Show me the proof??

[seekandlisten]

I agree with a lot of things you have to say about religion, seekandlisten, but here's where we differ

I would assume the 'scientific approach' would be a better premise for not believing in God but that's just me.

I was going to ask what the scientific approach was but since you edited for clarity I will go with that.

Hey TanNinety,
I realize my post was rather confusing after rereading it. I had originally made a hasty reply, but then realizing that I had gotten the 'intent' of the persons post I was replying to wrong, tried to correct myself but just made it more confusing so I will try and clarify for you.

Edited for clarity: What I mean is the in weighing in the 'evidence' for and against I understand the coming to the conclusion that 'God' not existing is a logical assumption, or at least until further 'evidence' is provided.

I am a bit confused here. Can you tell me what definition of ‘assumption’ you are subscribing to in your above statement?
I see you are saying that the conclusion(God not existing) is a logical assumption. How is that a scientific approach? Doesn’t science work the way where you draw conclusions from assumptions and not conclusion being an assumption? That just seems circular to me.

I should have used conclusion rather than assumption. Bad choice of words. Personally I believe in a 'God' it's just that my 'definition' varies from most mainstream religions, and I can understand why certain people choose to not believe in 'God'. My belief that there is a 'God' probably influenced me in using assumption rather than conclusion. The better word would have been conclusion. Sorry about that.

I was thinking 'scientific approach' more in the way that due to the lack of observable 'evidence' one could logically come to the conclusion that 'God' does not exist. This was in opposition, to what I was thinking anyways, that the fact the amputee's arm doesn't regrow after prayer to be reason to conclude that 'God' does not exist. That was part of my misunderstanding the original post I replied too.

After all, the 'evidence' in favor of 'God' is all over the place and even those that do believe 'God' exists can't agree amongst themselves so it becomes who's 'version' of 'God' is right. So the question becomes do all 'Gods' exist, or is it no 'Gods' exist, or one 'God' exists? Quite the dilemma.

Experiments showed electrons were particles. Experiments showed electrons were waves. The evidence was ‘all over the place’. Quite the dilemma until particle-wave duality of sub atomic entities became norm. During this dilemma, no one said, electrons didn’t exist. They said, we don’t completely understand the phenomena. That’s how science works.

I might be missing your point here but I would disagree with someone who states 'absolutely' that 'God' does not exist, whereas I could agree with someone who doesn't rule out 'God's existence' but simply states the evidence is lacking for them to believe in said 'God'. Make sense?

To me, the observable 'evidence' of God's existence comes from religions and every one of them has a different 'definition' of their 'God', hence the 'evidence all over the place' statement in regards to 'Who' or 'What' God is.

I think the amputees limb regrowing after prayer is ridiculous

I am quite frankly very surprised here!
Amputee limb re-growing is DATA! How can you say you want a scientific approach and think data is ridiculous?
Science already cannot dabble with personal subjective evidence. But imagine a known handicap guy now suddenly has a fully grown hand. This hand is every which way examinable by Science. Sure this still doesn’t give science the opportunity to say ‘God exists’ because we can examine the re-grown hand but not the deity underlying it. To be honest, kpd560’s want for concrete data seems more scientific than yours.

That was the mistake I made in my hasty reply to the post. I don't think 'God' interacts with us on that level so I don't believe it would happen that way. After re-reading the post I realized that it was made as what 'evidence' would be accepted as 'God' existing. Now I still have reservations about the example because if such a thing ever happened, we could observe the phenomenon and probably come to the conclusion as to what caused it to occur. I'm sure some would rule it a 'miracle from God' but I would also expect a scientific explanation coming from observations that would not have a supernatural element to it.

Hope this clarifies. I probably should have just deleted my original post.

cheers

 

[TanNinety]

I might be missing your point here but I would disagree with someone who states 'absolutely' that 'God' does not exist, whereas I could agree with someone who doesn't rule out 'God's existence' but simply states the evidence is lacking for them to believe in said 'God'. Make sense?

Yup, makes sense! On that thought we are both in alignment.

I was thinking 'scientific approach' more in the way that due to the lack of observable 'evidence' one could logically come to the conclusion that 'God' does not exist.

But here’s the rub ..logically ..that conclusion is a fallacy.
Argumentun ad ignorantiam is logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a proposition is true because it has not been shown false or false because it has not been shown to be true. Or simply, concluding lack of evidence as evidence of lack is a fallacy.

If one still chooses to believe in the negative of the said proposition, it is a conviction(opinion that does not require proof) at that point. A conviction that does not require proof is :gasp: ‘faith’

‘I will change my mind based on future evidence for God but right now I say there is no God’ is a cop out. We are discussing an atheist’s beliefs ‘right now’, not when he might change them in the future.

For example, consider a theist’s statement: “I believe there is a god based on personal experience. This I hold tentatively until future evidence shows that there is not a godâ€.
Does the above theist have ‘faith’ or not?

An atheist’s conclusion is either logically fallacious or it is based on personal faith.

I know there isn’t a flying spaghetti monster ..through faith. I am not ashamed of it. Faith does not have to have all the negative connotations we attach to it.
Science has faith that the fundamental physical constants of our universe were the same, are the same and will be the same in the future. So I don’t see a reason why an atheist should dance around faith when he practices it every day[tentatively until shown empirical evidence]

 

[kpd560]

Now I still have reservations about the example because if such a thing ever happened, we could observe the phenomenon and probably come to the conclusion as to what caused it to occur. I'm sure some would rule it a 'miracle from God' but I would also expect a scientific explanation coming from observations that would not have a supernatural element to it.

I think science would have a hard time explaining limbs growing back suddenly after requests for supernatural intervention. Similarly, if someone could actually walk on water I would find myself in a difficult position not believing in the supernatural. Ditto for changing water to wine, parting bodies of water, etc. It really wouldn't take much for me to believe in God and I think most non-believers would agree. It doesn't even need to be anything grand like suspending the laws of nature. If God just spoke to me privately I'd become a believer. He must know this so why doesn't he?

Is it possible that some people need or want to believe and some don't? I know how easy it is to convince someone of something that they want to believe. It's much more difficult to convince someone who is indifferent to the belief. It's almost impossible to convince someone of something they don't want to believe. I would rate most theists in the first category. I'm in the second category but I know many atheists who are in the third.

 

[kpd560]

So I don’t see a reason why an atheist should dance around faith when he practices it every day[tentatively until shown empirical evidence]

Faith is defined as "confident belief". Since confidence is on a vast sliding scale based on evidence or reasonable expectation, faith is on a continuum too. The statement, "I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow" is about as far to one end of the scale as you can get but "I have faith that we'll have a balanced budget within 8 years" is at the other. In my mind, the first statement requires almost zero "faith" but the second requires huge amounts of "faith".

My (very confident)faith that God doesn't exist is not just based on the lack of any good evidence. It's based on the fact that according to everything we know, the supernatural doesn't exist. For me, it requires about as much faith to not believe in santa claus as to not believe in God. Now, we don't know everything and it's possible that eventually we may detect evidence of the supernatural but until that time I must make rational decisions based on what I do know. I hope my position makes some sense.

 

[logical bob]

So I don’t see a reason why an atheist should dance around faith when he practices it every day[tentatively until shown empirical evidence]

Looking around this forum, would you describe the Christian faith of the majority of posters as tentative until shown emprical evidence? It seems very much otherwise to me. Atheism as a falsifiable working hypothesis is a belief held in a very different way and I'd prefer to avoid the word faith to make that distinction clear.

 

[logical bob]

If God just spoke to me privately I'd become a believer.

I don't think I would. Lots of people say that God speaks to them privately and it seems unlikely that all of them are lying. I'm sure that many of them sincerely believe that he does. If I don't believe based on their experience I think consistency would require me not to believe based on mine either.

 

[kpd560]

If God just spoke to me privately I'd become a believer.

I don't think I would. Lots of people say that God speaks to them privately and it seems unlikely that all of them are lying. I'm sure that many of them sincerely believe that he does. If I don't believe based on their experience I think consistency would require me not to believe based on mine either.

If I had a conversation with God I would be one of the people highlighted above. How would you convince yourself that you were losing your marbles since it seems that would be the only other explanation. I'm not sure your need for consistency would be enough.

Again, to me, the strange thing is that God knows that all he needs to do is speak with me and I would believe, yet he doesn't. Why, I wonder?

 

[Rick W]

Again, to me, the strange thing is that God knows that all he needs to do is speak with me and I would believe, yet he doesn't. Why, I wonder?

God uses people to talk to other people. Happened quite a bit in scripture in both the new and old testament. I don't think that method ever stopped. God is talking to you but you're not believing what's being said.

 

[kpd560]

Again, to me, the strange thing is that God knows that all he needs to do is speak with me and I would believe, yet he doesn't. Why, I wonder?

God uses people to talk to other people. Happened quite a bit in scripture in both the new and old testament. I don't think that method ever stopped. God is talking to you but you're not believing what's being said.

Thanks Rick, you've actually got me thinking pretty deeply on this. Maybe I'm looking for the wrong kind of communication. There's a whole spectrum of communication from what we're doing here to the "communication" of a warm breeze blowing in your face. If I open up my definition of communication almost everything is talking to me. A beautiful sunset speaks to me. A great steak dinner talks. Sliding into a hot tub shouts at me. Etc. Is this God talking to me?

 

[TanNinety]

It doesn't even need to be anything grand like suspending the laws of nature. If God just spoke to me privately I'd become a believer. He must know this so why doesn't he?

Will you be able to live a meaningful life when you know without a doubt that God exists? I stop lying because I know sky-daddy is watching. Will then my conscience have the same satisfaction of avoiding a vice if I did something because I know I don’t want to be punished rather than do something because it is of my innate character and not because of a reward or punishment? In that regard I can see how doubt serves a meaningful purpose. Just an ad hoc thought experiment. May be God isn’t as narcissistic as religion paints Him to be?

Is it possible that some people need or want to believe and some don't? I know how easy it is to convince someone of something that they want to believe. It's much more difficult to convince someone who is indifferent to the belief. It's almost impossible to convince someone of something they don't want to believe. I would rate most theists in the first category. I'm in the second category but I know many atheists who are in the third.

This is an excellent observation.

Faith is defined as "confident beliefâ€. Since confidence is on a vast sliding scale based on evidence or reasonable expectation, faith is on a continuum too. The statement, "I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow" is about as far to one end of the scale as you can get but "I have faith that we'll have a balanced budget within 8 years" is at the other. In my mind, the first statement requires almost zero "faith" but the second requires huge amounts of "faith".

This seems a little contradictory but it could be from my understanding of the underlying meaning when you say ‘belief’.
Faith->Confident belief->Confident acceptance of truth of something. (let me know if this assumption of what I think you are saying is right, if not my next analysis is moot)

Let’s consider this:.
The highly likely an outcome, the more confident belief one has in the outcome, hence more faith one can have in the outcome (based on your ‘faith is confident belief’ definition)

You say: “I require almost zero faith that the sun will rise tomorrowâ€
We both agree that sun will rise tomorrow is a highly likely outcome.
So from your statement:
More likely an outcome(sunrise tomorrow) = less faith(almost zero faith). This goes against your definition of faith.

To remove the seeming contradiction let’s consider
“I require almost zero ‘effort’ to have confident belief that the sun will rise tomorrow†(does this portray your statement well?)
If so,
“I require almost zero effort to have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow†(this keeps intact ‘almost zero’ and doesn’t contradict with your definition of faith)

So based on the above I submit that the scale of continuum is not of faith itself, but the scale of continuum of effort to have faith.

In that regard, faith is faith, it’s the effort to have this faith that varies? (It takes me as much effort to have faith in ‘god doesn’t exist’ as it would to have faith that ‘santa doesn’t exist’)

 

[kpd560]

So based on the above I submit that the scale of continuum is not of faith itself, but the scale of continuum of effort to have faith.

Good catch TanNinety. Without even realizing it I slipped into using "faith" in the way I think of religous faith, that is, believing something without any good reason. I think the english language needs more words so that we can stop arguing about different usages. Don't eskimos have many words for snow?

 

[seekandlisten]

You say: “I require almost zero faith that the sun will rise tomorrowâ€
We both agree that sun will rise tomorrow is a highly likely outcome.
So from your statement:
More likely an outcome(sunrise tomorrow) = less faith(almost zero faith). This goes against your definition of faith.

To remove the seeming contradiction let’s consider
“I require almost zero ‘effort’ to have confident belief that the sun will rise tomorrow†(does this portray your statement well?)
If so,
“I require almost zero effort to have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow†(this keeps intact ‘almost zero’ and doesn’t contradict with your definition of faith)

So based on the above I submit that the scale of continuum is not of faith itself, but the scale of continuum of effort to have faith.

In that regard, faith is faith, it’s the effort to have this faith that varies? (It takes me as much effort to have faith in ‘god doesn’t exist’ as it would to have faith that ‘santa doesn’t exist’)

I might be missing your point here, but it seems the definition of 'faith' is wide and varied. To me 'faith' applies to 'religious nature' more than everyday occurances.

The statement that one has 'faith' that the sun will rise tomorrow really isn't 'faith' at all but a belief based on observed evidence. The sun has risen every morning for as long as recorded observances have been so the logical conclusion is that the sun will rise tomorrow. If it doesn't life on earth will begin to cease.

I believe in things I take in with my physical senses, whereas faith is in that which cannot be observed or taken in by our physical senses.

Faith is a complicated word but to me 'faith' cannot be disproved by any of our current means. That doesn't mean it can never be disproved but based on what we know it is highly unlikely.

In one scenario in reference whether or not one has faith in a 'God' I could agree with the following stance.

'Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.' Marcus Aurelius

I cannot 'force' someone to believe in a 'described' God nor can I cause someone to have 'faith' in an undescribed God.

I also couldn't really disagree with the statement, 'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too.?'(Douglas Adams)

Do you understand my point of view on this?

cheers

 

[TanNinety]

Lots of people say that God speaks to them privately and it seems unlikely that all of them are lying. I'm sure that many of them sincerely believe that he does. If I don't believe based on their experience I think consistency would require me not to believe based on mine either.

That is bad science/logic. One doesn’t try to fit data into a theory. It’s theory that is revised and made to fit data.

Person A had experience of god - data – there is no god.
Person B had experience of god – similar data – there is no god.
Person C had experience of god – similar old data – there is no god.
…
Person Z had experience of god –same old data – there is no god.
I had personal experience – new data – revise theory.

When you have new data(personal experience), you don’t try to fit this new data to fit your theory of ‘there is no god’. It is theory that ‘there is no god’ that needs to be revised. So the new revision become, either there is a god or kpd560 had an illusion. To say that ‘there is no god’ in view of new data is what is actually inconsistent.

 

[TanNinety]

I might be missing your point here, but it seems the definition of 'faith' is wide and varied.

I completely agree. So instead of assuming whatever definition I wanted, I went with the definition kpd560 provided.

Here’s the skeleton of my argument:
If,
Sun will rise tomorrow requires no faith at all, hence believing in sunrise is a non-faith based system.
Consider,
Believing in my god requires no faith at all for me, hence my religion is a non-faith based system.

Do you buy the above theists statement that his religion is non faith based just because it requires him almost zero faith to accept his god? If not, why not?

 

[seekandlisten]

I might be missing your point here, but it seems the definition of 'faith' is wide and varied.

I completely agree. So instead of assuming whatever definition I wanted, I went with the definition kpd560 provided.

Here’s the skeleton of my argument:
If,
Sun will rise tomorrow requires no faith at all, hence believing in sunrise is a non-faith based system.
Consider,
Believing in my god requires no faith at all for me, hence my religion is a non-faith based system.

Do you buy the above theists statement that his religion is non faith based just because it requires him almost zero faith to accept his god? If not, why not?

It's an interesting argument you are putting forward but I think kpd560, you, and me are all essentially agreeing on the same thing with a different perception of it.

kpd560 said

The statement, "I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow" is about as far to one end of the scale as you can get but "I have faith that we'll have a balanced budget within 8 years" is at the other. In my mind, the first statement requires almost zero "faith" but the second requires huge amounts of "faith".

I can agree with this statement as looking at how the word 'faith' is used to describe one's beliefs. For instance, in relation to religion, one simply states that they have faith in 'God', putting their 'faith' in this stance that 'God' exists over all observable evidence against the 'supernatural'. Now when they take this a step farther and say they believe in the 'Christian God' and reject all other definitions of God it becomes more belief based then faith based in my opinion.

So from my understanding kdp560 related the term 'faith' to a sliding scale based on what we choose to believe in regards to this 'faith' as varying depending on how much information we want to apply to our 'faith'. It takes a lot of 'faith' to believe the earth is only 6000 years old but I wouldn't say that 'faith' is founded in 'truth'. I can respect said persons belief, but for said person to apply this 'faith' as 'truth' others should buy into, I would say it has no basis and not something that should be taken on in 'faith'.

Your approach seems more along the lines of the amount of 'effort' behind this 'faith'. And my approach is to separate the terms 'faith' and 'belief'. In looking it over though and it seems as we are all referring to the same general 'idea'.

In my opinion 'religion' is not 'faith based' but more 'belief based' as one takes a look around at all the religions and 'chooses' which one they decide to believe as truth. This is one's personal belief not a choose made in faith of a 'higher power' than our own.

Make any sense? Correct me if I missed something.

cheers

 

[kpd560]

It's an interesting argument you are putting forward but I think kpd560, you, and me are all essentially agreeing on the same thing with a different perception of it.

I agree

There should be many words for faith.

I have faith in you means trust to me.
I have faith that the sun will rise means certainty to me.
I have faith in my religion means believing something without good(IMO) evidence.

There's three different types of faith right off the top of my head.

 

[TanNinety]

For instance, in relation to religion, one simply states that they have faith in 'God', putting their 'faith' in this stance that 'God' exists over all observable evidence against the 'supernatural'.

My contention is that there isn’t any observable evidence against supernatural. If there is, what is it?
You are reading no evidence for supernatural as evidence against supernatural, which in my previous posts I pointed out as a logical fallacy. I cannot stress this enough

To remove all confusion about the definition of faith, let me take kpd560’s post and go from there.
I have faith in you means trust to me->Both theists and atheists have this faith.
I have faith that the sun will rise means certainty to me.->Both theists and atheists have this faith.
I have faith in my religion means believing something without good(IMO) evidence.->Both theists and atheists have this faith.

Now you are fine with the first two definitions of faith for atheists but you are contending that atheists do not belong to the third kind of faith. Here is where we disagree.
An atheist says that a theist is without ‘proper’ or ‘good’ evidence for god. Hence an atheist feels entitled to ascribe the third kind of faith to theism.
Similarly
A theist says that an atheist is without ‘proper’ or ‘good’ evidence against god. Hence a theist feels entitled to ascribe the third kind of faith to atheism.

When neither of the camps have good and proper evidence, why is that we are compelled to argue that only theists have the third kind of faith and not atheists?
To think that atheists can make a claim of ‘there is no god’ without faith and without evidence is argumentum ad ignorantiam

If you want to bring a fourth kind of definition for faith, I can examine that as well.

 

[kpd560]

I'm sure you've heard the expression "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

If I told you I had an invisible pink unicorn living in my basement the burden of proof would be on me to prove it, not on you to disprove it.

 

[kpd560]

To think that atheists can make a claim of ‘there is no god’ without faith and without evidence is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You'll not find many atheists that assert that god absolutely doesn't exist. It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of something supernatural unless they meddle in the natural world.

All I can say is that the universe appears to me to not need a god. I base this opinion on many scientific things. You can say that I have faith in science because I do. It has a pretty good track record of explaining things and generally improving our lot here on Earth.

 

[TanNinety]

I'm sure you've heard the expression "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
If I told you I had an invisible pink unicorn living in my basement the burden of proof would be on me to prove it, not on you to disprove it.

1. I agree that the onus is on you to prove that an invisible pink unicorn lives in your basement.
2. I really don't know if there is one or not.
3. You try to convince me but I just don't see the invisible unicorn.
4. After multiple attempts, I still can't see it. So I still don't know if there is one in your basement or not.
5. Everything is fine and dandy so far.
6. One fine day, I claim that there is not an invisible unicorn living in your basement.
7. We both agree that burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.
8. You ask me to prove my claim.
9. I say your claim is false since you don't have enough evidence.
10. You point out that my evidence is a logical fallacy.
11. I don't have evidence that your invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist.
12. Everything is fine and dandy so far.
13. One fine day, I claim that you only believe in your invisible pink unicorn based on faith because you don't have proper and good evidence.
14. You reply, "well your claim is based on lack of proper and good evidence, so you are based on faith as well".

Which of the above do you have a problem with?

All I can say is that the universe appears to me to not need a god. I base this opinion on many scientific things

We both agree that science never made any claims about god. It's demonstrably true. Consider all the past and current theories and corollaries and there isn't one statement about god.
So you draw a personal conclusion that the universe appears to not need a god based on personal preference (because honestly, science itself did not draw this conclusion ever).
When a theist draws a personal conclusion based on personal preference, it's faith based. So how come his faith is so different from yours? Both of you draw personal conclusions based on your personal preferences.

Here's another way to see it. After considering many scientific things some people are of the opinion that a god exists (demonstrably true, if not all scientists would be atheists). If these people have faith, how is their faith different from yours?