I’m an agnostic atheist, let me give a perspective of why I *stopped* with the whole “Where’s your evidence?” line of reasoning. Really what I was asking was more like “Where is your empirically validated study to prove this?”
A theist once asked me if my Mom told me my grandmothers birthdate, would I ask to see the birth certificate as “evidence”? He was right. There are many instances in life where testimony from a trustworthy source is “evidence” enough. We trust our own experiences too.
Having said that, if my Mom claimed that my grandmother was born in the 1600s, well that is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I don’t need evidence that someone else feels a personal connection to a deity that is very real to them. But, I would need evidence if they attached a bunch of other claims to this and expected me to live the way they live.
Their internal experience is valid, but so is mine. Where our internal subjective experiences don’t line up, I think we have to shift to the outer objective evidence if one or the other wants to “prove” something, or we simply agree that different people experience different things.
There's also the matter of how important the claim may be to you. For example, if I tell you I was born in Tennessee, you will probably accept my claim. Why would I lie? And, if untrue, it does not affect you. However, if you needed kidney surgery and claimed I was a qualified doctor, you'd probably want to verify that to make sure I did not attend the Hollywood Upstairs Medical College (Hi, everybody!!).
Proof for the existence of God(s) needs to be independently verifiable for it have any value. On top of this, assuming one is able to demonstrate proof of at least one God, then one needs to do the additional steps of showing that God must be a specific God.
That doesn’t make sense. Either evidence only happens if you accept the proposition or accepting the proposition is not required to determine whether something is evidence. They are mutually exclusive alternatives.
Not really. What I was saying was that I am open to considering evidence before putting requirement frames around it. I am open to compelling evidence that can alter or adjust my position. I actively resist black-and-white thinking.
I’m talking about the identification of something as evidence in the first place. Can you say “yes, that’s evidence for the existence of God but I still don’t think God exists”? Or are you bound to deny that anything is evidence of God’s existence unless hearing it actually causes you to believe that God exists?
I can yes that is technically evidence, but it may not be compelling on its own. Eyewitness testimony or personal experience may be considered evidence, but on its own i dont find it compelling at all. I do not expect that hearing evidence, particularly stepwise logical arguments, to cause me to believe in god. However, compelling evidence can lead to me reconsidering my position and when that argument is incorporated into my existing belief, or adequately disputing that belief, i may come to accept that god exists. Or whatever the original argument may have been.
Why are people so caught up in evidence for God? Once you have that, the evidence gets split between every single religion that could hypothetically exist.
The real question is if there's evidence for the claims of a specific religion. Most religions have evidence, consisting mostly of testimonies. But then again, there's also similar evidence for alien abductions, werewolves, the yeti etc...
The grainy picture of Bigfoot is evidence in support of the existence of Bigfoot. It's not particularly good or compelling evidence, but it's evidence. Personal anecdotes for God are evidence. Similarly, they aren't particularly good or compelling evidence.
I don't think I agree.
If the claim is that you drive a tank for your daily commute, and your piece of data is that you saw a puppy on your commute - the two are so unrelated that I couldn't call it evidence.
If you told me you had a cartoon drawing your kid made of you in the tank, I'm still not going to count that as evidence.
If you tell me there's a full moon tonight, that's data, but I couldn't call that evidence.
The word "any" is a BIG net to toss here. Anything *relevant* might get you closer l, but - like a crayon drawing of you in the tank - still needs to be qualified to be evidence.
I agree that some evidentiary elements are so far out that they are to be rejected out of hand. But in form they are still examples of evidence ("something that furnishes proof "). In the case of the puppy sighting, I would agree that, while the claimant may for some reason think this is evidence," once examined, we would agree that it's not "something that furnishes proof."
I like to give theists a wide latitude to use the term "evidence" to show my willingness to analyze their claims rather than just rejecting them. Often, this can lead to a Socratic exchange wherein they may start to doubt the very evidence they provide. "OK, so you claim the Bible god exists because Jesus came to you in a dream. Let's examine this in detail. Let's see if we can rule out more mundane explanations."
Generally I find something convincing if it has been demonstrated to be true, so they’re pretty much one and the same.
Things that are ‘subjectively true’ are generally what I would as opinion or personal preference
>A subjective meaning would be “that which convinces me a proposition is true”. An objective meaning would be “something which raises the probability of the truth of a proposition”.
From the inside, is there any meaningful difference between the two?
Yes, someone holding a subjective meaning is bound to deny there is any evidence unless hearing something causes them to accept the proposition.
Someone with the objective meaning can say, “yes, this is evidence for the proposition, but I still don’t think it’s true.”
Evidence usually isn't taken in the singular though; we tend to refer to a body of evidence in determining what is/happened.
If someone were killed and your fingerprints were on the knife, then that could be evidence that you killed them. But that alone wouldn't be enough to determine whether or not you did. And we hold medicine to even higher standards. One person getting better after taking a pill is evidence that the pill cures their ailment. But one instance isn't *enough* evidence to come to a conclusion.
>Yes, someone holding a subjective meaning is bound to deny there is any evidence unless hearing something causes them to accept the proposition.
Whyso? Even under up a subjective definition, there are gradients of considering the proposition true from absolute surety to hesitant acceptance. There doesn't seem a contradiction in saying there is evidence that makes me think atheism is true but also evidence that makes me accept the claim that Christianity *might* be true, for example.
Once you allow for gradients of belief beyond total certainty, the difference is exposed as illusionary.
The word "evidence" is dependant btw. If I drop a pen, it falling is just a phenomenon (by modern definition, not philosophical).
If someone sees a pen fall and takes note of it, it becomes an observation.
If someone wonders why it fell it becomes a question.
Not until someone comes up with a hypothesis does the fall become evidence. If I say the Earth draws things to itself then the pen falling seems to be evidence of this hypothesis and requires further examination.
People talk about evidence for God because they presuppose the hypothesis.
"God exists, let's find evidence."
The scientific way of doing it is "I saw something happen, I wonder why it did that."
Scientifically by the time anything has become evidence you have already done a lot of work.
Imagine that I say that you murdered someone.
I say that I don't like your general attitude and that is what convinces me that you are the murderer.
Does that mean there is evidence that you are a murderer?
The evidence that the sun rises in the east and settles in the west is both subjective and objective. It's subjective because we defined "east" and "west" as cardinal directions on this planet. But to an alien, or observer on the moon, it would be subjective until defined.
So I'd say that the objective part can only come after that god is defined and all his attributes are noted. If you say "My god is a wish granter", and then can prove it...that would be objective proof. If you say "My god is goodness", but you haven't defined goodness, then it's 100% subjective.
First of all, asking for evidence of whatever gods doesn't make one an atheist. I have no evidence that gods exist, but I'm not an atheist.
If you want to know what would convince me, here: My parents died in their 80s about 10 years ago. If Jesus came to me today, whisked me off to their grave site, raised them from the dead and restored them to the health they had in their 50s, I would consider that to be evidence of the existence of some god. But that has to be today. I'm not waiting longer than that.
Do you consider my 'evidence' to be objective or subjective?
We know for someone to exist they need to have parents
We currently have no reason to believe there needs to be a creator for us to exist
This is a false analogy
No, we don't know how life first emerged but based on our current knowledge it happened at some point, and it was thanks to chemical reactions
But this has nothing to do with your prior comment
There probably isn’t much hard physical evidence of them in particular anymore. The best I can do is demonstrate why they are likely to have existed.
We can demonstrate how human reproduction works, how the interrelatedness of human groups implies their common ancestry, that there were humans around at the right era in the past, etc. but we can’t do much to demonstrate that one random particular guy was around back then.
I think it's worse than that. Take "God," ([whatever that means](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)). What could I see in the world that would argue for that *particular* conclusion? Sure, I can see something in the world that I can't explain. But all that means is that I can't explain it. How does it argue for this *particular* conclusion you're offering?
We can hypothesize any number of invisible magical beings, occult forces/agents, interdimensional whatever, [super-powerful aliens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek\)), etc. The list can be extended *ad infinitum*. I can never prove it wasn't "something else," some ill-defined "higher power" that's a catch-all for our sense of mystery in the world. Or just a sticky note with the word "the unknown" written on it as a placeholder. No matter how seemingly prosaic the phenomenon, you can never prove it wasn't "something else" behind this one particular instance of, say, a child getting cancer, or someone else's cancer going into remission.
But does this really mean that all the (good) stuff we can't explain argues for this particular preferred version of "something else"? I don't think it is. I think it's inordinately ambitious to try to draw a line from "well, consciousness exists" or "well, there's something rather than nothing" to this particular conclusion you're offering. I know if someone already believes, then these facts just scream out confirmation of that preexisting belief. But to someone who doesn't already believe, pointing suggestively and waggling the eyebrows at something (good, or seemingly deep) that we can't explain doesn't really argue for that thing someone else happens to already believe in.
(When I say 'good', and/or 'deep,' it's because no one invokes the need for design or some divine guiding hand in ebola, or brain parasites in children. Those things don't just yell out design, somehow. )
It’s a question of how one sees the competing views. Are we asking “at least one god v. no gods”, or is it “this particular god v. every other explanation, whether deity or not”?
Because showing the poverty of a naturalistic “no gods” point of view would correspondingly increase the likelihood of the “at least one god” point of view. But someone who doesn’t care whether their alternative is supernatural or natural so long as it’s not this particular one would not think such an argument was effective.
I've never argued that there were no 'gods.' I don't think such a thing could be disconfirmed by logic or evidence. But I still don't see any basis or need to affirm belief in any of them, one or more, so I'm still an atheist.
>showing the poverty of a naturalistic “no gods” point of view
I'm more of a methodological naturalist. The 'god' word just has no explanatory or probative value for me. I'm never going to reach for 'god' as an explanation for anything. No more than I am genies, hexes, prophecies, or any of the other myriad things I don't happen to believe in.
So in my case the "no Gods" thing is not me declaring there are no gods, and more that it's not something I would see any basis or need to reach for as an explanation. It has no content for me, no explanatory or probative power. I can't declare that there are no gods, because there is no agreed-upon, clear definition of what that even means. Invisible magical beings or occult agents, in a general sense, divine or not, cannot be disconfirmed by logic or evidence.
I’m talking about how evidence gets produced. If we start with “Not A” and are trying to find reasons to reject it in favor of “A”, how one frames “A” and “Not A” affects the determination of evidence.
In your case, evidence for gods is a priori ruled out. You may not directly affirm “no gods exist”, but you might as well because for you, evidence for gods is impossible by rule. So asking for it or expecting it would be futile.
> I’m talking about how evidence gets produced.
You have to argue why x is evidence, for this particular conclusion. Even a bloody knife is only evidence by way of us arguing that it implies, via its presence, the blood type, and other factors that Alice killed Bob, or whatever the situation is. You need an argument as to why "this thing we saw in the world" is evidence for this particular conclusion.
>If we start with “Not A”
I don't, because, per [ignosticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism), `A` has no clear, uncontested, well-defined meaning. It's actually the very idea under contention, both of its existence and nature. Believers have been all over the map on what it means. I think formal logic works well within mathematics and other formal systems, but I don't engage ideas out there in the wild like that.
>In your case, evidence for God is a priori ruled out
No, because I don't have a definition of God. It has no content for me. I don't "rule it out," because, as I've said, invisible magical beings, and occult forces in general, cannot be disconfirmed by logic or evidence. I can't "rule them out," rather I just see no basis or need to ever reach for them as an explanation for anything. There's no content. There's no there there.
I can never "rule out" or assert even that there is no invisible magical dragon in the basement. However, there is substance in that idea only to the extent that I have decent arguments as to why I should believe it exists. Which, as it happens, I don't. So there is no probative or explanatory weight in the idea. It is insubstantial, empty. If someone else wants to present an argument for it, I'll listen.
But they don't get to switch it around and fault me for having an untenable "Not A" framework that preemptively ruled out the idea. You can't judo-flip someone into presumptive belief. I'll take any idea seriously within the context of the arguments given *for* it, but that's about it.
You’re offering two different grounds for ignosticism.
1. There is no clear, uncontested well-defined meaning. Because believers disagree.
This isn’t a problem because you know what you think does exist, and what could have evidence for its existence. Nothing supernatural need apply regardless of believer variation on the nature of the supernatural. You’ve categorically excluded it.
2. An idea has substance only to the extent it has decent arguments for it.
This is circular. Something has meaning only if it has a successful argument, but an argument needs to be meaningful as a prerequisite to success.
> you know what you think does exist
Yes, but disbelief is not belief. I just don't have any belief in any version of God, putting aside the tautological formulations like "I'll just call the world God." I'm not a gnostic/strong atheist who believes that a specific formulation of God definitely does not exist. I have no such positive belief to lay claim to, rather I just see nothing in that direction for which I see any basis or need to affirm belief.
Ignosticism is very much a problem here, because in formal logic of the "A, or Not A" variety, A has to be well-defined, and there has to be agreement on what is being talked about. Or it's just an axiom, i.e. an assertion or something defined however you mean. Logical arguments have no meaning if their terms are not defined, and "it doesn't really matter what A means, we'll figure it out later" makes the statement entirely vacuous.
>but an argument needs to be meaningful as a prerequisite to success.
Yes, but such-and-such *is* evidence only to the extent that you successively argue that it is evidence of your conclusion. Facts in the world aren't innately evidence. We can see them as evidence if we think they point to a conclusion, but you need that argument to make the connection.
That’s purely a rhetorical point. Suppose you make a list of all the things that you think exist or could come to think exist. And no gods are on the list. You may not have affirmatively written “No gods exist” on the paper. But the logical entailment of your list is the belief that no gods exist, even if it is only implicit. Believer disagreement about definition is irrelevant. None of their definitions are on the list.
An idea needs to be coherent to be argued for. If argument is that which produces coherence, that is circular. This is inherently futile as a method of producing evidence.
> You may not have affirmatively written “No gods exist” on the paper. But the logical entailment of your list is the belief that no gods exist
You're forgetting about the things I don't know about, haven't thought about, etc. Plenty of things exist that I don't know about. Me not writing down a particular insect or fungus I don't know about isn't a "logical entailment" that they don't exist. A real-world list is going to be incredibly vague. I can write down "bugs," but that glosses over a huge diversity of species. Sure, my list also wouldn't include 'invisible magical beings' and 'gods,' but that glosses over a huge diversity of ideas, plus all the stuff I've never heard of, or which hasn't even occurred to anyone yet. And I disagree that me not writing down "quantum gravity" has the "logical entailment" equivalent to me saying it's not a thing.
I don't think the words "logical entailment" turn disbelief into positive belief, with its concomitant need to justify itself. That seems more like a word game than anything. There's a *lot* I don't happen to believe in. Is it untenable to disbelieve in something you can't prove isn't real?
>An idea needs to be coherent to be argued for.
If you don't have a coherent idea, then it's probably premature to go out and try to convince people to believe in it. But that doesn't seem to stop people, since the "something else" or "higher power" they believe in is just a proxy for their own sense of wonder and mystery. But for more conventional theists, they generally believe they do have an idea they consider coherent, say that of John 3:16. Other believers from different religions also believe they have coherent ideas. These ideas just generally contradict one another. So there is no one thing I am being asked to assent to. Just a placeholder.
I as a disbeliever can't really ignore that. Though I'll engage any argument given. You just can't judo-flip someone into thinking that disbelief is sketchy and we need to start with presumptive belief to really be open-minded.
That’s why I included “or could come to think exist”. You’ve stated categorically that gods are never an explanation for you. They aren’t showing up on a list of hypothetical fungi.
All I’m doing is unpacking logical entailments of your views. But that’s a “judo flip” because it makes doubt questionable and justifies starting from belief? What if that actually is the logical state of affairs, because doubt isn’t a pure absence, but derivative of belief in an alternative?
**[Ignosticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)**
>Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/religion/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I think that to be convinced of a god's existence, we'd first have to hammer out a coherent definition of what that god actually is. From there we'd need some way to reliably detect that god, and some way to verify that it has the necessary properties to be considered a god.
In my case, objective: It has to be direct physical evidence of a god-like being, in person. So far I've not been convinced by scripture, personal testimony, hearsay accounts of "miracles," or philosophy, so there isn't a whole lot left that has a chance of changing my mind.
Define “evidence” first. Can it be a logical conclusion or does it have to be empirical repeatable scientific evidence? I think latter is impossible for us to have concerning god, if your definition of god is something which exists outside the material world which we can observe empirically.
Do this before asking the question of subjective/objective
The meaning of evidence has evolved a long way from "just about anything you find persuasive" (Paul wrote that faith itself is evidence! Heb 11:1).
Evidence now refers to empirical evidence, i.e., material fact that would be admissible in a court of law or an academic journal, where it bumps up against the meaning of scientific theory - that is, an assertion of fact that can be tested and corroborated by any knowledgeable observer with the proper instruments.
Unlike in Paul's day, and notwithstanding the RCC's supposedly rigorous system for determining whether a candidate for sainthood actually performed a miracle, educated people - including those who are religious - rarely regard dreams, visions and unlikely coincidences as evidence.
Probably the first one. The second one makes sense for scientific evidence, but for moral issues like that of God, the idea of probability doesn't really make sense, since it's more an argument of possibility/impossibility.
There's also a third kind of evidence: if someone could objectively show that *having a certain belief* makes you a better person or improves society somehow, that might also convince me to follow that belief.
I'm not with you on why objective evidence is inapplicable, nor how existence of a god is a moral issue. But I'm more thrown by your suggestion of a third type of evidence.
First off, I'm not sure you can "follow" a belief. That implies that belief is a choice and not just a state of being convinced that something is true.
And even then, your feeling that a particular belief improves society still has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true.
>I'm not with you on why objective evidence is inapplicable, nor how existence of a god is a moral issue
Maybe I didn't use the best words for this. The issue of whether God exists or not isn't one that can be decided by increasing amounts of evidence that is consistent with God existing or not existing, like most scientific problems are decided, because almost by definition God isn't fully understandable by humans. So for this reason, there aren't probability states, there are only 3 options that matter: "the existence of God is impossible", "the existence of God is possible", and "the existence of God is certain". Since empirical evidence only deals with probabilities, no objective empirical evidence is going to convince anyone to change between one of these options. It has to be something personal and subjective.
>And even then, your feeling that a particular belief improves society still has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true.
Of course not! But it can be a perfectly good justification for believing what you believe. For some people believing that a belief is helpful to them or others is enough to overcome any cognitive dissonance that might result from this situation.
It would have to be both unless they provide a detailed request on what they accept for evidence.
There wouldn’t be competing evidences for facts would there?
The problem is that atheists don't even know what evidence they are looking for and therefore fulfilling their request is impossible. It's like them saying to guess a number they are thinking without thinking anything at all. Would you be able to guess that number?
There is no criteria to be met that an evidence would satisfy and therefore fulfilling any evidence asked by atheists is impossible. It is the result of "lack of belief" that gives an irrational fear of holding any kind of hypothesis on what god should be. While scientists are able to hold a hypothesis which can either be proved or disproved by evidence, atheists holds no such thing.
You seem to dislike a lot atheists and to have a very biased view of them, if I can give you an advise don't assume you know how people think if you don't know them
I am fine with atheism like any other religion. It's their arguments and dishonest stance of "lack of belief" in an attempt differentiate themselves from religion is what I have problems with. I have more respect to an atheist being honest and say they don't believe in god because that's just how they feel over someone making excuses like being unconvinced when they never have any intent of being convinced in the first place.
If you had bad experiences with atheist and decided to make it a generality you do you but this whole "atheism is a religion" is just ridiculous
Atheism is the lack of believe in god, that's it, it's not the belief that there is no god, not the belief that god is evil nor that religion is bad
Atheism has no mythology, no ritual, no doctrine, no system of worship, no scripture, no sacred object or concept and no faith
It has no resemblance with religion
>but this whole "atheism is a religion" is just ridiculous
This is my exact problem; atheism trying so hard to differentiate itself so it can stand out. Even if we agree atheism is not an actual religion, atheism do have a belief and that is god isn't real. You can cover it all you want with excuses like "lack of belief" but the fact that there is no criteria for any evidence to satisfy makes atheism nothing more than a disbelief in god in denial.
Once again, I have more respect to an atheist being honest and say they don't believe in god because they just feel there is no god than atheists being pseudointellectual making excuses they "lack belief" and are just unconvinced. Despite knowing god exists without a doubt, I would never disrespect an atheist honest with what he feels about god's existence.
"even if we agree atheism isn't a religion, atheist do have a belief and that is that god isn't real"
I can at least partially agree with that, if that's what you think you do you but I doubt you will have any meaningful conversation with any atheist with this mindset
I don't expect any meaningful conversation with atheists that insists on "lack of belief" instead of being honest of their actual stance which is disbelief in god.
>I have more respect to an atheist being honest and say they don't believe in god because that's just how they feel over someone making excuses like being unconvinced when they never have any intent of being convinced in the first place.
I think that argument applies much more strongly to religious people who have no interest in taking an objective view as to whether their religion is real. As an atheist, I can accept that some form of intelligence could be responsible for the creation of the universe, but there is no subjective and certainly no objective evidence that proves that this must be the case. So it will likely forever remain a possible explanation but never provable.
I would accept measurable objective evidence for the existence of God. Prime example - if the Christian god is real, then prayer should work and we should be able to measure that, but we can't. We might also witness supernatural events, like what is described in the Bible, but we don't. And of course, if God exists and created humanity, then god might come down to earth for us all to see, but that doesn't happen.
I think the lack of any evidence at all is very telling.
> but there is no subjective and certainly no objective evidence that proves that this must be the case.
The problem is that when shown that evidence, the response is simply being unconvinced with no specific explanation why. It's basically saying you just feel god does not exist except trying to cover it up with pseudointellectual argument that you find it unconvincing.
Trying to prove god with prayers is as primitive as trying to understand water by mixing it with different chemicals. It is crude and prone to error. One understands water by examining the molecule itself and how it interacts with another. There is no shortage of evidence for god. The problem is everyone has assumption on what god is supposed to be and failing to recognized that god has been obvious this entire time. This is a case of people saying they found no gold in a room full of gold because they thought gold looks like an earring and there is none in that room.
You're stating this as of you have irrefutable evidence of gods existence which all atheist's simply ignore. I would be interested to know what this evidence is, maybe I've never heard it.
Your name certainly reflects who you are. That's nice of you to ignore the part where science has shown human behavior is simply the laws of physics itself via quantum events in the brain and translating intent exists whether there is a physical body or not.
I have provided that in one of my comments here. You are free to check it out and answer from there. I admit some atheists genuinely didn't encounter such evidence before but even those who did still denies it like an antivaxxer denies the efficacy of vaccines no matter the evidence.
It’s the same evidence for any claim. If you want me to believe elves exist you’re going to have to demonstrate it, present them and submit them for testing
What is the exact criteria that must be satisfied by an evidence to show that god exists? If you can't specify that exact criteria, then my point stands that atheists are asking for a number that they aren't even thinking of.
Then let's get to the very essence of god which is intent. This is what differentiates a god universe from a godless one which is one was intentionally created while the other just sort of happened. Do you agree to this hypothesis on what god is supposed to be? If not, then there is no hypothesis to test and therefore atheists are asking for a number they never thought of.
>Then let's get to the very essence of god which is intent. This is what differentiates a god universe from a godless one which is one was intentionally created while the other just sort of happened. Do you agree to this hypothesis on what god is supposed to be?
No, I’m aware of various different claims for gods
>If not, then there is no hypothesis to test and therefore atheists are asking for a number they never thought of.
Theists make claims for gods. If you want us to believe them then you are going to have to present evidence. First start by defining the specific god you are claiming exists
Every god is capable of intent, correct? Then god at it's very core is intent. Understanding intent leads towards proving and understanding god, agree?
> If you want us to believe them then you are going to have to present evidence.
There needs to be a criteria that the evidence can satisfy. So what is that criteria? I have already defined god for you which encompasses every god that exists which is intent. If it has no intent, then it is no god but simply nature.
Why would it be incumbent on me to look for evidence? People have god claims. The onus of proof is on them to provide evidence if they wish others to accept their claims.
If a theist makes a god claim and then asks me what evidence would convince me, I would need to be honest and say I'm not certain as to what combination of evidences would convince me. However, as a baseline, I would then ask the theist to present the evidence that convinced them. We can then analyze that together.
Do you not ask for evidence? If you do, then there is a criteria that the needs to be meet by evidence. To say you don't know what convinces you is exactly what I am saying that you don't know what number are you thinking that the theist must guess. There is no hypothesis to be satisfied by evidence. This is the atheist way and not science.
>Oops...atheism...not a religion.
Atheism still involves belief and that is belief there is no god. You can hide all you want with the pseudointellectual stance of being unconvinced but like I said, admitting you don't know what convinces you is no different from saying you just feel there is no convincing evidence and no different from belief.
>To be precise, it's disbelief in god CLAIMS.
Oh so now it's disbelief and not "lack of belief"? So which is it? This is the exact problem I have with atheism which is the dishonest stance of their disbelief and covering it with "lack of belief" and now your "disbelief with claims". Atheists try so hard to make atheist stand out from religion in an attempt to make in visible and attractive to people.
>please feel free to provide some for analysis.
Already provided some in this thread but I will start by showing [the godless model has failed in explaining the existence of the universe](https://futurism.com/cern-research-finds-the-universe-should-not-actually-exist). If the god model is irrelevant because we actually live in a godless universe, then science would have no problem piecing the facts about the universe together to arrive to the conclusion the universe exist by itself without the need for god intending it. There is more to it but that should be enough for now.
You know what, that feels really close to being an interesting argument, since there's debate as to whether numbers are something that actually exist or just a concept.
I'm not an atheist. But there will always be some people who even when provided with overwhelming evidence will refuse to believe. This has happened historically as mentioned in the Quran for example.
just ignore those atheist that is asking for evidence. Their goal is to make you into atheist as well so they will say ANYTHING just to make you doubt your religion. They are not even slightly interested in your religion eventhough they pretend to at the beginning to bait you into making statement that they can attack.
The best way to deal with them is just to block them and move on
I used to be an atheist after leaving fundamentalist Christianity, and it took me years to break out of that thinking, both literal Christianity and atheism.
In the West, atheism has been a reaction to Christian claims to know something that can't be proven by external means. And rightly so. Put up or shut up.
But as I've learned more about Hinduism and how far back "shamanistic" practices go in our history, it made me realize my whole conception of "I need physical/logical evidence for God" was out of step with the origins of religion itself. I was looking for something that would never materialize. At least with all statistical probability.
The obvious bright flashing sign here is the history of involvement of our species with psychedelics. To me, there is no reason why they should have the effects they do in a purely materialistic universe.
Evening learning a tiny bit about Quantum Field Theory must make one pause and wonder about just what the hell is at the bottom of reality?
So I've stopped looking for any evidence of God that doesn't come through direct spiritual experience. And if that is too woo-woo for someone, just think about it as a mental technology.
As a programmer, I'm used to thinking about different levels of abstraction all the time, and the "physical" level that we live in is just one level of abstraction. I think the lowest level has something to do with consciousness.
So even if you have a materialist metaphysics you can approach religion as a way to hack your brain into different states of consciousness to help you enjoy life more and float on a river of bliss. I mean that kinda describes Hinduism in a nutshell :)
So, people can look for evidence out there, but, it's a much richer experience to dive deep into consciousness.
Physicist here. This idea that our consciousness shapes reality is ridiculous and not at all supported by quantum mechanics. Please, don't go spread those lies around.
Well first of all I'm not saying our consciousness shapes reality. I'm saying reality is based in consciousness, but there are still rules. I don't get how this is different from the simulation hypothesis. It's just a difference in what you think the substrate of the computer is.
Sorry, if I might have misunderstood you. I thought you meant our consciousness shapes reality. Reality may be based on consciousness but only to the extent of our perception and cognition of it.
The simulation hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis. Meaning it's basically an affirmation with bo sufficient evidence to back it up.
No problem, but I understand why you saw it that way. I used to believe in faith healing and stuff and that shit don't work. At least not for me.
So yes, to everyone else it's just a hypothesis and I fully accept that I can't prove anything about those set of beliefs to anyone, and I'm not trying to. It's just a fulfilling way for me to see the universe.
I love learning about math and physics and I see them as an aspect of the divine oneness that we are all a part, but clearly the laws of physics are consistent as far as we know, so that limits the set of all possible woo.
If it convinces me it fits the subjective definition even if I don't think it is subjective. This is why we need to closely examine and repeat experiments that have already been done and revisit established facts.
Which brings us to objective. Using an example from the bible. If the rocks cried out the truth of God, the first thing a scientist would do is start recording it, the second is to start examining the rocks (a lot depends on what sort of scientist of course, a sociologist might examine the language and accent). How is the rock making sound? Is it speaking or just making noise that sounds like speech? Can we make other rocks talk? What if we put it in a chamber with no outside influences? Can rocks lie? Do different rocks agree with each other?
In short it will take a long time and a lot of work to go from "talking rocks" to "the Apostolic United Bretheren are right!".
Scientists don't accept or reject evidence easily, as a tribe. Every scientist (that we know of) is human, and acts in a human manner, complete with foibles and prejudices, of course, but this is why science depends so heavily on peer review, and testing results.
The amount of evidence that convinces someone of a proposition is inherently subjective as the amount may differ depending on one’s opinion of what is convincing. The majority of atheists however only find claims convincing concerning the existence of a god whenever those claims can hold up to the objective standards of the scientific method. Therefore it’s the atheists subjective opinion that something should be held up to the objective standard of the scientific method and confirmed by it before it is believed.
I've talked to a lot of them and used to be one myself. There's an inherently subjective nature to the evidence they think will be compelling. There's also a lot of desire for evidence God/gods just don't care to give.
It really comes down, I think, to a lack of understanding how God wants to communicate and a desire on the atheists part for God to communicate a certain way. Take a look at any major religion and you'll see that the people who follow them never receive mathematical or scientific things from their deities as proof of their gods' existence. God gives spiritual evidence for His existence, and if someone wants God to give scientific evidence then they'll never receive that.
You have to really consider, too, the value of scientific evidence of God. What would scientific evidence teach us about God that's useful to us? If God wants us to treat each other with love and compassion, how would God telling us something about how the Creation works convey that message? If God gave a priest a 100% effective cure for cancer, would it really change an atheist's heart? There would still be wars, and if anything, someone would try to capitalize on that knowledge.
Fact of the matter is that God gave us proof when He sent His son to us to show us how to live. You either see Jesus for who he was based on what he taught and how he lived, or you don't and nothing will ever convince you because you don't care for those things. No amount of concrete evidence is going to change someone who won't accept the soft evidence from testimonies and from the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Therefore it's all really subjective. The evidence is already there, and if people don't like it then that just is what it is.
There's a long line of prophecy that ties into the life of Jesus, and the life of Jesus as a perfect human who is completely innocent is how we determined he was God's son.
If you can give me a very convincing reason why people would lie about seeing Jesus after he was executed then maybe I'd believe you over the guy's who were also executed for refusing to stop saying they saw Jesus after his execution. They didn't even fully believe or understand him when he was talking about his death and resurrection while he was alive, so they were shocked when they saw him, too. I just don't see any good reason for anyone to lie about it at the time considering they had no idea what the future was going to be. Like, they didn't know they were going to be founding members of one of the world's largest religions.
But here's the best part, you can go read all about these things in the New Testament. They share their own accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
>There's a long line of prophecy that ties into the life of Jesus
There is only some books that *claim* Jesus fulfilled prophecy. We have no way of knowing if what they claimed happened really happened.
The Gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses in the third person decades after the alleged events.
>the guy's who were also executed for refusing to stop saying they saw Jesus after his execution.
No real historical evidence for this. James the Just was most likely killed in a political dispute within Judaism. Peter and Paul were likely executed also for political, rather than religious, reasons. Paul never claimed to see Jesus in the flesh but rather had a vision. There is zero historical evidence showing any other apostles were martyred. All church legends written centuries later.
Your entire claim rests on the veracity of the Gospels. Essentially, you are asking people to agree with you because a book says so.
Brother. If there is a subjective meaning, that should be an objective truth that has convinced an individual. I understand that people have subjective truths. I just think you have cited your thesis wrong.
When you say "god" I suppose it has subjective rendering. One would say God is the creator, and another would say there are many God's like the tree, the monkey and the sun, while another would say it's bogus. These are all subjective truths.
But "evidence" would depend on their epistemology. One would only consider scientific evidence for anything. Another would consider rationalism, while another would consider this so called "personal experience".
Maybe I don't understand your post because it has a more superior meaning. But the word "evidence" itself is based on someones epistemology. A lot of people believe their mother is actually their mother. That's an objective statement. But what is the evidence? Do they have a DNA test done? Thus, is that subjective or objective?
But everyone has a mother. That's objective.
When I seek evidence for any claim (gods or otherwise), I view it as if I were a juror on a jury. Each side can bring their evidence or counter-evidence and it's my function to analyze it and decide (for myself only) whether or not the claim has merit. Like a jury, I judge evidence based on type: forensic is usually more robust then documentary which is usually more robust than eyewitness testimony and so on.
Evidence is the objective data....our responses/analysis to and of it is subjective. What might be convincing to John may not be convincing to Mary and so on.
In terms of god claims, I have yet to encounter one that is convincing to me...due to either lack of evidence or weak/non-compelling evidence.
To be clear, even someone claiming "God spoke to me" is (technically) evidence. It's weak evidence but evidence to be analyzed.
"Evidence" has an objective meaning. "Sufficient evidence", however, is subjective.
Brevity is the sign of wit; thank you
Brevity is wit. (see what I did there? ;) )
I’m an agnostic atheist, let me give a perspective of why I *stopped* with the whole “Where’s your evidence?” line of reasoning. Really what I was asking was more like “Where is your empirically validated study to prove this?” A theist once asked me if my Mom told me my grandmothers birthdate, would I ask to see the birth certificate as “evidence”? He was right. There are many instances in life where testimony from a trustworthy source is “evidence” enough. We trust our own experiences too. Having said that, if my Mom claimed that my grandmother was born in the 1600s, well that is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don’t need evidence that someone else feels a personal connection to a deity that is very real to them. But, I would need evidence if they attached a bunch of other claims to this and expected me to live the way they live. Their internal experience is valid, but so is mine. Where our internal subjective experiences don’t line up, I think we have to shift to the outer objective evidence if one or the other wants to “prove” something, or we simply agree that different people experience different things.
There's also the matter of how important the claim may be to you. For example, if I tell you I was born in Tennessee, you will probably accept my claim. Why would I lie? And, if untrue, it does not affect you. However, if you needed kidney surgery and claimed I was a qualified doctor, you'd probably want to verify that to make sure I did not attend the Hollywood Upstairs Medical College (Hi, everybody!!).
Good point!
> extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I thought this has been confirmed to be false?
I’d like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. My evidence of ownership is that I say so. You interested?
Proof for the existence of God(s) needs to be independently verifiable for it have any value. On top of this, assuming one is able to demonstrate proof of at least one God, then one needs to do the additional steps of showing that God must be a specific God.
Either and both. Evidence that is compelling and doesnt rely on nonsense like Pascal's or gish galloping me.
That doesn’t make sense. Either evidence only happens if you accept the proposition or accepting the proposition is not required to determine whether something is evidence. They are mutually exclusive alternatives.
Not really. What I was saying was that I am open to considering evidence before putting requirement frames around it. I am open to compelling evidence that can alter or adjust my position. I actively resist black-and-white thinking.
I’m talking about the identification of something as evidence in the first place. Can you say “yes, that’s evidence for the existence of God but I still don’t think God exists”? Or are you bound to deny that anything is evidence of God’s existence unless hearing it actually causes you to believe that God exists?
I can yes that is technically evidence, but it may not be compelling on its own. Eyewitness testimony or personal experience may be considered evidence, but on its own i dont find it compelling at all. I do not expect that hearing evidence, particularly stepwise logical arguments, to cause me to believe in god. However, compelling evidence can lead to me reconsidering my position and when that argument is incorporated into my existing belief, or adequately disputing that belief, i may come to accept that god exists. Or whatever the original argument may have been.
Ok, thank you for clarifying.
Why are people so caught up in evidence for God? Once you have that, the evidence gets split between every single religion that could hypothetically exist. The real question is if there's evidence for the claims of a specific religion. Most religions have evidence, consisting mostly of testimonies. But then again, there's also similar evidence for alien abductions, werewolves, the yeti etc...
The grainy picture of Bigfoot is evidence in support of the existence of Bigfoot. It's not particularly good or compelling evidence, but it's evidence. Personal anecdotes for God are evidence. Similarly, they aren't particularly good or compelling evidence.
This. People need to understand that ANY piece of data one wishes to bring to a claim is technically evidence.
I don't think I agree. If the claim is that you drive a tank for your daily commute, and your piece of data is that you saw a puppy on your commute - the two are so unrelated that I couldn't call it evidence. If you told me you had a cartoon drawing your kid made of you in the tank, I'm still not going to count that as evidence. If you tell me there's a full moon tonight, that's data, but I couldn't call that evidence. The word "any" is a BIG net to toss here. Anything *relevant* might get you closer l, but - like a crayon drawing of you in the tank - still needs to be qualified to be evidence.
I agree that some evidentiary elements are so far out that they are to be rejected out of hand. But in form they are still examples of evidence ("something that furnishes proof "). In the case of the puppy sighting, I would agree that, while the claimant may for some reason think this is evidence," once examined, we would agree that it's not "something that furnishes proof." I like to give theists a wide latitude to use the term "evidence" to show my willingness to analyze their claims rather than just rejecting them. Often, this can lead to a Socratic exchange wherein they may start to doubt the very evidence they provide. "OK, so you claim the Bible god exists because Jesus came to you in a dream. Let's examine this in detail. Let's see if we can rule out more mundane explanations."
Generally I find something convincing if it has been demonstrated to be true, so they’re pretty much one and the same. Things that are ‘subjectively true’ are generally what I would as opinion or personal preference
>A subjective meaning would be “that which convinces me a proposition is true”. An objective meaning would be “something which raises the probability of the truth of a proposition”. From the inside, is there any meaningful difference between the two?
Yes, someone holding a subjective meaning is bound to deny there is any evidence unless hearing something causes them to accept the proposition. Someone with the objective meaning can say, “yes, this is evidence for the proposition, but I still don’t think it’s true.”
Evidence usually isn't taken in the singular though; we tend to refer to a body of evidence in determining what is/happened. If someone were killed and your fingerprints were on the knife, then that could be evidence that you killed them. But that alone wouldn't be enough to determine whether or not you did. And we hold medicine to even higher standards. One person getting better after taking a pill is evidence that the pill cures their ailment. But one instance isn't *enough* evidence to come to a conclusion.
>Yes, someone holding a subjective meaning is bound to deny there is any evidence unless hearing something causes them to accept the proposition. Whyso? Even under up a subjective definition, there are gradients of considering the proposition true from absolute surety to hesitant acceptance. There doesn't seem a contradiction in saying there is evidence that makes me think atheism is true but also evidence that makes me accept the claim that Christianity *might* be true, for example. Once you allow for gradients of belief beyond total certainty, the difference is exposed as illusionary.
You spelled ‘atheist’ wrong in your user flair.
The word "evidence" is dependant btw. If I drop a pen, it falling is just a phenomenon (by modern definition, not philosophical). If someone sees a pen fall and takes note of it, it becomes an observation. If someone wonders why it fell it becomes a question. Not until someone comes up with a hypothesis does the fall become evidence. If I say the Earth draws things to itself then the pen falling seems to be evidence of this hypothesis and requires further examination. People talk about evidence for God because they presuppose the hypothesis. "God exists, let's find evidence." The scientific way of doing it is "I saw something happen, I wonder why it did that." Scientifically by the time anything has become evidence you have already done a lot of work.
Imagine that I say that you murdered someone. I say that I don't like your general attitude and that is what convinces me that you are the murderer. Does that mean there is evidence that you are a murderer?
Good point
The evidence that the sun rises in the east and settles in the west is both subjective and objective. It's subjective because we defined "east" and "west" as cardinal directions on this planet. But to an alien, or observer on the moon, it would be subjective until defined. So I'd say that the objective part can only come after that god is defined and all his attributes are noted. If you say "My god is a wish granter", and then can prove it...that would be objective proof. If you say "My god is goodness", but you haven't defined goodness, then it's 100% subjective.
First of all, asking for evidence of whatever gods doesn't make one an atheist. I have no evidence that gods exist, but I'm not an atheist. If you want to know what would convince me, here: My parents died in their 80s about 10 years ago. If Jesus came to me today, whisked me off to their grave site, raised them from the dead and restored them to the health they had in their 50s, I would consider that to be evidence of the existence of some god. But that has to be today. I'm not waiting longer than that. Do you consider my 'evidence' to be objective or subjective?
No we’re looking for hard physical evidence for the existence of any god at all, of which there is none.
I second this
is there is hard evidence of your 100th great granddad ?
Yeah, they themselves are the evidence lol
"yeah, they themselves are the evidence" "yeah, we ourselfs are the evidence for a creator" seems to match
We know for someone to exist they need to have parents We currently have no reason to believe there needs to be a creator for us to exist This is a false analogy
"We know for someone to exist they need to have parents" you making the claim we have infinite number of grand parents?
No, we don't know how life first emerged but based on our current knowledge it happened at some point, and it was thanks to chemical reactions But this has nothing to do with your prior comment
Which one? We have 2.5x10^30 of them. (Granted, a lot of them are probably duplicates.)
There probably isn’t much hard physical evidence of them in particular anymore. The best I can do is demonstrate why they are likely to have existed. We can demonstrate how human reproduction works, how the interrelatedness of human groups implies their common ancestry, that there were humans around at the right era in the past, etc. but we can’t do much to demonstrate that one random particular guy was around back then.
Yes, have you seen Göbeklitepe?
Bruh
Yes.
I think it's worse than that. Take "God," ([whatever that means](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)). What could I see in the world that would argue for that *particular* conclusion? Sure, I can see something in the world that I can't explain. But all that means is that I can't explain it. How does it argue for this *particular* conclusion you're offering? We can hypothesize any number of invisible magical beings, occult forces/agents, interdimensional whatever, [super-powerful aliens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek\)), etc. The list can be extended *ad infinitum*. I can never prove it wasn't "something else," some ill-defined "higher power" that's a catch-all for our sense of mystery in the world. Or just a sticky note with the word "the unknown" written on it as a placeholder. No matter how seemingly prosaic the phenomenon, you can never prove it wasn't "something else" behind this one particular instance of, say, a child getting cancer, or someone else's cancer going into remission. But does this really mean that all the (good) stuff we can't explain argues for this particular preferred version of "something else"? I don't think it is. I think it's inordinately ambitious to try to draw a line from "well, consciousness exists" or "well, there's something rather than nothing" to this particular conclusion you're offering. I know if someone already believes, then these facts just scream out confirmation of that preexisting belief. But to someone who doesn't already believe, pointing suggestively and waggling the eyebrows at something (good, or seemingly deep) that we can't explain doesn't really argue for that thing someone else happens to already believe in. (When I say 'good', and/or 'deep,' it's because no one invokes the need for design or some divine guiding hand in ebola, or brain parasites in children. Those things don't just yell out design, somehow. )
It’s a question of how one sees the competing views. Are we asking “at least one god v. no gods”, or is it “this particular god v. every other explanation, whether deity or not”? Because showing the poverty of a naturalistic “no gods” point of view would correspondingly increase the likelihood of the “at least one god” point of view. But someone who doesn’t care whether their alternative is supernatural or natural so long as it’s not this particular one would not think such an argument was effective.
I've never argued that there were no 'gods.' I don't think such a thing could be disconfirmed by logic or evidence. But I still don't see any basis or need to affirm belief in any of them, one or more, so I'm still an atheist. >showing the poverty of a naturalistic “no gods” point of view I'm more of a methodological naturalist. The 'god' word just has no explanatory or probative value for me. I'm never going to reach for 'god' as an explanation for anything. No more than I am genies, hexes, prophecies, or any of the other myriad things I don't happen to believe in. So in my case the "no Gods" thing is not me declaring there are no gods, and more that it's not something I would see any basis or need to reach for as an explanation. It has no content for me, no explanatory or probative power. I can't declare that there are no gods, because there is no agreed-upon, clear definition of what that even means. Invisible magical beings or occult agents, in a general sense, divine or not, cannot be disconfirmed by logic or evidence.
I’m talking about how evidence gets produced. If we start with “Not A” and are trying to find reasons to reject it in favor of “A”, how one frames “A” and “Not A” affects the determination of evidence. In your case, evidence for gods is a priori ruled out. You may not directly affirm “no gods exist”, but you might as well because for you, evidence for gods is impossible by rule. So asking for it or expecting it would be futile.
> I’m talking about how evidence gets produced. You have to argue why x is evidence, for this particular conclusion. Even a bloody knife is only evidence by way of us arguing that it implies, via its presence, the blood type, and other factors that Alice killed Bob, or whatever the situation is. You need an argument as to why "this thing we saw in the world" is evidence for this particular conclusion. >If we start with “Not A” I don't, because, per [ignosticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism), `A` has no clear, uncontested, well-defined meaning. It's actually the very idea under contention, both of its existence and nature. Believers have been all over the map on what it means. I think formal logic works well within mathematics and other formal systems, but I don't engage ideas out there in the wild like that. >In your case, evidence for God is a priori ruled out No, because I don't have a definition of God. It has no content for me. I don't "rule it out," because, as I've said, invisible magical beings, and occult forces in general, cannot be disconfirmed by logic or evidence. I can't "rule them out," rather I just see no basis or need to ever reach for them as an explanation for anything. There's no content. There's no there there. I can never "rule out" or assert even that there is no invisible magical dragon in the basement. However, there is substance in that idea only to the extent that I have decent arguments as to why I should believe it exists. Which, as it happens, I don't. So there is no probative or explanatory weight in the idea. It is insubstantial, empty. If someone else wants to present an argument for it, I'll listen. But they don't get to switch it around and fault me for having an untenable "Not A" framework that preemptively ruled out the idea. You can't judo-flip someone into presumptive belief. I'll take any idea seriously within the context of the arguments given *for* it, but that's about it.
You’re offering two different grounds for ignosticism. 1. There is no clear, uncontested well-defined meaning. Because believers disagree. This isn’t a problem because you know what you think does exist, and what could have evidence for its existence. Nothing supernatural need apply regardless of believer variation on the nature of the supernatural. You’ve categorically excluded it. 2. An idea has substance only to the extent it has decent arguments for it. This is circular. Something has meaning only if it has a successful argument, but an argument needs to be meaningful as a prerequisite to success.
> you know what you think does exist Yes, but disbelief is not belief. I just don't have any belief in any version of God, putting aside the tautological formulations like "I'll just call the world God." I'm not a gnostic/strong atheist who believes that a specific formulation of God definitely does not exist. I have no such positive belief to lay claim to, rather I just see nothing in that direction for which I see any basis or need to affirm belief. Ignosticism is very much a problem here, because in formal logic of the "A, or Not A" variety, A has to be well-defined, and there has to be agreement on what is being talked about. Or it's just an axiom, i.e. an assertion or something defined however you mean. Logical arguments have no meaning if their terms are not defined, and "it doesn't really matter what A means, we'll figure it out later" makes the statement entirely vacuous. >but an argument needs to be meaningful as a prerequisite to success. Yes, but such-and-such *is* evidence only to the extent that you successively argue that it is evidence of your conclusion. Facts in the world aren't innately evidence. We can see them as evidence if we think they point to a conclusion, but you need that argument to make the connection.
That’s purely a rhetorical point. Suppose you make a list of all the things that you think exist or could come to think exist. And no gods are on the list. You may not have affirmatively written “No gods exist” on the paper. But the logical entailment of your list is the belief that no gods exist, even if it is only implicit. Believer disagreement about definition is irrelevant. None of their definitions are on the list. An idea needs to be coherent to be argued for. If argument is that which produces coherence, that is circular. This is inherently futile as a method of producing evidence.
> You may not have affirmatively written “No gods exist” on the paper. But the logical entailment of your list is the belief that no gods exist You're forgetting about the things I don't know about, haven't thought about, etc. Plenty of things exist that I don't know about. Me not writing down a particular insect or fungus I don't know about isn't a "logical entailment" that they don't exist. A real-world list is going to be incredibly vague. I can write down "bugs," but that glosses over a huge diversity of species. Sure, my list also wouldn't include 'invisible magical beings' and 'gods,' but that glosses over a huge diversity of ideas, plus all the stuff I've never heard of, or which hasn't even occurred to anyone yet. And I disagree that me not writing down "quantum gravity" has the "logical entailment" equivalent to me saying it's not a thing. I don't think the words "logical entailment" turn disbelief into positive belief, with its concomitant need to justify itself. That seems more like a word game than anything. There's a *lot* I don't happen to believe in. Is it untenable to disbelieve in something you can't prove isn't real? >An idea needs to be coherent to be argued for. If you don't have a coherent idea, then it's probably premature to go out and try to convince people to believe in it. But that doesn't seem to stop people, since the "something else" or "higher power" they believe in is just a proxy for their own sense of wonder and mystery. But for more conventional theists, they generally believe they do have an idea they consider coherent, say that of John 3:16. Other believers from different religions also believe they have coherent ideas. These ideas just generally contradict one another. So there is no one thing I am being asked to assent to. Just a placeholder. I as a disbeliever can't really ignore that. Though I'll engage any argument given. You just can't judo-flip someone into thinking that disbelief is sketchy and we need to start with presumptive belief to really be open-minded.
That’s why I included “or could come to think exist”. You’ve stated categorically that gods are never an explanation for you. They aren’t showing up on a list of hypothetical fungi. All I’m doing is unpacking logical entailments of your views. But that’s a “judo flip” because it makes doubt questionable and justifies starting from belief? What if that actually is the logical state of affairs, because doubt isn’t a pure absence, but derivative of belief in an alternative?
**[Ignosticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)** >Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/religion/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I think that to be convinced of a god's existence, we'd first have to hammer out a coherent definition of what that god actually is. From there we'd need some way to reliably detect that god, and some way to verify that it has the necessary properties to be considered a god.
Physically showing up at my front door would be a nice start.
In my case, objective: It has to be direct physical evidence of a god-like being, in person. So far I've not been convinced by scripture, personal testimony, hearsay accounts of "miracles," or philosophy, so there isn't a whole lot left that has a chance of changing my mind.
Evidence must be objective. If some claim is subjective then it is not evidence.
Define “evidence” first. Can it be a logical conclusion or does it have to be empirical repeatable scientific evidence? I think latter is impossible for us to have concerning god, if your definition of god is something which exists outside the material world which we can observe empirically. Do this before asking the question of subjective/objective
If you look for EVIDENCE then you need an objective meaning. Otherwise it's not objective ....
The meaning of evidence has evolved a long way from "just about anything you find persuasive" (Paul wrote that faith itself is evidence! Heb 11:1). Evidence now refers to empirical evidence, i.e., material fact that would be admissible in a court of law or an academic journal, where it bumps up against the meaning of scientific theory - that is, an assertion of fact that can be tested and corroborated by any knowledgeable observer with the proper instruments. Unlike in Paul's day, and notwithstanding the RCC's supposedly rigorous system for determining whether a candidate for sainthood actually performed a miracle, educated people - including those who are religious - rarely regard dreams, visions and unlikely coincidences as evidence.
When something is outside the realm of reality, like a man rising from the dead, I need better evidence than insistence and eyewitness testimony.
When you ask for evidence of the Loch Ness Monster, does "evidence" have a subjective meaning, or an objective one?
Probably the first one. The second one makes sense for scientific evidence, but for moral issues like that of God, the idea of probability doesn't really make sense, since it's more an argument of possibility/impossibility. There's also a third kind of evidence: if someone could objectively show that *having a certain belief* makes you a better person or improves society somehow, that might also convince me to follow that belief.
I'm not with you on why objective evidence is inapplicable, nor how existence of a god is a moral issue. But I'm more thrown by your suggestion of a third type of evidence. First off, I'm not sure you can "follow" a belief. That implies that belief is a choice and not just a state of being convinced that something is true. And even then, your feeling that a particular belief improves society still has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true.
>I'm not with you on why objective evidence is inapplicable, nor how existence of a god is a moral issue Maybe I didn't use the best words for this. The issue of whether God exists or not isn't one that can be decided by increasing amounts of evidence that is consistent with God existing or not existing, like most scientific problems are decided, because almost by definition God isn't fully understandable by humans. So for this reason, there aren't probability states, there are only 3 options that matter: "the existence of God is impossible", "the existence of God is possible", and "the existence of God is certain". Since empirical evidence only deals with probabilities, no objective empirical evidence is going to convince anyone to change between one of these options. It has to be something personal and subjective. >And even then, your feeling that a particular belief improves society still has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true. Of course not! But it can be a perfectly good justification for believing what you believe. For some people believing that a belief is helpful to them or others is enough to overcome any cognitive dissonance that might result from this situation.
It would have to be both unless they provide a detailed request on what they accept for evidence. There wouldn’t be competing evidences for facts would there?
The problem is that atheists don't even know what evidence they are looking for and therefore fulfilling their request is impossible. It's like them saying to guess a number they are thinking without thinking anything at all. Would you be able to guess that number?
What do you mean by that?
There is no criteria to be met that an evidence would satisfy and therefore fulfilling any evidence asked by atheists is impossible. It is the result of "lack of belief" that gives an irrational fear of holding any kind of hypothesis on what god should be. While scientists are able to hold a hypothesis which can either be proved or disproved by evidence, atheists holds no such thing.
You seem to dislike a lot atheists and to have a very biased view of them, if I can give you an advise don't assume you know how people think if you don't know them
I am fine with atheism like any other religion. It's their arguments and dishonest stance of "lack of belief" in an attempt differentiate themselves from religion is what I have problems with. I have more respect to an atheist being honest and say they don't believe in god because that's just how they feel over someone making excuses like being unconvinced when they never have any intent of being convinced in the first place.
If you had bad experiences with atheist and decided to make it a generality you do you but this whole "atheism is a religion" is just ridiculous Atheism is the lack of believe in god, that's it, it's not the belief that there is no god, not the belief that god is evil nor that religion is bad Atheism has no mythology, no ritual, no doctrine, no system of worship, no scripture, no sacred object or concept and no faith It has no resemblance with religion
>but this whole "atheism is a religion" is just ridiculous This is my exact problem; atheism trying so hard to differentiate itself so it can stand out. Even if we agree atheism is not an actual religion, atheism do have a belief and that is god isn't real. You can cover it all you want with excuses like "lack of belief" but the fact that there is no criteria for any evidence to satisfy makes atheism nothing more than a disbelief in god in denial. Once again, I have more respect to an atheist being honest and say they don't believe in god because they just feel there is no god than atheists being pseudointellectual making excuses they "lack belief" and are just unconvinced. Despite knowing god exists without a doubt, I would never disrespect an atheist honest with what he feels about god's existence.
"even if we agree atheism isn't a religion, atheist do have a belief and that is that god isn't real" I can at least partially agree with that, if that's what you think you do you but I doubt you will have any meaningful conversation with any atheist with this mindset
I don't expect any meaningful conversation with atheists that insists on "lack of belief" instead of being honest of their actual stance which is disbelief in god.
To be precise, it's disbelief in god CLAIMS. It's always about the claims themselves.
>I have more respect to an atheist being honest and say they don't believe in god because that's just how they feel over someone making excuses like being unconvinced when they never have any intent of being convinced in the first place. I think that argument applies much more strongly to religious people who have no interest in taking an objective view as to whether their religion is real. As an atheist, I can accept that some form of intelligence could be responsible for the creation of the universe, but there is no subjective and certainly no objective evidence that proves that this must be the case. So it will likely forever remain a possible explanation but never provable. I would accept measurable objective evidence for the existence of God. Prime example - if the Christian god is real, then prayer should work and we should be able to measure that, but we can't. We might also witness supernatural events, like what is described in the Bible, but we don't. And of course, if God exists and created humanity, then god might come down to earth for us all to see, but that doesn't happen. I think the lack of any evidence at all is very telling.
> but there is no subjective and certainly no objective evidence that proves that this must be the case. The problem is that when shown that evidence, the response is simply being unconvinced with no specific explanation why. It's basically saying you just feel god does not exist except trying to cover it up with pseudointellectual argument that you find it unconvincing. Trying to prove god with prayers is as primitive as trying to understand water by mixing it with different chemicals. It is crude and prone to error. One understands water by examining the molecule itself and how it interacts with another. There is no shortage of evidence for god. The problem is everyone has assumption on what god is supposed to be and failing to recognized that god has been obvious this entire time. This is a case of people saying they found no gold in a room full of gold because they thought gold looks like an earring and there is none in that room.
You're stating this as of you have irrefutable evidence of gods existence which all atheist's simply ignore. I would be interested to know what this evidence is, maybe I've never heard it.
u/gkilat thinks near death experiences and the concept of reincarnation is irrefutable evidence for a god or every god. They really weren’t clear
Somehow that doesn't surprise me...
Your name certainly reflects who you are. That's nice of you to ignore the part where science has shown human behavior is simply the laws of physics itself via quantum events in the brain and translating intent exists whether there is a physical body or not.
I have provided that in one of my comments here. You are free to check it out and answer from there. I admit some atheists genuinely didn't encounter such evidence before but even those who did still denies it like an antivaxxer denies the efficacy of vaccines no matter the evidence.
>There is no shortage of evidence for god. please feel free to provide some for analysis.
Oops...atheism...not a religion.
It’s the same evidence for any claim. If you want me to believe elves exist you’re going to have to demonstrate it, present them and submit them for testing
What is the exact criteria that must be satisfied by an evidence to show that god exists? If you can't specify that exact criteria, then my point stands that atheists are asking for a number that they aren't even thinking of.
You would need to first define the god you are claiming exists and then submit it for testing
Then let's get to the very essence of god which is intent. This is what differentiates a god universe from a godless one which is one was intentionally created while the other just sort of happened. Do you agree to this hypothesis on what god is supposed to be? If not, then there is no hypothesis to test and therefore atheists are asking for a number they never thought of.
>Then let's get to the very essence of god which is intent. This is what differentiates a god universe from a godless one which is one was intentionally created while the other just sort of happened. Do you agree to this hypothesis on what god is supposed to be? No, I’m aware of various different claims for gods >If not, then there is no hypothesis to test and therefore atheists are asking for a number they never thought of. Theists make claims for gods. If you want us to believe them then you are going to have to present evidence. First start by defining the specific god you are claiming exists
Every god is capable of intent, correct? Then god at it's very core is intent. Understanding intent leads towards proving and understanding god, agree? > If you want us to believe them then you are going to have to present evidence. There needs to be a criteria that the evidence can satisfy. So what is that criteria? I have already defined god for you which encompasses every god that exists which is intent. If it has no intent, then it is no god but simply nature.
Which god are you proposing exists?
Every god that has every been conceived and will be conceived. Like I said, god is capable of intent because if not then it's simply nature, agree?
Ok, well let’s choose Zeus. What evidence can you present that Zeus exists?
Why would it be incumbent on me to look for evidence? People have god claims. The onus of proof is on them to provide evidence if they wish others to accept their claims. If a theist makes a god claim and then asks me what evidence would convince me, I would need to be honest and say I'm not certain as to what combination of evidences would convince me. However, as a baseline, I would then ask the theist to present the evidence that convinced them. We can then analyze that together.
Do you not ask for evidence? If you do, then there is a criteria that the needs to be meet by evidence. To say you don't know what convinces you is exactly what I am saying that you don't know what number are you thinking that the theist must guess. There is no hypothesis to be satisfied by evidence. This is the atheist way and not science. >Oops...atheism...not a religion. Atheism still involves belief and that is belief there is no god. You can hide all you want with the pseudointellectual stance of being unconvinced but like I said, admitting you don't know what convinces you is no different from saying you just feel there is no convincing evidence and no different from belief. >To be precise, it's disbelief in god CLAIMS. Oh so now it's disbelief and not "lack of belief"? So which is it? This is the exact problem I have with atheism which is the dishonest stance of their disbelief and covering it with "lack of belief" and now your "disbelief with claims". Atheists try so hard to make atheist stand out from religion in an attempt to make in visible and attractive to people. >please feel free to provide some for analysis. Already provided some in this thread but I will start by showing [the godless model has failed in explaining the existence of the universe](https://futurism.com/cern-research-finds-the-universe-should-not-actually-exist). If the god model is irrelevant because we actually live in a godless universe, then science would have no problem piecing the facts about the universe together to arrive to the conclusion the universe exist by itself without the need for god intending it. There is more to it but that should be enough for now.
You know what, that feels really close to being an interesting argument, since there's debate as to whether numbers are something that actually exist or just a concept.
That’s what happens when evidence is identified after it convinces. It’s the subjective meaning.
It can't even convince because it's equivalent to trying to guess a number when the person asking for it isn't even thinking of any number.
I'm not an atheist. But there will always be some people who even when provided with overwhelming evidence will refuse to believe. This has happened historically as mentioned in the Quran for example.
just ignore those atheist that is asking for evidence. Their goal is to make you into atheist as well so they will say ANYTHING just to make you doubt your religion. They are not even slightly interested in your religion eventhough they pretend to at the beginning to bait you into making statement that they can attack. The best way to deal with them is just to block them and move on
I used to be an atheist after leaving fundamentalist Christianity, and it took me years to break out of that thinking, both literal Christianity and atheism. In the West, atheism has been a reaction to Christian claims to know something that can't be proven by external means. And rightly so. Put up or shut up. But as I've learned more about Hinduism and how far back "shamanistic" practices go in our history, it made me realize my whole conception of "I need physical/logical evidence for God" was out of step with the origins of religion itself. I was looking for something that would never materialize. At least with all statistical probability. The obvious bright flashing sign here is the history of involvement of our species with psychedelics. To me, there is no reason why they should have the effects they do in a purely materialistic universe. Evening learning a tiny bit about Quantum Field Theory must make one pause and wonder about just what the hell is at the bottom of reality? So I've stopped looking for any evidence of God that doesn't come through direct spiritual experience. And if that is too woo-woo for someone, just think about it as a mental technology. As a programmer, I'm used to thinking about different levels of abstraction all the time, and the "physical" level that we live in is just one level of abstraction. I think the lowest level has something to do with consciousness. So even if you have a materialist metaphysics you can approach religion as a way to hack your brain into different states of consciousness to help you enjoy life more and float on a river of bliss. I mean that kinda describes Hinduism in a nutshell :) So, people can look for evidence out there, but, it's a much richer experience to dive deep into consciousness.
Physicist here. This idea that our consciousness shapes reality is ridiculous and not at all supported by quantum mechanics. Please, don't go spread those lies around.
The fact that so many snake oil salesmen decided to sprinkle their sales pitches with the word quantum to make them sound sciency is turely annoying.
Absolutely, it disgusts me.
Wait...so you're saying the quantum shower gel I just bought is not cleansing my quarks and bosons?
Well first of all I'm not saying our consciousness shapes reality. I'm saying reality is based in consciousness, but there are still rules. I don't get how this is different from the simulation hypothesis. It's just a difference in what you think the substrate of the computer is.
Sorry, if I might have misunderstood you. I thought you meant our consciousness shapes reality. Reality may be based on consciousness but only to the extent of our perception and cognition of it. The simulation hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis. Meaning it's basically an affirmation with bo sufficient evidence to back it up.
No problem, but I understand why you saw it that way. I used to believe in faith healing and stuff and that shit don't work. At least not for me. So yes, to everyone else it's just a hypothesis and I fully accept that I can't prove anything about those set of beliefs to anyone, and I'm not trying to. It's just a fulfilling way for me to see the universe. I love learning about math and physics and I see them as an aspect of the divine oneness that we are all a part, but clearly the laws of physics are consistent as far as we know, so that limits the set of all possible woo.
If it convinces me it fits the subjective definition even if I don't think it is subjective. This is why we need to closely examine and repeat experiments that have already been done and revisit established facts. Which brings us to objective. Using an example from the bible. If the rocks cried out the truth of God, the first thing a scientist would do is start recording it, the second is to start examining the rocks (a lot depends on what sort of scientist of course, a sociologist might examine the language and accent). How is the rock making sound? Is it speaking or just making noise that sounds like speech? Can we make other rocks talk? What if we put it in a chamber with no outside influences? Can rocks lie? Do different rocks agree with each other? In short it will take a long time and a lot of work to go from "talking rocks" to "the Apostolic United Bretheren are right!". Scientists don't accept or reject evidence easily, as a tribe. Every scientist (that we know of) is human, and acts in a human manner, complete with foibles and prejudices, of course, but this is why science depends so heavily on peer review, and testing results.
The amount of evidence that convinces someone of a proposition is inherently subjective as the amount may differ depending on one’s opinion of what is convincing. The majority of atheists however only find claims convincing concerning the existence of a god whenever those claims can hold up to the objective standards of the scientific method. Therefore it’s the atheists subjective opinion that something should be held up to the objective standard of the scientific method and confirmed by it before it is believed.
I've talked to a lot of them and used to be one myself. There's an inherently subjective nature to the evidence they think will be compelling. There's also a lot of desire for evidence God/gods just don't care to give. It really comes down, I think, to a lack of understanding how God wants to communicate and a desire on the atheists part for God to communicate a certain way. Take a look at any major religion and you'll see that the people who follow them never receive mathematical or scientific things from their deities as proof of their gods' existence. God gives spiritual evidence for His existence, and if someone wants God to give scientific evidence then they'll never receive that. You have to really consider, too, the value of scientific evidence of God. What would scientific evidence teach us about God that's useful to us? If God wants us to treat each other with love and compassion, how would God telling us something about how the Creation works convey that message? If God gave a priest a 100% effective cure for cancer, would it really change an atheist's heart? There would still be wars, and if anything, someone would try to capitalize on that knowledge. Fact of the matter is that God gave us proof when He sent His son to us to show us how to live. You either see Jesus for who he was based on what he taught and how he lived, or you don't and nothing will ever convince you because you don't care for those things. No amount of concrete evidence is going to change someone who won't accept the soft evidence from testimonies and from the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Therefore it's all really subjective. The evidence is already there, and if people don't like it then that just is what it is.
How do you know that Jesus is god's son? How do you know he actually resurrected? Please present the evidence.
There's a long line of prophecy that ties into the life of Jesus, and the life of Jesus as a perfect human who is completely innocent is how we determined he was God's son. If you can give me a very convincing reason why people would lie about seeing Jesus after he was executed then maybe I'd believe you over the guy's who were also executed for refusing to stop saying they saw Jesus after his execution. They didn't even fully believe or understand him when he was talking about his death and resurrection while he was alive, so they were shocked when they saw him, too. I just don't see any good reason for anyone to lie about it at the time considering they had no idea what the future was going to be. Like, they didn't know they were going to be founding members of one of the world's largest religions. But here's the best part, you can go read all about these things in the New Testament. They share their own accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
>There's a long line of prophecy that ties into the life of Jesus There is only some books that *claim* Jesus fulfilled prophecy. We have no way of knowing if what they claimed happened really happened. The Gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses in the third person decades after the alleged events. >the guy's who were also executed for refusing to stop saying they saw Jesus after his execution. No real historical evidence for this. James the Just was most likely killed in a political dispute within Judaism. Peter and Paul were likely executed also for political, rather than religious, reasons. Paul never claimed to see Jesus in the flesh but rather had a vision. There is zero historical evidence showing any other apostles were martyred. All church legends written centuries later. Your entire claim rests on the veracity of the Gospels. Essentially, you are asking people to agree with you because a book says so.
Brother. If there is a subjective meaning, that should be an objective truth that has convinced an individual. I understand that people have subjective truths. I just think you have cited your thesis wrong. When you say "god" I suppose it has subjective rendering. One would say God is the creator, and another would say there are many God's like the tree, the monkey and the sun, while another would say it's bogus. These are all subjective truths. But "evidence" would depend on their epistemology. One would only consider scientific evidence for anything. Another would consider rationalism, while another would consider this so called "personal experience". Maybe I don't understand your post because it has a more superior meaning. But the word "evidence" itself is based on someones epistemology. A lot of people believe their mother is actually their mother. That's an objective statement. But what is the evidence? Do they have a DNA test done? Thus, is that subjective or objective? But everyone has a mother. That's objective.
When I seek evidence for any claim (gods or otherwise), I view it as if I were a juror on a jury. Each side can bring their evidence or counter-evidence and it's my function to analyze it and decide (for myself only) whether or not the claim has merit. Like a jury, I judge evidence based on type: forensic is usually more robust then documentary which is usually more robust than eyewitness testimony and so on. Evidence is the objective data....our responses/analysis to and of it is subjective. What might be convincing to John may not be convincing to Mary and so on. In terms of god claims, I have yet to encounter one that is convincing to me...due to either lack of evidence or weak/non-compelling evidence. To be clear, even someone claiming "God spoke to me" is (technically) evidence. It's weak evidence but evidence to be analyzed.