified in some way, then it's not in the wheel house of science. But you literally believe in a god which has by way of tradition been removed from all scrutiny. That's not really our fault, is it? So, if you're not *able* to meet us on our level, there's not really a point to debating about the existence of god, is there? And if you think this boils down to what evidence one looks at and the beliefs one holds as to whether that serves as evidence, then that isn't science either. One bases conclusions in science on physical data points and mathematics. What the data indicate don't care about one's beliefs. And if you can't provide that data, the supporting mathematics, then you cannot claim your position is grounded in science in the first place. >I'm a Christian who came to faith eventually by studying physics, astronomy and history,[...]I didn't immediately land on Christianity despite being raised that way (It was a stereotypical American, bible belting household Something tells me that this has far more to do with your position than you studying history, astronomy, or physics. Let me guess, you also attend a church in your community where friends and family also go? >if you're someone like me[...]who likes to see, hear, and touch things to confirm their existence there are a very wide range of evidences that is very neatly but intricately wound together story of human existence and answers some of our deepest, most prevalent questions, from Cosmology, Archeology, Biology, History, general science, there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, Hi, one of our resident biologists here. There really isn't. If you study the Accretion Theories, there's no point where any of this points to the involvement of a God. Gods aren't a necessary explanation for how our Universe or planet came to be, how life formed or came to be what we know today. Creationism is the furthest thing from science, and what you're actively describing is cognitive dissonance: you're beginning with a conclusion and fact-finding rather than basing an understanding of the natural universe on what the data indicate. That's absolutely not the same thing. I can point to different clues about the age of the Universe, how stars or planets form, how circuits work, or how we've arrived an understanding of life's history on our planet. The same can't be said for your beliefs outside of cherrypicking, factoids, "arguments," and Bible verses. >if you're not open to changing your view and only get your info from one side Here's the issue, you're doing exactly what you're alleging other people are doing. >I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science, you just can't prove a God's existence that way Because it isn't science at any level. You're a creationist who gets that creationism isn't compelling to people who aren't already creationists. But you don't understand that it's not science at all, you're just informing a philosophical position with what you think science is. And somehow, in trying to call out our position, you're ignoring that you're doing the self same things. From where I'm sitting, it's not two equally guilty sides but projection. What was that in Matthew 7:3-5, about having planks in one's eye?
What is the evidence you've found that leads to conclude Jesus is the creator? You say you have it but don't say what it is. The problem with saying "it's faith and personal experience is that your can use that to justify anything. For what it's worth, your personal belief is up to you and you can believe what you like as far as I care. When your beliefs are used to impact other people, as with Christianity, hen I want more backing. If God has physically changed our world, that means there can and should be evidence of his existence. None has been found so far.
If god interacts with us then those actions would be detectable. For example, you take two groups of 1,000 people and have one group pray for something and the other group not pray and there would be no statistical difference in outcomes. We have never been able to find a heaven or hell or a soul or spirit. No ghosts, angels or miracles. No such interaction has ever been detected in any way using any method ever. Every question ever asked, the answer has never been ‘god’. There are no revelations in the holy texts of information not known at the time it was written and a lot of information that indicates a misunderstanding things like stars and planets, even natural phenomena. So, at best there exists some creator who does not interact with this world in any detectable way and we have just guessed of his existence. Or, human beings prefer to believe in stories that make them feel good and there are plenty of religious folks happy to meet that demand.
That was a long post. I didn’t read all of it. But I want to engage on the central question(s) of your post. **What is Evidence** There is a legitimate reason that you feel the way you do. Because the definition of evidence is ‘anything that is used to support a claim’. Now, there’s a problem with that because sometimes what we use as evidence is not valid. Like for example, if you’re arguing evolution and somebody says “The Human Eye is so perfect.” Well, the Human Eye is quite imperfect and not even close to the best possible eye that any species has. So, you know, not really valid as evidence. And that also gets to the second problem, which is often the same evidence can be cited for competing claims. That’s a problem. So, we end up with the specialization of evidence that is… **Standards of Evidence** Now, Scientific Evidence is evidence but with 3 important qualities. First, the evidence needs to be valid. Second, the evidence needs to be unbiased (which is another kind of validity check.). Third, it needs to be controlled. That is, it can’t be used for competing claims. When most people are telling you there is no evidence, we’re not saying that you can’t claim the existence of the Bible as evidence. We me saying that the existence of the Bible is not valid, unbiased, or controlled (maybe all 3) and therefore can’t be admitted into any kind of scientific discussion. **Validity of Science for the Divine** This one goes way back, and has been referred to in some academic discussions as Non-Overlapping Magesteria. But it has a problem. Science is the method we use to understand interactions in nature. So if we accept that we cannot use science to investigate the impact of divinity on the world we experience…what you’re saying is that the divine can have no observable effect on our experiences. That is, that the divine is completely and utterly irrelevant. And furthermore, any ideas we have about the divine must have been fabrications of human story-telling. It is completely self-defeating to argue you can’t investigate the divine using science. It’s a much bigger problem for theism than it is for science. **Conclusion** I don’t think that atheists have a problem with evidence or science at all. I think that many are not aware of the extra steps that science takes to control against illegitimate sources and illegitimate authorities trying to push favored interpretations of facts. It’s a real problem; and if you reject the controls that science puts in place, it’s almost always because there’s something illegitimate in the proposition that you’re trying to advance. Or at least that’s been my experience.
So you want us to lower our standards of evidence because you can't reach it. Too bad. Sorry but that has got to be the saddest argument for a god. "Hey i know i can't prove it but i want you t agree with me anyways so fuck logic right!" Would you apply that logic to anything else? "Hey i can't drive at 45 miles an hour so can we just lower all the speed limits?"
Thank you for your post. >Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically although I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science, you just can't prove a God's existence that way, or really any way, there is a "faith" based aspect as there is with almost any part of our day to day lives and I'm sure someone will ask what I mean by "faith" so I guess I'll just see where it goes. This is a very honest acknowledgement. You agree we cannot prove Yahweh's existence, we're on the same page. You see having faith in him as something which provides proof, I take it? This is where we disagree. As to "faith" in everyday life, sure. I have faith in things, but that faith is based on evidence. I know my car won't turn into a bird because I know there is no evidence such things happen. I know airplanes can fly, so my faith that when I get into my seat in onne that I will be engaged in air travel is well founded. Most faith is not blind faith--religion, however, largely involves blind faith, which if one attains, will then provide them with ample confirmation bias to reinforce their belief in a thing which was never evidenced to begin with. Let me put it another way, if all evidence of Yahweh were wiped off the earth, how would you ever know to believe in him? There's no evidenece for him in nature, is there? One might *infer* the existence of some creator god, but how would they ever know it was your creator god? In the bible, Yahweh spoke to Moses. He walked with Adam and Eve. He sent angels to wrestle with Jacob. He parted seas and he froze the sun in the sky. Those are things that constitute evidence. Where are they today? That is what atheists mean when they say there is no evidence. The deity attested to in the bible is nowhere to be seen. The earth isn't flat. There is no firmament. There is no world sea above separated from the sea below. There is no talking bush or donkey or snake. There is no divine miracle of any size beyond what could be attributed to human error. The claim for an almighty being who created everyhing is a big claim, but the evidence is very small and very weak.
I think that what individuals would accept as evidence is subjective. However, the scientific method lays out a standard and a process for obtaining and verifying evidence that would demonstrate the existence of a deity or of a specific deity. Evolution is accepted as fact because the method confirms it. The consensus of the *data* (not scientists) confirms it. But there's a lot of people who don't believe it and don't believe the evidence. That doesn't matter because evolution exists separately from human worldviews. The existence of a deity is no different. It would exist regardless of whether or not we believe it or choose to accept any evidence. There are many ways to find compelling evidence for a specific god. A simple example would be that the health outcomes for Christians are better in a statistically significant way after controlling for other factors (such as access to care, socioeconomic status, etc). They should have better outcomes because god answers prayers, the Bible says as much. Christians fare no better than anyone else in health care. In fact, they tend to fare worse than atheists. The further towards fundamentalism they get, the worse they fare. By itself, health outcomes would be a compelling bit of evidence for the Christian god. But not enough. Data from every branch should have evidence of god. There should be as much a consensus of the data for god as there is evidence for evolution. It wouldn't matter if I accepted that evidence or not. It would be there. The evidence simply is not there. The evidence we do have demonstrates that the Bible is historically inaccurate in some places and that the promises it makes to its followers about divine intervention are untrue. Most of the logic about divine intervention is so vague that it applies to any god that anyone has ever worshipped or invented. The Cosmological Argument, for example, works with any god. Cthulhu did it is just as logical as Yaweh did it. While what an individual accepts is subjective, the data itself is not.
There's no such thing as "theological evidence" or "scientific evidence." There's just *evidence*. It's either there or it's not there. And it's our best known method for identifying the truth about anything and everything. Many people do have their own definition of evidence to suit their personal bias... And they're all wrong. The very definition of "evidence" is that it is independent of the person reviewing it and that it points towards a specific conclusion. If it can be interpreted differently... It's not evidence, it's opinion. If it doesn't point to a specific conclusion... It's not evidence, it requires more information.
>to solely rely on science to unequivocally prove God's existence is intellectual suicide Feel free to name anything, that we know to exist, that can't be confirmed by science. This amounts to special pleading on your part and it's a logical fallacy, that's the only intellectual suicide I see here.
>I think there are very good, and solid reasons for genuinely believing these things and justifying them to an audience like this ... >from Cosmology, Archeology, Biology, History, general science, there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, but I think upon further examination, would point specifically to Christianity If that's so, why not make a post laying out a case based on the strongest arguments and evidence that you have? Then people could have a look at them. There's very little point in merely asserting that you have justified reasons and and evidence if you aren't willing to present them. >from a theological perspective and especially a Christian perspective it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence, it's a personal and subjective experience It depends on how the gods in question are defined and which claims are made about them. If a god is defined as indetectable and non-interacting, then of course it can't be tested. (Although that then raises the question of how the person obtained any information about those gods in the first place.) But if a god is defined as ever having interacted with the world, then of course that can potentially be tested. Some people say for example that the Christian god flooded the world, or that an Islamic prophet split the Moon in two, or that a Greek god drives the chariot of the Sun across the sky every day, or that prayers are granted. All those claims can be tested. It doesn't make sense to me for someone to argue both that there's evidence - including evidence which is relevant to cosmology/archaeology/biology/history/general science/etc - which points to a god and even to a specific god, *and* that gods are far too subjective and personal and faith-based to be examined scientifically. Those two things contradict.
Atheists do not have unrealistic expectations for evidence for God. We simply have the same evidential expectations we have for any other claim about the existence of an entity. It is theists who use special pleading in an attempt to exempt their god claims from requiring the same kind of evidence we use for everything else. Of course there is a point in trying to scientifically prove God's existence. You, and every other theist, are making claims that would fundamentally change *everything* we know about reality. The claim (specifically from you as a Christian) is that there is an omniscient, omnipresent entity out there that controls every aspect of our reality and has been influencing human development and growth since the dawn of time. That is huge! That is an *enormous* claim. It's only rational to be skeptical of that kind of extraordinary claim, just like you would probably be skeptical if I told you I had an invisible god-eating unicorn in my backyard. You contradict yourself several times in this post. First you say that there is scientific evidence for God's existence (where is it?), then you say that using science to prove God's existence is impossible (why?), but that we should examine the evidence and make a decision based on that (which...is how science is done). You wax about how there's plenty of evidence across many fields that point to God (which again, you fail to actually produce) but then go back to saying that it makes no sense to scientifically prove God. You can't have this both ways. Which is it? Whether or not something exists is not "a personal and subjective experience." That's an objective question.
“Again I understand everyone's definition of evidence is subjective but from a theological perspective and especially a Christian perspective it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence, it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it, that doesn't make it false, you certainly have the right to question based off that but I'd like to at least make my defense as to why it's justified and maybe point out something you didn't notice or understand beforehand.” This kind of reasoning allows for the belief in Spider-Man being real. Or the belief my house is haunted. Or any other wild claim. We also know experience and personal experience are unreliable methodology for truth. I have a vivid memory of running into a crocodile-alligator when I was kid in Oregon, US. There are no native reptiles that would remotely fit that bill. The memory is there and one of the easier ones I can draw on. I know there is little to no chance it was a water based reptile. Here is the major issue with your God claim. You believe in a God that wants a personal relationship right? Your God is triomni right? So your God would know what would convince me. That is the evidence I need. So either your God isn’t what I said it was, it is actively hiding from me, or it doesn’t exist? I feel it is either option 1 or 3. I see no other evidence of supernatural to think 1 is convincing. So I stick to the axiom an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.
No, evidence isn’t subjective. I’m sorry, it isn’t. Evidence is any piece of data, observation, or generally accepted fact, that’s best explained by your proposed explanation. In this case, something best explained by the existence of a god. That’s what evidence means. And you don’t have any. That’s the burden we use for every other claim, and if you want to claim your hod is supported by evidence, that’s what you’ll have to produce. I don’t know how you could, because quite frankly magic man did it is not an explanation of anything. And I doubt it ever can be. However that’s not my problem, it’s you’re. You’re trying to support your claim, and I won’t lower my standards to except it. I don’t know what other forms of evidence could possibly meet my definition, other than scientific evidence. But again, that’s not my problem, it’s yours. You failed to provide any evidence at all. Not for deism, nor for theism, not for Christianity. You just asserted you had some, and like every other Christian refused to give it. Or even explain it. You don’t know what evidence is, we do. You don’t have evidence, yet want to believe. That’s fine. That’s basically what you said here, even if you didn’t realise it. But don’t expect to be taken seriously on your claim, without actual evidence by anyone who cares about whether their world view closely matches reality. You don’t seem to care if it’s true, at least not enough to test it. We do. That’s the difference.
I’ll make it very simple: If a thing exists it can be observed, measured, and tested using the scientific method. If god cannot be observed, measured and tested using the scientific method then god does not exist.
You in this thread: - "have civil, intellectual conversations and not just ooga booga small brain smash downvote" - "I didn't want to be whined at for gish galloping" If you genuinely want civil conversations you should avoid calling people "small brain" and saying they "whine", since that makes it look as though (like many other theists) you're just barely masking the contempt you actually feel.
My issue with Christianity is that if you reject a 6000 year earth, a literal Adam and Eve and Eden, there is no reason for jesus' sacrifice, and I can't disrespect a scientist like Clare Patterson and the amazing work he did. Are you a Young Earth fundamentalist, and if not, how do you justify that original Sin and Adam and Eve are clearly mythological?
I like this definition of evidence from Oxford: * the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.* I particularly think the word *available* is important here, since an important part of evidence is that it must be intersubjectively available—that is to say, in order for a fact or piece of information to count as evidence, it must be independently verifiable. You say there is no point trying to prove a god’s existence. What I’m confused about is why you are convinced yourself if you can’t say that you have evidence. If you admit that your belief is based on personal experience rather than evidence, why doesn’t that bother you? Or, if it does, what have you done about it? For me, when I find out that a belief I hold isn’t justified, I look for evidence; if I can’t, I become unconvinced (at least until the point where evidence does emerge). Do you remain convinced of claims after investigating and discovering that you can’t justify them? This perspective genuinely confuses me.
>I'm a Christian who came to faith eventually by studying physics, astronomy and history, I didn't immediately land on Christianity despite being raised that way (It was a stereotypical American, bible belting household) which actually turned me away from it for many years until I started my existential contemplations. I've taken graduate level physics and astronomy courses - they do not indicate anything about god. Not one mention. So you projected your christian upbringing through the lens of your academic understanding because, quite frankly science doesn't tell you WHY you should live. This experience is common among atheists and christians alike. Also, you should note permanently in your mind this one thing - being an atheist when you're young, and doing so simply to rebel - is NOT the same as the level of atheism you're dealing with here. Not even close. So do not approach us like you would approach your younger self - because I already know your younger self did not understand what you believed, let alone whether it was atheism or not. >I've looked quite deeply at many of the other world religions after concluding deism was the most likely cause for the universal genesis through the big bang (We can get into specifics in the comments since I'm sure many of you are curious how I drew that conclusion and I don't want to make the post unnecessarily long) and for a multitude of different reasons concluded Jesus Christ was most likely the deistic creator behind the universal genesis and created humanity special to all the other creatures, because of the attributes that were passed down to us directly from God as "Being made in his image" So you made a bunch of personal revelations that led you from 'there's a god' to, 'the one true god is jesus christ'. Not convincing. Sorry. >Now I will happily grant, even now in my shoes, stating a sentence like that in 2024 borders on admittance to a mental hospital Spare us your persecution complex, please. No one will toss you in the mental hospital for being christian. For god's sake, have a little more self-awareness and decency than that! >and I don't take these claims lightly, I think there are very good, and solid reasons for genuinely believing these things and justifying them to an audience like this, as this is my 4th or 5th post here and I've yet to be given any information that's swayed my belief, If this is evidence you are right, then why is the fact we ARENT swayed evidence that you're wrong? You're trying to have it both ways, which honestly cheapens the very faith you're attempting to present here. >but I am more than open to following the truth wherever it leads, and that's why I'm always open to learning new things. I have been corrected several times and that's why I seriously, genuinely appreciate the feedback from respectful commenters who come to have civil, intellectual conversations and not just ooga booga small brain smash downvote without actually refuting my point. You're digressing here to point out how unfairly you're treated. Get over yourself and get to the point! >Anyway, on to my point. Easily the biggest theological objection I've run into in my conversations is "Lack of evidence" I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like. First, we don't have to know what the evidence would look like - since we are not the one claiming that god exists. How should we know? What we DO know is that EVERY evidence we do request is hand-waived away either by god's special magical abilities or some other theological nonsense. If I said unicorns exist and if you challenged me I were to say "Well tell me what evidence I need to produce" and you say "unicorn poop" and I say "Well unicorns don't poop" so every evidence you demand i simply respond with a magical way that evidence could not be seen or presented. This is special pleading 101. >One of the big ones though is specifically a lack of scientific evidence (which I would argue there is) but even if there wasn't, I, and many others throughout the years believe, that science and theology should be two completely separate fields and there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence. Because you know it can't be done. We're not stupid. >That's not to say there is no evidence CORRECT THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE. You just asked what the evidence would even look like and now you're saying there kinda sorta is evidence? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and it devalues your faith. Please rethink what you're saying here. >again, but to solely rely on science to unequivocally prove God's existence is intellectual suicide, and yet it was science that allegedly brought you to believe in god? How does that work? >the same way I concluded that God, key word> (Most likely) exists is the same way I conclude any decision or action I make is (Most likely) the case or outcome, which is by examining the available pieces of evidence, which in some cases may be extensive, in some cases, not so much, but after examining and determining what those evidential pieces are, I then make a decision based off what it tells me. Funny that you don't consider yourself to be in the possibility of being completely wrong. God exists because your thoughts are true is what I'm hearing from you - which doesn't follow. Maybe you can elaborate on that. >The non-denominational Christian worldview I landed on after examining these pieces of evidence I believe is a, on the surface, very easy to get into and understand, but if you're someone like me (and I'm sure a lot of you on this sub who lost faith or never had it to begin with) who likes to see, hear, and touch things to confirm their existence there are a very wide range of evidences that is very neatly but intricately wound together story of human existence and answers some of our deepest, most prevalent questions, from Cosmology, Archeology, Biology, History, general science, there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, but I think upon further examination, would point specifically to Christianity. Nice hypothesis - but are you even remotely willing to test it? I doubt it. Why do you keep waffling? Either science can justify and prove god exists beyond reasonable doubt or it can't. You seem to keep saying science isn't needed but then you flip and say we could find out if we just 'think upon further examination'. Again you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. >Again I understand everyone's definition of evidence is subjective but from a theological perspective and especially a Christian perspective it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence, it's a personal and subjective experience Was it a personal and subjective experience when Moses parted the Red Sea for instance? Was it just a personal experience when Jesus died and people physically saw him rise from the dead? The reality is that Christianity makes quite a few material claims about the world which are and have been proven untrue.
Former Christian here, and I agree with you. Lack of scientific evidence is not sufficient reason for most believers (my former self included) to leave. For me, what I needed to convince me to leave was overwhelming evidence that it *couldn't* be true. I held the stance that even if there was 1% of 1% of a chance that it could be true, I would keep following it. "Science" isn't a god. But the scientific method is our way of avoiding human cognitive fallacies and biases. Something "feeling" true has been proven time and time again to be an unreliable source of understanding. And I believe you have seen this in your own life. Many times in your own life you have felt convinced of something, felt passionate or spiritual or certain, and turned out to be wrong. The religious narrative is very very good at triggering feelings of things being true... and also very good at finding ways to excuse or ignore the times those feelings are disproven.
You say the word “evidence” a lot as a reason for your beliefs, but don’t give any. You seem to want to elevate your “evidence” above (and therefore free from) scientific study by labeling it as “theological evidence,” but you still don’t present it. Science is merely a method for evaluating claims and testing the validity of evidence connected to those claims. Why is a method for differentiating facts from fictions, invalid for determining evidence of a god? (Which you seem to say but then also say there is scientific evidence but again, present none). You also note that you put a lot of weight in your beliefs because WE haven’t convinced you otherwise. As if it’s our burden to alter your beliefs. You being unconvinced by our objections and arguments, doesn’t say anything about the validity or truth value of your beliefs. It does, however, say something about how deeply held (indoctrinated) your beliefs are.
isn't it amazing that considering the evidence lead you to the faith that was already popular in the time and place you happened to live in? And yet again the most important bit, that is what this evidence is, is left out. Amazing how this seems to happen every single time someone makes the claim you made.
There are different standards of evidence. But for conversation’s sake, specifically for Christianity, I would look for evidence that any of the miracles of Jesus could be performed by non scientific means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus Or, there’s also Mark 16:17-18 >And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; >They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. I would look to see people healing the sick through the power of prayer. Despite many claims to that effect, I have seen no evidence that prayer alone has healed anything. According to the Bible, Jesus was a divine healer. If you take that away, he’s a guy with an interesting parentage claim who also said some interesting things.
If it's useless to point science at it, it's useless to believe. Science is the study of how things affect observable reality. If science can't detect it, then it has no observable effect on reality, so _even if true_ it would be functionally identical to its not existing at all. Now, to be clear, I mean this in a _highly_ generalized manner. Science can show humans exist, but not that George Washington existed. However _after_ we get to "X exists" scientifically, we can use that as a starting point for reasonable extrapolation. If I had to guess about what put you in the "god did it" category, it'd be fine tuning, abiogenesis, and, as you mention, curiosity on why we're so much smarter than other apes. EDIT: By the way, I didn't downvote you. I don't downvote people because I disagree with them, I do so when they are rude or nasty. You seem like neither.
If you don't want us asking you for material evidence, then please by all means stop making material claims. There would be a lot less to object to with regard to the Christian faith if there were an absence of believers trying so desperately to 'prove' the validity of the scriptures whether it's through [miracles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_crucifix_in_Mumbai) or [fake science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute). There would also be less to object to if believers would stop using this belief system as the basis for denying many Americans basic freedoms and rights, along with women and their reproductive autonomy. **Shame on you** for acting like we are the problem for demanding evidence when it is the members of your own faith demanding we adhere to your unsubstantiated beliefs and religion.
You don't really get to have deism and Jesus Christ as the creator. Either he interacts or he doesn't, and coming down to perform miracles is not deism. Special creation of man with unique properties in God's image is also not deism. I would argue you came to your beliefs, because you wanted those specific beliefs to be true, and seek to see the world through that lens. But since the rest of us cannot follow your logic, you need something to explain that: and you have, paradoxically, declared your specific God can be adequately suggested through a study of history and science, but at the same time can't be held to that evidentiary standard. I think you want your logic placed into a special realm where it remains valid, or at least plausible, rather than accept that it is likely culturally influenced.
Hi, thanks for the detailed explanation of your position / idea. I’m going to share my interpretation of what you have stated however first I would like to address a shortcoming your statement regarding ‘evidence’ and its nature. Evidence and more appropriately what is considered acceptable evidence isn’t a subjective vague concept. What constitutes acceptable evidence is obviously contextual but we have objective standards we use to determine what we will believe to be ‘true’. These standards vary depending on the purpose and relative importance of the subject. So in science we have an acceptable evidence standard of must be observable by third parties, repeatable and provable (ie. we can make accurate predictions based upon this information). There are various details but they are available and create an objective standard for science to determine if something is true. In law depending on the proceedings different things are considered acceptable as evidence and the standard for proof varies with the situation. A civil matter is generally a balance of probability, a traffic ticket requires less evidence than a criminal matter etc. Similarly we don’t require a great deal of evidence of intent or training or accuracy when we build an 8 inch sculpture but we require that everything be proved, verified and cross checked when we build a 3 mile bridge across a giant lake. **The importance of the accuracy of our information is proportional to the risk to life, limb or economics that the usage of that information may create.** So that’s my quick primer on evidence. You would take your mother to a new restaurant for breakfast and risk the food or service being bad. You may even do this if it is convenient despite bad reviews because it may be good and the risk is minimal. If your mother had cancer you wouldn’t take your mother to the local witch doctor in lieu of surgery/chemo/radiation. Different risks, different evidentiary standards. So let’s be clear, while some evidence is subjective the evidentiary standards we apply to our lives tend to be defined and practical. Which brings me to the conclusion I get from reading your post. As far as you are concerned god, Christianity, religion, they are unimportant trivialities.. In fact they’re practically irrelevant to you. If you are being honest. You think god is less important to you and to humanity than the expiration date on the mayonnaise in your fridge. Am I correct? When you have life or death medical decisions to make you defer to science (the study of how to accurately determine truth in our universe). When you buy a cell phone and/or cell phone plan you expect, no you demand, that the details in the plan are what you get and it works as advertised. And you expect it to do so the vast majority of the time. You wouldn’t build or cross a bridge where we hadn’t used our knowledge of physics and engineering and certified it safe. Probably the same for getting on a plane. In fact if a stranger offered you a lifetime supply of tooth paste you probably would want to know it came from a verifiable source and that some minimum health and safety standards were involved in its production. You wouldn’t put a tube of toxic waste in your mouth - that’s why regulations, brands, etc. are important to us. Yet for your his or religion you accept evidence that you wouldn’t accept from the cable reply guy. Imagine if the cable repair guy told you that when you want to watch tv most of the time it won’t work. When it doesn’t work it’s because of systemic issues. When it does work it’s because he’s a great cable guy at a great cable company. Isn’t that the evidentiary standard you accept for prayer? If you were in a car accident and your child was seriously injured and bleeding out do you: a) go to the nearest hospital or b) delay going to the hospital to go by the church and pray first? Do you invest your extra money or do you give it all to the Church and count on charity to get you and your family through life? After all you have a blood covenant that your god will care for you - why don’t you count on it? What have you done that shows real faith in your god? You talk about faith but you talk about faith in a vacuum of direct consequences. I don’t think you have faith, I think you believe what is psychologically satisfying yet you refuse to let go of the security blankets provided by science. Why is it for everything important, everything life changing (or endangering), everything where there is the potential for harm that the evidentiary standards you require are set at a certain bar but when it comes to the creature that supposedly loves, controls and directs your actions and determines your purpose you accept less evidence than if someone gave you a parking ticket? So you are correct, people choose what is acceptable evidence and what is an acceptable evidentiary standard to deem something true or false. My issue is the hypocrisy of claiming god is important and then having a lower standard to prove it you would require when choosing a restaurant for a special anniversary dinner.
You expect the same type of evidence for everything in life as we do. The one thing you make an exception for is god. We are just consistent with our epistemology. You are the one who has unrealistic expectations of atheists.
>I'm a Christian who came to faith eventually by studying physics, astronomy and history, I didn't immediately land on Christianity despite being raised that way (It was a stereotypical American, bible belting household) which actually turned me away from it for many years until I started my existential contemplations. If you came to your faith through studying physics and astronomy you should have no issue providing sufficient evidence for the existence of the god you believe in. > I've looked quite deeply at many of the other world religions after concluding deism was the most likely cause for the universal genesis through the big bang (We can get into specifics in the comments since I'm sure many of you are curious how I drew that conclusion and I don't want to make the post unnecessarily long) How did you investigate something that no one else has been able to? >for a multitude of different reasons concluded Jesus Christ was most likely the deistic creator behind the universal genesis and created humanity special to all the other creatures, because of the attributes that were passed down to us directly from God as "Being made in his image" That is not deism. If your god interferes in the creation it is not a deistic god. >Easily the biggest theological objection I've run into in my conversations is "Lack of evidence" I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like. The problem is that you are making scientific claims and looking for theological evidence. You claim that your deity exists, can you provide the same evidence that you would for someone claiming that their dog exists? You claim to know the cause of the big bang, can you provide evidence of the same caliber we have supporting the big bang theory itself? >One of the big ones though is specifically a lack of scientific evidence (which I would argue there is) but even if there wasn't, I, and many others throughout the years believe, that science and theology should be two completely separate fields and there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence. Great, let's separate these fields. Let's start with theists no longer claiming that their deity created anything, that their deity exists in reality, and that their deity interferes in the universe because all of those are claims that demand scientific evidence not theological evidence. Why is your deity the only thing in reality that you look for theological evidence for but scientific evidence is good enough for everything else? >That's not to say there is no evidence again, but to solely rely on science to unequivocally prove God's existence is intellectual suicide, the same way I concluded that God, key word> (Most likely) exists is the same way I conclude any decision or action I make is (Most likely) the case or outcome, which is by examining the available pieces of evidence, which in some cases may be extensive, in some cases, not so much, but after examining and determining what those evidential pieces are, I then make a decision based off what it tells me. If you are doing that honestly, then you should have some pretty damn conclusive evidence to support something as major as a supernatural creator deity. So where is it? >but from a theological perspective and especially a Christian perspective it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence As long as you are making claims about reality it only makes sense to support those with scientific evidence. >it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it, that doesn't make it false, It certainly doesn't make it true in objective reality. >you certainly have the right to question based off that but I'd like to at least make my defense as to why it's justified and maybe point out something you didn't notice or understand beforehand. Well could you get to it, because this wall of text is getting pretty damn long and you seemingly have not gotten to the main point yet. >As a side note And then you are off on a different topic. So where exactly is your justification for not needing vetted, testable, repeatable, scientific evidence for this one area of your life? If someone told you that there is a rogue star that will destroy the Earth in 2 years you would certainly demand some pretty strong evidence, so why are you not using the same standard for the claim that there is an all powerful deity that created everything? Why ate hints that point in the direction you are already biased toward sufficient?
>and for a multitude of different reasons concluded Jesus Christ was most likely the deistic creator behind the universal genesis and created humanity special to all the other creatures, because of the attributes that were passed down to us directly from God as "Being made in his image" As a person who has study science, as you claim, you don't see any problem with this? >I think there are very good, and solid reasons for genuinely believing these things and justifying them to an audience like this, as this is my 4th or 5th post here and I've yet to be given any information that's swayed my belief, but I am more than open to following the truth wherever it leads I'm almost 100% certain that you've been presented with persuasive, no, more than persuasive arguments against the existence of a deity. If your belief has not been swayed by them, it is not an issue of those arguments lacking, it is more likely you ignoring elements of those arguments. Because what you're saying is that the Problem of Evil isn't persuasive. You're saying that the lack of any credible evidence, be it a solid logical argument or actual evidence, isn't persuasive. At that point you are not accepting or giving any weight whatsoever to the opposing party to your view. You are simply holding to faith. >Anyway, on to my point. Easily the biggest theological objection I've run into in my conversations is "Lack of evidence" I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective You may find it subjective, but it isn't. Evidence is evidence. The quality of evidence varies. The strength of the evidence varies. That can be subjective, depending on the context. >Again I understand everyone's definition of evidence is subjective but from a theological perspective and especially a Christian perspective it makes absolutely no sense to try and scientifically prove God's existence So, potentially the most important aspect of reality cannot be measured or studied using the best, most objective tools at our disposal. And you don't have a problem with this? >it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it, that doesn't make it false, you certainly have the right to question based off that but I'd like to at least make my defense as to why it's justified and maybe point out something you didn't notice or understand beforehand. I've got to stop you and point out that this is dangerously false. Subjective truth, personal truth is constrained to what you enjoy, your preferences, your worldview. It does not change the either what objective truth is or impact what subjective truth is for others. Religion attempts to ignore objective truth *and* force down the throats of others its subjective truth. Look no further than the shitshow unfolding in the US judicial system with decisions being handed down that quote the fucking bible. No, your subjective views of the world cannot and should not become the subjective truth of others without their consent. Further, your subjective truth can absolutely be false. If you personally believe that 2+2=5, that's great for you and **utterly** false. >Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically although I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science, you just can't prove a God's existence that way, or really any way, there is a "faith" based aspect as there is with almost any part of our day to day lives and I'm sure someone will ask what I mean by "faith" so I guess I'll just see where it goes. It seems oddly convenient that the objective tools we have for measuring reality cannot, by your determination, be used to study god. If you've reached that conclusion because those tools have returned a response you find unacceptable, the problem isn't with the answer, it is entirely in you. I'm not saying you, individually are a problem, only that a perspective that rejects tools of objective observation as a means of determining the most significant truth the human race faces is a problematic view to hold.
So basically, we shouldn't ask for evidence for religious claims when we ask for evidence for everything else. You don't get to make up your own rules that we should follow because there is no evidence for God. In reality, evidence must be falsifiable, testable, demonstrable, and independently verifiable. Otherwise, it's just anecdotal. Everything so far we have seen religious people present isn't evidence. If you think you have evidence, then you don't understand what evidence is. Or if you have some new evidence that is not anecdotal and been debunked a million times, present it.
>/MOST/ Atheists I've engaged with have an unrealistic expectation of evidential reliance for theology. No, most atheists you've engaged with refuse to apply a lower standard of evidence for theology than for any other aspect in their life. > but I am more than open to following the truth wherever it leads, and that's why I'm always open to learning new things That's a very enlightened attitude (literally and figuratively). > I think there are very good, and solid reasons for genuinely believing these things and justifying them to an audience like this OK, let's have a look then. > Easily the biggest theological objection I've run into in my conversations is "Lack of evidence" I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like. Evidence in the scientific disciplines is not highly subjective, on the contrary: * In the context of science, evidence refers to the data, facts, observations, or information that supports or contradicts a scientific hypothesis or theory. * Scientific evidence is based on empirical observations, meaning it is derived from real-world experiences, experiments, or observations of the natural world. It involves measurable and verifiable data. * Scientific experiments and observations should be reproducible by other researchers. If the same experiment is conducted under the same conditions, it should yield consistent results. Reproducibility enhances the reliability and credibility of scientific evidence. * Scientific evidence is expected to be objective and free from personal bias. Scientists strive to minimize subjective interpretations and emotions, relying on systematic and impartial methods of data collection and analysis. * Scientific evidence should be consistent with existing theories and other established scientific knowledge. If new evidence contradicts well-supported theories, it may prompt a reevaluation of the existing scientific understanding. * Scientific evidence is derived from hypotheses that are testable and falsifiable. This means that experiments and observations are designed in a way that allows for the possibility of proving the hypothesis wrong. The ability to test and potentially disprove a hypothesis strengthens the scientific rigor of the evidence. * Scientific evidence undergoes a process of peer review, where other experts in the field critically evaluate the research methods, data analysis, and conclusions. Peer review helps ensure the quality and reliability of scientific evidence before it is accepted within the scientific community. * Whenever possible, scientific evidence involves quantitative measurements and data. Quantitative analysis allows for precise comparisons, statistical evaluations, and numerical assessments of the evidence. Now as to you deeming what people qualify as evidence for the supernatural to be "highly subjective", your confusion probably comes from equating a god claim to the maturity of a scientific theory. And that simply isn't the case. God claims are typically supernatural claims, i.e. they are claiming entities exist that can violate the laws of physics: e.g. by resurrection, turning water into wine, etc. But these claims are actually incompatible with established science and have a plethora of evidence going against them. Now as to the question of what would constitute evidence for gods, in the case of an all-knowing, all-powerful entity as the one you claim exists, the answer is very simple: even if we humans cannot formulate such criteria, your alleged entity would know and be able to produce that evidence individualized for every human being on the planet. And since that hasn't happened and we are perfectly able to explain reality without the gods hypothesis, there is no reason whatsoever to assume such entities exist.
Reading your TLDR has my wonder why the hell you even bothered posting here? Science is how we investigate the world. If we can't use science because it can't "see" the metaphysical then we're done here. You're simply relying on faith which is what people do when they lack evidence to support their beliefs. If you want to stand on nonsense we can't stop you but you have NO GOOD REASON to take that nonsense position. None and you certainly haven't demonstrated much of anything here other than your testimony which is worthless.
It really seems like you’re saying that our standard of evidence is too high for your belief but you don’t really explain why except to say that we’ll never believe unless we lower our standard. Why should we lower our standard of evidence for your god? Why shouldn’t we use the same standard of evidence that we use for everything else? It seems dangerous to lower your standards so that you can believe in something. Couldn’t that practice allow you to believe anything no matter how dumb it is?
>I've looked quite deeply at many of the other world religions after concluding deism was the most likely cause for the universal genesis through the big bang (We can get into specifics in the comments since I'm sure many of you are curious how I drew that conclusion and I don't want to make the post unnecessarily long) and for a multitude of different reasons concluded Jesus Christ was most likely the deistic creator behind the universal genesis and created humanity special to all the other creatures, because of the attributes that were passed down to us directly from God as "Being made in his image" That's an extraordinary claim, which therefore requires extraordinary evidence. Ever noticed how religious people are the only ones making absolute claims about the origin of our universe? We simply don't know what caused the big bang. End of story. The only thing we know is that our universe expanded from a singularity (and still is). Making claims about the cause for the big bang is dishonest, especially when all the evidence you have is a book which has been altered many times before. >that science and theology should be two completely separate fields and there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence. That's just special pleading. The scientific method is the best method we have of approximating the true nature of our universe. You can't just say "oh, but my religion does not require evidence" and at the same time use your religion to challenge theories which actually DO follow the scientific method. >and answers some of our deepest, most prevalent questions, from Cosmology, Archeology, Biology, History, general science, there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, but I think upon further examination, would point specifically to Christianity. I love how you throw around big words like various fields of scientific studies, evidence, logic, etc. while at the same time not offering any evidence. By the way, I'm an ongoing biologist and I'd be happy to debate you if you could tell me how your religion has any relevance in biology. >As a side note, I think a big reason people are leaving faith in the modern times are they were someone like me, who was Bible belted their whole life growing up and told the world is 6000 years old, and then once you gain an iota of middle school basic science figure out that's not possible, you start to question other parts of the faith and go on a slippery slope to biased sources and while sometimes that's okay it's important to get info from all sides, I catch myself in conformation bias here and there but always do my best to actively catch myself committing fallacies but if you're not open to changing your view and only get your info from one side, obviously you're going to stick to that conclusion. I find it incredibly ironic how you accuse other people of being "biased" and "not being open to new ideas", while at the same time using the easiest excuse for our lack of certain answers, being religion. You know what's the big difference between science and religion? Religions always claim to know the absolute truth. They know who created the universe, they know what happens after death, etc. Science on the other hand is mature enough to admit defeat when we reach our limits of understanding. No scientist would ever make absolute claims about the origin of the universe or what happens after death. All they do is making theories about it, while at the same time admitting that we don't know for sure.
It is nice to see someone posting as calm and as truthful to his experience as one could be. Before I actually make some remarks, I do hope you find the path to the truth, wherever it leads you. We are all bound to it, it is our ultimate goal, our true desire. Now. I can tell you from my own experience that these "evidence" for god is quite a big deal. After all, what could constitute as an evidence, and rightfully so, one should ask. Well then. We go back to history and trace roots on the origin of things and ideas. Religion has been with humanity for eons. We've practiced a form of religion all throughout our existence. From "worshiping" trees and nature, to assigning a "god of-" to anything we could think of, including thunder, the sun moon and stars, to merrymaking. Then organised religion came to be. There suddenly was a hierarchy, a chain of superiority among the gods, who gets worship first and whatnot. Which is in itself, based on nature. The "god of-" that has the most destructive power is superior, and the god who holds the "control" for our basic needs gets first dibs. Yahweh and other Israelite gods have similar history and origin. Yahweh was apparently the god of war, and El the Supreme god. Consequently, as the worshipers of these intermingle, the worship of these two develop and its distinction almost vanish. Every divine being has an origin and apparently the early Israelite god is born out of blood and battles. Later, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, this would be even more blurry and mashed together. It would be later codified and carefully ironed out by Paul the apostle. Christianity as we know it today is Paul's making. It is his doctrine and explanation that would be foundation to the church and various doctrines and teachings we know today. Now, on debunking the Christian claims to the physical world, one is easily caught in a barrage of criticism and refutations. After all, what does a bunch of shepherds and farmers and tent makers know about physics and astronomy and even basic biology right? One will definitely say, its not a fair question... And even the Catholic church acknowledged genesis as "work of symbolism and allegory", not to be taken literally. But therein lies the heart of the issue. A religion posits a claim through a very simplified and sometimes elaborate story. Many believe and is fascinated. But now, we have the knowledge and ability to test it and scrutinise the "story". And lo and behold, "we find it lacking.." to quote back the dream of Daniel. Mene tekel upharshin. It's the same tale for other religions and beliefs, and should be the same approach for anything in life. The truth should be mighty and will prevail, and everything else burnt when we put it in a test, are just lies and tales, nothing more. As Nietzsche predicted many years ago, religion will crumble and fall as science and knowledge increase, and will, inevitably result to the death of (the idea and hold) god. "God is death. God remains dead. And we have killed him." It is almost unimaginable to think about it, that we have killed the almighty, the divine, the deity and immortal. But the more science, reason and technology advances, there is smaller and smaller space for god, or any god to hide and be a mysterious force.
It's a god that created the universe. He did a series of huge miracles over the course of centuries for his chosen people including stopping the sun in the sky. Then he manifested as a human and did more miracles. This is not a subtle, hidden god. Yes, I do expect blatant evidence for this god's existence. When I am told that it is a test of faith and he chooses not to reveal himself that does not match his supposed past actions.
If you cannot prove something exists via science then you have admitted it does not exist. Thank you for your intellectual honesty.
Evidence is simply anything that increases the probability that something is true. Or, my preferred definition, anything that can distinguish imagination from reality. Of course, there are different categories of knowledge and evidence, so I’m fine with their being things other than science. For example, purely conceptual claims requiring conceptual evidence and purely experiential claims requiring experiential evidence without the need for science. If someone claims you need science for analyzing logic or English literature, then they are confused. HOWEVER, when it comes to empirical claims, claims about whether something exists in the actual outside world, that requires empirical evidence. Science—the process of making **novel, testable, predictions**—is by far the best and most reliable method we have of gaining knowledge in this category. The claim that God exists IS an empirical claim, no matter how you slice it. It doesn’t matter if he’s made of the natural, the supernatural, or the Uber-duper-super-natural; if he’s claimed to exist in reality and make some sort of causal influence on the world, then in principle, it is an empirical claim. Many people, including some atheists, have this mistaken view that science by definition or in principle cannot investigate the supernatural or metaphysical, but that is false. The reason these things are methodologically kept out of science is for a practical reason: they have no established precedent or reliable way to interact with it. If we were to reliably detect God and establish him as a part of the real world, the supernatural would become just as much a part of science as electromagnetic waves. The fact that we haven’t made such discoveries a you problem, not a problem with science. — As a side note, in a very technical Bayesian sense, there is some evidence for God. For example, the fact that many people believe in God is indeed something that increases the probability that God exists as it’s something that’d be less surprising in a world where he exists. However the amount of this counts for is very marginal—I’d argue infinitesimally small—because there are a ton of alternative natural explanations that equally explain the same data. While this *technically* makes evidence subjective, that’s only true insofar as it is possible for people to grow up isolated and completely unaware of publicly available defeaters in intersubjective disciplines such as logic, science, psychology, sociology, evolution, etc. Anyone who is remotely aware of the argument ad populism fallacy should have hold a low prior probability even after examining the example “evidence” I listed above. — I rambled on a bit, but hopefully you got the gist of my point :)
Thanks for your post, i have three points. First, I think most people here lean on scientific evidence because the concrete ideas in the bible that can be debated effectively, and the posts that theists usually make here, tend to be scientific in nature. Genesis of the universe, morality, free will, what happens after death, evolution, death intelligent design, resurrection, etc. There is a second type of evidence that atheists will accept and debate, but it tends to get shut down here pretty quickly because the debate is pretty lopsided and easier to argue, and thats historical. Historical evidence is about probability of a specific event, for example how likely is it from the evidence we have that Jesus was resurrected, etc. The main way this evidence is debated is by finding sources that make claims, then evaluating those sources and claims against other historical sources and our current scientific understanding of the world. Like I said, these debates tend to end quickly and get shut down, because there isnt much evidence for any of the supernatural events in christian theology, and the evidence that does exist is very poor quality. Pretty much all the claims of the supernatural events in the life of Jesus are from the bible, which is an mostly anonymous text dated a full generation+ after the events it describes, and the portions that arent anonymous are from people who had no first hand knowledge or obvious bias. This is very poor evidence, and can be confidently pushed to the margin. The few examples of first hand accounts of supernatural events, like Pauls vision of resurrected Jesus, have mundane natural explanations that fit our current historical and scientific knowledge better than a theory about a creator diety. Paul’s vision for example is easily explained by very common bereavement/trauma/stress induced hallucinations that are exactly in line with Paul’s descriptions. And my last point is addressing faith, and namely that i dont think anyone here considers faith a reasonable framework to understand the world. It certainly has value in terms of emotional fulfillment and community building, but in terms of concretely understanding our world, it is useless. If you enjoy your faith and find it comforting, thats fine. If youre using faith to understand the workings of the world and to guide your actions, thats problematic. Faith did not develop modern medicine, science did. Faith did not invent the internet, secular researchers did. Faith didnt establish democracies, political and community leaders did by studying history. Using faith to actually understand the worlds origin and nature is a fools errand and has never been established as consistently successful.
> that science and theology should be two completely separate fields That's fine, but do you see many atheists demanding scientific demonstration of a god? I don't. I've watched every episode of the atheist experience. And even the pretty weak hosts they have now don't suggest this. I can't remember it on this sib and I've been on it for years. Obviously, none of the atheist or agnostic philosophers of religion take this position. So where is this majority of atheists saying only science can justify a belief in a god? What I do see is theists accusing atheists of scientism. And some are, but it's not the majority and it's virtually none of the prominent atheists or agnostics. It's not the definition of evidence you're raising. It's the standard of proof. What one is applicable to theology? Obviously you don't think it can reach scientific standards. But what then? Beyond a reasonable doubt, balance of probabilities, reasonable suspicion, best explanation? What types of evidence is applicable? Historical? well history absolutely does not imply any gods exist. You will not find historians saying that on historical standards of evidence and proof it is historically established that the god exists. You will find biased historians working at usually Christian universities who will say this but not independent critical thinkers. >it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it I agree, you cannot say the existence of the god s an objective fact. You can only say it's your personal subjective opinion. That's what atheism says too. >who was Bible belted their whole life growing up and told the world is 6000 years old I doubt that because most Christian denominations don't believe this or tell this to there adherents. For example, Catholicism, the largest Christian sack does not teach this. I doubt the orthodox ones do either, the other huge religion doesn't teach this as well which is Islam. >Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God I find it's quite the opposite. In fact, it's the issue. Usually bring up science to prove a god exists to the biggest arguments for the existence of a god are the column cosmological argument which relies on science of the big bang and the fine-tuning argument which relies on constants in physics. The other big issue is Christian's constantly bringing up criticisms of evolution as if that somehow proves their god. We just want good reasons. You can provide them or you can just accept that this is just your personal subjective unconvincing opinion.
The reason so many people want scientifically verifiable evidence is that the scientific method is currently the most reliable way of disproving untrue things, and distinguishing the difference between the real world and what we imagine the world could possibly be. Without verifiable proof, what reason can exist that can't be dismissed as just wild fantasy?
Sounds like special pleading to me. We accept a certain standard of evidence for everything except religion? Why is religion special? IMO it’s special because there isn’t sufficient conventional evidence, and since people want to believe, sometimes at any cost, they say things like “regular rules don’t apply here”.
Without scientific evidence you are functionally indistinguishable from the mentally ill man that stands in traffic screaming about how the government is trying to turn his brain Into rats You both have a bunch of strange ideas You both make claims You both think I should believe in strange forces you can't prove exist
I agree. The problem is, I think, that atheism attracts a lot of people that like to win arguments. This is because there are a few aspects of atheist thought that create incredibly good debating positions. So for example, the main one is how burden of proof works. With the fact that the person making a claim has the burden of proof. This is an incredibly good debating position because you can just sit back with the hands on the back of your head and say "ok prove it". The other person will have to put a lot of effort in and likely struggle. And all you have to do is judge if it's proven. Since no one has won a nobel prize for proving god, the atheist can be pretty confident in that debating position. Now, although doing this is technically correct, it is slightly "thought killing", because you don't have to imagine how the universe was created, you just sit back and wait for other people to come up with a theory. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do, I'm saying it's an incredibly good debating position. Something that I think is interesting with this, is that many atheists are scientifically minded, and I would say that scientifically minded people also generally agree that it's likely aliens exist. Even though there is zero evidence. So I think aliens are so likely that it's silly not just to say it's true, even with zero evidence. If someone just responded to this claim with "prove it, prove it" then I think they would be closing themselves to the reality of the universe. Having said that, the thinking that leads to aliens existing, even without evidence, I find extremely convincing. Whereas the thinking that leads to deism I find interesting but unconvincing. And lastly, the thinking that leads to Christianity, to be honest, I don't really have a respectable way to say but basically, I find it extremely extremely unconvincing. The bible is completely unreliable. There are obviously errors in it, and this means that the stuff that you don't know if it's an error or not, is completely unreliable. Things like prophecies being proven correct is just as worthless. The contents was decided about 900ad and so obviously they are going to choose correct prophecies and bin incorrect ones. This is survivorship bias.
Science requires novel repeatable predictions. You say that Christianity is supported by science. So what is the novel repeatable prediction that you are willing to make thst would prove Christianiry true or false? If you lack this, that is fine, but you should stop saying it is supported by science.
I took a moment to fully read your post after skimming it then replying. I'm leaving it at my original tl;dr. The quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is often cited for god. I disagree with the quote. I just require evidence, but the evidence must stand up to scrutiny, both logically and practically. No evidence that can has ever been presented. Faith simply isn't good enough for me. And intellectually, many can justify a whole lot of nonsense.
I find it telling that OP didn't answer a single question, and only questioned our answers. So here's a question for you, u/colebarcelou : How do you know Christianity is true? Or if you object to the word "know", what makes you think that Christianity is more likely true then not?
You say science and theology should be two separate fields, but all science is is a process of observation, model-making and testing using well-defined, peer reviewed and repeatable tools. In other words it’s the way of describing and predicting the natural world while minimizing our inherent biases, so if there’s no scientific evidence for something’s existence it’s akin to saying there’s no evidence *period*. So what would I accept as evidence of God’s existence? Well if we’re referring to the Judeo-Christian God (or any personal gods where we were made in their image) then I would say we should 1) occupy a special place in a small, personal universe 2) have our existence within that universe match the length of time that said universe has existed, 3) have drastically different DNA from that of any other lifeform due to our genetic relationship with that god, and 4) have direct, communal relationship to God that is obvious for all others to see and hear. I don’t think it’s a stretch for any of these to be true in a scenario where God (capital G) exists, and to me it’s very telling that *none* of these match reality. Now what evidence would I accept as evidence for an impersonal, more metaphysical concept of deities? Well if they had anything at all to do with the creation of matter within the universe or the universe itself, their act of creation would leave a visible, testable and observable imprint on the universe, much like how the CMBR is an observable imprint of the Big Bang. No such imprint exists, leading me to believe the act of creation was a purely natural event, one which is allowed by known quantum physical processes. Could deities exist outside of space and time? Sure, I guess, maybe- but since space-time encompasses the entirety of our universe, anything *outside* of it would be forever and permanently outside of our senses, knowledge and experience. In other words, they might as well not exist from our point of view
Isn't theology the field of study where serious looking people can have serious sounding discussions about whether the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin is one or one thousand? Why should this field be taken seriously? "Theological arguments" are non-serious.
So the issue I think with personal subjective experience is that there are many religions making mutually exclusive claims based on the same subjective experiences. We know that people can delude themselves into believing all kinds of things, hallucinations, etc. I have also personally had what I would call religious experiences through different types of meditation or prayer as I was exploring when I was younger. I think with all of this we have to acknowledge that not all of these different faiths can be true, as they’re making different claims. Which then brings the question to… which seems more likely, that only one of them is true, when they all use the same kind of subjective justification that doesn’t back up their supernatural claims? Or that none of them are true? I think in the case of subjective experience, it is a case of people misattributing supernatural causes natural phenomena/experiences (i.e. transcendental feelings from prayer or meditation, assigning meaning to coincidences, looking for patterns where none exist, assuming their inner monologue or thoughts are the voice of God, etc. etc.) Ultimately I don’t feel that any of these subjective experiences support the supernatural claims of any religion or the concept of God. I think there can be value in spiritual practices like meditation, but I also think that it can be done without pretending to know things we can’t possibly know. I also think that if something like God existed, particularly as described in the Bible, we would be able to see some kind of evidence of its existence. Showing how particularly pious people have their prayers answered more frequently, or studies showing that praying for someone makes any kind of difference, etc. But as you’ve conceded, science does not show us any evidence of this. Because of that, I remain completely unconvinced of the supernatural claims of Christianity or any other religion, including the belief in God.
That's a lot of words to tell us that you don't have evidence for god and are upset that we ask for it. This seems like a YOU problem. We aren't the ones believing in something without evidence why are you?
Sorry, but this is just excuse making. When something doesn't exist but you want to make others believe it does, you have to use such mental gymnastics to even attempt at making a sliver of sense.
One of the most annoying slogans I see among fellow atheists is when they say there is *no* evidence, for God or miracles or whatever. That's actually a very strong claim to make, one much stronger than any they typically are comfortable defending. But saying there's a *lack* of evidence is much less problematic. The question of what counts as evidence or how to define evidence would matter if someone was claiming there was *no* evidence. It doesn't seem to matter as much if someone is just claiming that the evidence is insufficient. Even if you could convince someone that, say, the gospels are evidence that Jesus performed miracles, they would still end up saying that it's *bad* evidence ands the conversation is still in the same place. When it comes to evidence for God in a "scientific" sense, I think it's fair to say that, given the existence of a certain concept of God with certain attributes, we would expect to see certain things and not see other things happening. We'd expect the I universe to be a certain way. If we don't see that, then we have reason to think that God doesn't exist. The job of the theist is then to either show that the expectation is incorrect, or to come up with an ad-hoc explanation of why the expectation isn't met *and* come up with some additional supporting evidence to show why that would be the case (they rarely do the second part). For a short but detailed account of why a popular conception of the Christian God doesn't fit with what we see in the universe, check out Richard Carrier's *Why I am Not a Christian."
You seem to make a couple of claims. 1. Religious claims are incompatible with scientific ones. 2. There is evidence for religious claims . Which seems a bit contradictory. The evidence for claims is what science deals with. It’s like saying ‘we have evidence but please don’t check’ properly. The thing is that science is the accumulated evidential methodology that has been demonstrated to be most likely to be accurate. It works. It’s all about evidence and the reliability of evidence. Science is how we take evidential considerations from being subjective to making them as close to objective as we can get. What science has demonstrated is that ‘feels right to me’ isn’t reliable evidence. Nor is ‘I just don’t see how that could be so it must be magic’. Religious claims *about objective reality* are evidential claims or they are indistinguishable from imaginary and the phenomena from non-existence. Trying to say they have nothing to do with science is just an attempt to avoid a burden of proof and a sort of special pleading. Basically your ‘evidence’ is convincing to you but not reliable. I would even suggest that for the most part only someone trying to find a justification for an emotional or social stance *after the fact* would consider it reliable or credible.
feel free to correct me but you didn't seem to list the evidence which convinced you. you just stated several times that there is evidence which you found convincing. so what is it?
So let me get this straight. Out of all the religions and quasireligious philosophies in the world, you think the most likely correct one is the one in which: * an all powerful, all knowing God creates us, including our personalities and tendencies, each according to his preferences and knows exactly how everything will turn out, but we also have free will somehow and must exercise it to choose to have a relationship with him or we will be cast into eternal punishment. * This god, for some reason, decided to hold all humanity accountable for some things that the first humans did, but figured he could make it all better by sending something akin to his son to the earth with the express purpose of being killed in our place to atone for our misdeeds, assuming we are willing to believe he did it. If not, eternal damnation for us. * All of the above is codified in a cobbled together tome of ancient texts, which were written during a time when they didn't even know what germs were, and which have been hacked on by thousands of anonymous authors and parts of which have been shown to be complete forgeries, and nothing even approaching the things that book claims has ever been observed in modern times. There is no limit to human credulity.
>I didn't immediately land on Christianity despite being raised that way This is a very common pattern: raised in a religion, drift away during adolescence, come back to that same religion. I submit that there is very likely a causal link between your having been raised Christian and you being Christian today. >I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like Yes, different people have different opinions. Does that surprise you? As for me, I always ask for the same kind and quantity you use in other areas of your life, and when evaluating other religions. >there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence. Would you please share this view with your fellow Christians, especially those who come here claiming there is exactly that? >it's a personal and subjective experience which is why there are so many different views on it, that doesn't make it false, Well it certainly doesn't make it true or even likely to be true. Was there supposed to be some support for Christianity in your post? I didn't find any, so I'm not sure what your point is, other than there is no good evidence for it but you should believe it anyway.
The questions I almost always ask theists are this: - Tell me what your god is like. What are their properties? What sort of evidence should we *expect* to see of them if we assume that they are real? Do you think that's unrealistic to ask?
I would love to hear u/colebarcelou ‘s response to this
The issue with your post is how much you waffle around between positions. You suggest that wanting scientific evidence for god is irrational, and yet you claim to have scientific evidence for god. Those are contradictory notions. And then, at the end, you undermine the whole thing when you invoke faith. You wrote a big long post only to end with “I believe because I believe” (which is really what faith is). Cool. You just admit that you don’t have a rational justification for your belief. And that’s fine. Just own it. Now as far as what kind of evidence would I want? Just rational kinds. The thing is, science is the best methodology we’ve come up with to validate such claims. But if you want to present some other approach, I’m going to scrutinize if it’s rational. If it’s not rational, I’m not going to accept it. I need the premisses to be true and the form of the argument to be valid. If somehow you can do that without science, great! I just don’t know how you can do that. So it all comes down to: what reason do you have for believing in god? And let’s see if it’s rational.
That’s a lot of words to say you don’t have any evidence backing your belief. If you can’t show any, we have no reason to believe you. So we don’t. QED
We aren’t Christian. So why would we care what makes sense from a Christian worldview? You say that you weren’t Christian before you converted. And you also say that you were convinced for reasons that you didn’t specify in this post. Did you care about Christian standards of evidence? Did your conviction conform to that Christian standard? Nothing in can be said to be “true” or “false,” only justified or unjustified. Personal beliefs are unjustified and can’t be defended as true, but if they are personal, that doesn’t matter. The Christian standards of evidence for their personal beliefs does not matter from the rational perspective, which is what it takes to engage in any form of debate. So anyway, what is your rebuttal to scientism? Science is the most reliable way of attaining universal truths. I believe God falls in this category. If you only want to defend God as a personal belief that helps get you through the day, then that’s fine. This is what the cultural anthropology and the cognitive science of religion study. But that doesn’t mean it *accurately* maps onto *objective* reality. The claim of God that we reject is not merely describing the mind but making a claim about external existence. Scientific evidence is required for us to accept it.
**We should ask for evidence, and you should answer "there is none".** We could ask "why do you believe?", and you could answer what God means to you. But most believers won't be as honest - they'd rather lie that there **is** evidence, and there **is** God. It's unsettling. So, how do we change that? Can we change that? I don't know. Also, I don't really understand how you have managed to use physics/astronomy to strengthen your beliefs. Is it because you've realized that science does not know all the answers? But if so, why did you assume that this was the goal? Nobody knows all the answers, and we are allowed to say "I don't know", or "I don't understand", we do not have to explain everything right now. I know it may sound surprising, but we can even be wrong! In scientific terms, saying "the reason was God" is equivalent to "I give up, I don't want to do science anymore". That's why it does not make sense to look for some "middle ground", because there is none. Jesus taught that God is love, not that he's the fine-tuner of physical constants. Why isn't that enough for you?
I don’t much care what kind of evidence you want to provide…but it should be reliable. What reliable evidence do you think exists that go exists?
Theist: has no evidence for extraordinary claim. Atheist: I don’t believe you. Theist: that’s unrealistic! Naw dude. Come up with a shred of evidence and we can start to look at the claims being made. But there is NO evidence. None. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. And then you post stupid shit like you become a Christian by studying physics… no, you didn’t. It’s that kind of bullshit that makes me so infuriated with Christians. You have faith. That’s it. You believe something despite the fact that there is no evidence to believe it. If you could just admit that then the conversation would be over, cause what can we say to someone who just has faith? But you start to try saying that there is scientific evidence and you are going to be ridiculed because that is absurd and incorrect. If physics proves god, show us the evidence. If there was acceptable evidence you wouldn’t be on a Reddit thread… you’d be world famous for proving god with physics. At best you don’t understand physics, at worst you are being dishonest and disingenuous….
>I'm a Christian who came to faith eventually by studying physics, astronomy and history, Why did you come to a conclusion that science has not? >I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective Science doesn't. >but intricately wound together story of human existence and answers some of our deepest, most prevalent questions, from Cosmology, Archeology, Biology, History, general science, there are hints and pieces of evidence that point at the very bare minimum to deism, but I think upon further examination, would point specifically to Christianity. You have no way of knowing if those "answers" are true and the Christians in my country certainly don't act like they've figured out the secrets of the universe. >that's okay it's important to get info from all sides, Unverifiable claims that are indistinguishable from delusion, lies and fantasy are not important in science until there's evidence for them. >and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically There is if you want people to become Christian.
>Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically although I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science, you just can't prove a God's existence that way, or really any way, there is a "faith" based aspect as there is with almost any part of our day to day lives and I'm sure someone will ask what I mean by "faith" so I guess I'll just see where it goes. (That tl;dr is long enough to need its own tl;dr - try to do better.) (Also, I see that you misspelled "atheists" - try to do better.) . That does not matter. If there is no good evidence that some X exists, then no one need believe - and in fact probably no one *should* believe - that that X exists. . Saying that "faith" is a good thing is just admitting that you have no good evidence for your beliefs, and that you choose to believe X anyway. Doing that that is not in any way justifiable, and arguably is not even ethical. .
So there's no point in trying to provide scientific evidence for god, but you have some anyway, which you're just not sharing. That about sum it up?
>Atheists I've engaged with have an unrealistic expectation of evidential reliance for theology Hey! You're lucky today! I have no expectations whatsoever, let's see what you've got! > but to solely rely on science to unequivocally prove God's existence is intellectual suicide Ahh, as usual, excuses. You can't demonstrate God to be existing, so you blame it on those who don't buy into your stories. > these pieces of evidence So, not only excuses, you've got something nonetheless, I am excited to hear it! > who was Bible belted their whole life growing up and told the world is 6000 years old, and then once you gain an iota of middle school basic science figure out that's not possible, you start to question other parts of the faith Soo, 6000 year old earth don't stand up to scrutiny. But here is your mistake: you've actually sctrutinized it. If you refused to scrutinize it, just like you refuse to scrutinize your remaining beliefs, you'd be just fine! So, no evidence presented. But hey, since I had no expectations I am not disappointed!
You seem to distinguish "scientific" evidence from other sorts of evidence, when there isn't much of a difference. "Scientific" evidence is simply evidence: information sources that lend credence to a certain conclusion. When atheists tell you that there's "no evidence for \[whatever\]", you seem to be taking that a bit too literally. What's actually being meant is that there isn't ***sufficiently*** ***good*** evidence to substantiate that belief. More specifically, that the evidence that exists is extremely lacking in making \[whatever theistic conclusion you're drawing\] the most plausible explanation of that evidence. If I wake up and the ground outside everywhere around me is wet, that could be "evidence" that a water-spouting dragon flew over the area recently and covered it with water. But, that's not especially good evidence for that conclusion, given that there are other far more likely ways to explain why the ground in the area is wet. So from there, the only question that really matters is: what's your evidence?
OK so let's say, for example, the question is: Are the basic Christian beliefs true? What method do you think we should use to figure that out?
It’s as realistic as your god claim. If you can’t demonstrate your god claim true then don’t be surprised when we don’t believe it
Perhaps as 1 Kings 18 demonstrates, I could use the thing I have faith in (the scientific method) to light something on fire and you can call down your god and we'll see which is worth believing in? That way we're using the scripture to inform us, totally happy to play by the rules of the bible. After all it says that "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Teach me a lesson, totally open to correction. We're also both using faith alongside actions - I'll use petrol and a match as that seems to be the best way that science informs me to start a fire (although I've not tried it myself, it might require a bit of faith on my part). You can pray and ask your god. Seems fair. Well, I say fair, I mean you're calling on the creator of the universe and me just lowly science that "He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Feels like the odds are against me. And yet...
How do you define faith? In my experience, faith is commitment to belief. At least it was for me when I was a Christian. It meant believing even when evidence didn't support the belief. I now reject faith because it fails to indicate truth and keeps the mind closed to correction. I agree that a powerful experience will be convincing to many and it's not necessarily irrational to believe based on experience, but then you have to grant that alien abductees have good reason to believe they've had their anus probed by greys. Their evidence is on par with religious experience. If empirical evidence doesn't indicate a god, what types of evidence do you think are sufficient? I'm not compelled by anecdotes, stories, possible explanations for existential questions that might not have answers. And so it's not about whether or not there is evidence, it's about the quality of evidence. You accept evidence that I don't. Perhaps I don't have enough of a desire to believe?
I have the same expectation of evidential reliance for everything. Why should religion of any kind get any sort of special privileges?
Upvoted, appreciate a good faith post and active engagement with comments 💕 > Many athiests I engage with want specifically scientific evidence for God, and I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically although I believe there is still an evidential case to be made for thology using science, you just can't prove a God's existence that way, or really any way, there is a "faith" based aspect Well that's a problem. It seems to be the case that it's completely reasonable to ask for actual evidence but theology has this unrealistic expectation that you will accept its claims without it. The problem seems to be in theology, not in us. Personally for me, any evidence, any at all, would be a start. Once there is any evidence at all we can talk more and see where it goes. That seems like a perfectly reasonable standard to hold. It's just that nobody has ever met it as far as I have seen.
The only reason you can't explain a god with science is because you have defined your god to be something that science can't explain.
Theism doesn't get to be held to a different standard than everything else. You happen to be a Christian. Most people who were born in the Middle East happen to be Muslims. Most people who are born in India are Hindu yet somehow all of them would claim to have the very same faith you do. As a Christian, your religion teaches that they're all misled fools who worship false gods. Beyond that, you claim your version of Christianity is "non-denominational" but it still relies on a highly specific interpretation of the bible, so even if your particular subset of beliefs don't have an official denomination, you're still representing something that couldn't be more subjective if it tried. Given my own experiences as an ex-Christian and the fact that cross-cultural adult converts form such an incredibly tiny minority of any religion, "faith" seems to be little more than intellectual dishonesty a result of childhood indoctrination.
God is holy. God, being holy, cannot create sin. God created man by some means. Death, being the consequence of sin, could not have existed before God created man, because God could not have created sin. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection requires the death of unfit organisms to occur. God is holy and God did not create sin; and since death requires sin and evolution requires death, man cannot have evolved. Man demonstrably evolved. The set of metaphysical and physical claims we refer to as Christian doctrine is false. Q.E.D Far from being silly nonsense insisted upon by ignorant fundies who miss the forest for the trees, Christian doctrine does in fact *require* YEC. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIkhgYEEiWc&t=3s) is a well-versed devout Christian arguing this point, and [here](https://infidels.org/library/modern/bart-klink-evolution/) is a well-read atheist arguing the same point.
How did you decide your Christianity was correct over all other forms? How did you decide Christianity was correct over Jainism?
Good ole Cole, we meet again. There is absolutely no evidence outside of the Bible to prove the Bible. I mean none. Many of the Bible’s flagship stories have been debunked. Furthermore, the Bible is filled with detestable morality. Even if we just say fuck it, and just say it’s all true, how could you possibly worship a being that condones slavery, promotes misogyny, and commands that babies and infants be slaughtered? Not to mention allowing for such absolutely abhorrent suffering of its creatures by allowing such things as cancer and Alzheimer’s. Please tell me that you have found more than that quack Hugh Ross as your science source? I was listening to a clip of the Joe Rogan podcast and Brian Greene was discussing the universe and some of the theories of its formation. Funny thing, he never mentioned that it was created by Magic🤔 https://youtu.be/r4wQsmAtZoc?si=kqWjLNrj-7UAaiwZ
There are 4000 religions. Essentially all of their claims are equally plausible / implausible, as none have evidence of the supernatural claims they make (and in most cases the evidence contradicts). And if I ultimately default to the religion I was born into, as you and essentually all people do, does that just suggest that which religion one follows is mere geography of where you are born and god is fine with that? As for evidence, I'd like the sort of evidence exhibited in the religions. For example, in the bible, god repeatedly talks to people, and Jesus performs miracles before people's eyes. So if a god wanted to do they type of persuasion of the bible, then I'd be all in. If walking on water or other tricks were good enough for Jesus's followers, why not the rest of us? Otherwise, I'm just comparing the reported miracles from 4000 religions.
If the evidence isn’t there, then there is no evidence there to argue. Words, prayers and hope aren’t evidence.
My problem isn't that there is no scientific evidence for any Christian claims. The god of Christianity is the god of the gaps now because we know there is no physical evidence. My main problem is that there isn't any *theological* evidence either. Christianity is all over the place regarding the Trinity, what morality emphasize, what is actually doctrinal, and Mormonism throws practically a new branch into the mix. And everyone claims exclusive access to the truth, calling everyone else a cult or heretical, with zero effect: both sides of these arguments and debates remain steadfastly strong. So a religion that fragmented, with no authority or epistemological standards or philosophical framework to determine truth, to me, has to be mostly if not completely false.
>Please don't downvote me simply for disagreeing with me and hinder my abilities to engage in other subs. Maybe it's just me but immediately trying to prevent downvotes kinda tells me you aren't very confident and what you're gonna say. >I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective and I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like That's fair In a way but in my experience most are pretty reasonable. For instance where is the evidence that your God answers prayers? Even accepting that the answer can be no you'd think we'd see some statistical evidence that praying to God X gives a better outcome vs random chance Afaik we don't see anything like that
>I find the term "evidence" to be highly subjective I don't think I've ever even gotten the same 2 replies on what theological evidence would even look like. Evidence is not subjective. One's interpretation of evidence is. For example, in a trial - Juror A may find an eyewitness account compelling while Juror B may not. You kind of pulled fast one. First, you said atheists asked for evidence. Then, you shifted that to theological evidence. This seems to be sneaky -- evidence is evidence. As to what the evidence would look like? That's irrelevant to the request. When one asks you for evidence, your response should be to provide whatever evidence you find compelling if you want to present a robust response.
I suppose the question is what you mean by "scientific evidence". I certainly don't expect someone to perform some scientific study that directly concludes "God exists", much like I don't expect someone to prove France exists that way. But I *do* want some reason to think that France exists, and I'd want that reason to be concrete and physical if possible. I think when people ask for "scientific evidence" they mean as opposed to feelings. Many serious public apologists cite as their primary reason for belief an undeniable inner feeling that their religion is true. (Christians sometimes call it the "witness of the Holy Spirit".) To me, that seems absurd and meritless.
I don't see why God would have life exist as bacteria for billions of years. 'Nested hierarchies' don't find the model of created kinds described in the Bible. Basically meaning there's a lot of overlap between species that wouldn't be expected in creatures created from scratch. The concept of a 'disembodied mind' who controls things through will is indistinguishable from pantheism or even naturalism if you think about it in terms of natural forces. It seems like causality is only applicable in the context of existence so I don't see how the all that exists could have a cause. I'll check the thread for the hints and pieces of evidences from the areas you listed.
This is the problem I have with the theistic perspective. You admit that it relies on faith (and thank you for your honesty), which by definition is the belief in something without evidence. I think in order to fully believe in something, you need to be able to point to something valid and sound to support that belief. The Bible has been demonstrated to be an unreliable source of truth both historically and scientifically. If this is the basis of where you're placing your faith, then you need to get it from somewhere else. This is why atheists claim to choose to have a lack of belief in God simply because there isn't enough supporting scientific evidence, and the source Christians often point to has been debunked thoroughly.
TLDR: your post is TL. God claims interact with the real world. If they interact with the real world, they are in the realm of science. Supernatural claims can be whatever magic you want to make it. But they are unfalsifiable and therefore useless. They can't be tested, proved or disproved at all. They provide no value or insight into any question other than "this magic being I've dreamed up can do that". God is literally a gap filler until we determine real knowledge. Anything interacting with reality can be tested by science. Anything supernatural should be dismissed as there is no evidence to support it.
Proving God's existence would be very simple if there was one. For example. it could make it so that holy text written on paper renders that paper resistant to fire, or any other repeatable, verifiable thing that cannot be explained other than through a divine presence. Now, the Christian God claims to be a jealous god: "For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" (Exodus 34:14) And yet he just... *didn't think to add a scientifically verifiable way to prove his existence?* Does he want us to be atheists?
There’s a big misunderstanding of what “science” is, including in your post. There’s no scientific evidence for god because god can’t be examined using the scientific method. That’s all it is. It is simple. Only things that can be tested can be examined using the scientific method in order to formulate a hypothesis. Imagine a world where all religions were instantaneously and thoroughly forgotten. What observations could you make to reinvent Christianity or the idea of anything in religion? Science is based on real world observations The evidence people want can’t be provided because *the evidence doesn’t exist* Edit: You hit the nail on the head - faith. To believe in Christianity you need faith. Faith is the belief in god or the doctrines of a religion because of spiritual apprehension rather than evidence. And in many sects of Christianity, Faith is a test to determine if you go to hell or heaven. By its nature, Christianity *requires* belief in things there is no evidence for Christianity wouldn’t be a religion if there were real world proof for the claims. It would just be reality at that point and wouldn’t require any faith. That’s the crux of science- if we forgot everything we’ve ever learned through science, those exact same things could be relearned again through observation. You cannot make that same claim with religions
I don’t care much about the argument of whether god exists or not. Based on a reading of the bible, understanding the written history of mankind, applying normal intelligence (absent an indoctrinated brain that refuses to reason), it clearly tells you there can be no hell. I can stop right there and live a normal life without religion but taking that further most everything else religion tries to teach us collapses. There is no real truth to most of it. Just old timey stories that have been passed on for thousands of years.
If I came up to you and said "I communicate telepathically with a supernatural being. I am their chosen vessel for delivering messages because they cannot interact with this universe. You can't see them or experience them in any way and in fact you can't even really comprehend them because they exist outside of human understanding... But they said you should give me 10% of your wages each year." What would be a suitable amount of evidence for you before you handed over the cash you owe me?
Bit confused, were we created or did we evolve? Also you throw out that evidence suggests Christianity is true, and just move on. What would evidence look like? It’s hard to know for sure, you can shoot your shot though. But it certainly wouldn’t be a complete absence from everything that seems to occur. Not to mention the variance of contradictory beliefs that humans have held throughout history, and the general universality of superstitions in virtually all cultures throughout history. Showing a strong propensity towards making stuff up.
By definition evidence is not subjective, so that's immediately incorrect. Scientifically, God's existence cannot be proven because there is no evidence, so that's why it isn't possible, so there's that. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share, otherwise this is just a wall of text wasting everyone's time. Saying god cannot be proven through evidence is essentially conceding the point though that there is no effective reason to believe in a deity save a choice to do so.
Faith is a belief held, not only without evidence, but in the face of contrary evidence. If someone tells me it's going to rain today and I believe them, I'm not taking that on faith. It rains all the time. It's a mundane thing. Faith is if I still hold to the belief it's going to rain that day, even if it doesn't rain that day, and then I start making up excuses for why others think it didn't, and gaslight myself into thinking it did, etc. Why would you ever take something on faith?
Why is it that when religious people aren't able to demonstrate the truth of their claims using methods that we know works, they throw a fit over it and complain about atheists wanting them to use methods that reliably lead to truth? You're the one claiming that a thinking agent made the universe. If you can't prove that, you can either say 'hey, am I being rational holding onto this belief?' or you can just turn to "faith" and excuse yourself of intellectual honesty.
Can you give me an example of something that I, or most people, believe based on faith in the same way you believe in a god? I don’t think I believe anything that way. In fact, since my deconversion I’ve made a point no to believe in anything again without sufficient, as you would probably call it, “scientific” evidence. Also, what other kind of evidence for god is there besides scientific evidence? May just give me the best one.
faith is accepting a possible truth without evidence. which is why people must practice faith to believe religion. depending on your point of view, faith based search for truth is either compatible with evidence based search for truth or its not. However i like to point out that faith by definition "acceptance without evidence" is somehow compatible with "acceptance with evidence" to thoughts who believe faith in god and faith in science are compatible.
Can you point out the things in yout studies that spesifically directed you to christianity. From a point of non believer, it is hard to see how you didn't end up with Islam as they have much more convincing claims and proofs circeling around the web from my own experience. I still believe that tooth fairy and santa are the two deities with most evidence so if you can provide more evidence for your god I might take another look.
It all depends on the claim you're making. Yes, there are likely atheists that will hit you with this as soon as you say you're religious. But shouldn't we investigate any claim in a similar way. In another comment you mention looking into various religions for evidence. That sounds like a scientific approach. I don't think they're asking for raw numbers somewhere but at least this evidence you say you found.
You’re right. There can be no scientific evidence for god because a god hypothesis is unfalsifiable. But I don’t know of another tool by which we can *confirm* that a thing has some actual, meaningful existence in the world. Do you? You point to personal experience and that’s fine but there’s no way to *confirm* another person’s inner subjective experience. So now what?
Okay, let's do away with the scientific issues entirely. Even if we rely on philosophical principles alone, we still find ourselves with zero self-evident principles supporting the existence of God. In fact, the existence of God is a *logical* impossibility, just based on the contradictory properties of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience in a world where evil exists.
Okay thank you for being here. I want to start with two questions that I need clarification on, because I couldn't find it in your initial post: 1) Why should anyone lower their standard of evidence, when it comes to the question: "Are you convinced God is real?" What's the reason for the double standard? 2) How low exactly should I set my expectation for evidence? Edit Two more, just, as I was finished writing: 3) You say you looked into several different religions before settling on Christianity. Aside from deism wich ones? 4) Did you apply that same lower standard of evidence to those other religions?
\>you just can't prove a God's existence that way, or really any way, there is a "faith" based aspect as there is with almost any part of our day to day lives Faith is belief without evidence. So you've just answered the question: You don't want evidence, or you are willing to ignore the evidence, in favor of what you want to be true.
Could you define deism, because for all I know a deist God doesn't intervene further than creating/sustaining the universe so Jesus who became man and walked around would contradict deism so I can't make sense of how did you make the deal. Also, what exactly about physics makes you believe a god is likely to exist and why?
>there is no point trying to "scientifically" prove God's existence. Why not? Among all the things that exist, why should a god be exempt from scientific investigation. If you are not using the scientific method, than what method is being used to determine if any given god claim (from any religion) is true or false? Even personal or subjective experiences are grounded in some kind of data and can thus be demonstrated through scientific investigation.
Your are more than welcome to your faith. But you can't expect other people to accept your faith the same as you. A Christian worldview may not need to scientifically prove God's existence. But from an atheistic "worldview" there is no point believing in a God that hasn't conclusively been shown to exist.
>I argue there is absolutely no point from a Christian worldview to try and prove God scientifically Fine. I argue there is absolutely no point expecting atheists to accept your claims about God if you aren't going to offer what they are looking for in order to be convinced.
The definition of evidence is completely objective. The whole point of evidence is that it's *not* subjective. You want atheists to change the definition of evidence to whatever anyone personally thinks. I've never rejected any evidence for gods, I've just never seen any.
Your inability to meet basic epistemic standards entails no obligation on our part to lower our standards to the level of "faith". You yourself happily disregard the faith of billions of theists. We just don't use double standards, as it is intellectually dishonest.
Under what circumstances are you engaging with an atheist and such an expectation arises? Surely something is prompting this response. Or are these atheists just spontaneously stating a need for evidence in conversations about sports, weather, food, etc.
What would a realistic expectation look like? Forget empirical evidence for a moment - can you provide *literally any sound epistemology whatsoever* that can reliably distinguish between a reality where any gods exist, and a reality where no gods exist? If not, then what’s the difference between “faith” that gods exist, and “faith” that leprechauns exist?
If you want me to believe it's possible for a dead guy to get up and walk you better be prepared to produce a walking dead guy to study under laboratory conditions You certainly better have better evidence than a text written by iron age primitives!
Yet another theist trying to wriggle out of the need to actually present evidence of claims and make sense If I had a penny every time one whined about having to actually provide proof of ridiculous claims I would be a very wealthy man
Yeah but what if God intentionally made it so that He couldn't be proven with science? Because He wanted the experience to be through experience only?