Where’s The Evidence?

[chaz wyman]

God is an amorphous concept, whose parameters, characteristics and qualities are not even agreed upon by those that insist "He', "She, or "It" exists.

in what form could God plausibly exist to you?

Er.... What do you mean by "god"?

[attofishpi]

God is an amorphous concept, whose parameters, characteristics and qualities are not even agreed upon by those that insist "He', "She, or "It" exists.

in what form could God plausibly exist to you?

Er.... What do you mean by "god"?

Perhaps an entity that will judge whether you reincarnate to become man rather than the energy of man? Do you believe it plausible that such an entity could exist?

[chaz wyman]

Perhaps an entity that will judge whether you reincarnate to become man rather than the energy of man? Do you believe it plausible that such an entity could exist?

Bloody hell. Why the fuck should I even begin to consider such a fantasy.
Do you have any idea of ridiculous this sounds?

Do you believe in fairies or the Incredible Hulk?

[attofishpi]

Bloody hell. Why the fuck should I even begin to consider such a fantasy.
Do you have any idea of ridiculous this sounds?

Do you believe in fairies or the Incredible Hulk?

i happen to KNOW God exists, so i find your assumption that you are going to be dead for the rest of eternity ridiculous.

[chaz wyman]

Bloody hell. Why the fuck should I even begin to consider such a fantasy.
Do you have any idea of ridiculous this sounds?

Do you believe in fairies or the Incredible Hulk?

i happen to KNOW God exists, so i find your assumption that you are going to be dead for the rest of eternity ridiculous.

You are a damn fool

[attofishpi]

i happen to KNOW God exists, so i find your assumption that you are going to be dead for the rest of eternity ridiculous.

You are a damn fool

But not damned right? It takes a highly intelligent fool to make an oracle (a person of wise counsel). But i don't expect an atheist to understand that.

http://www.androcies.com

[chaz wyman]

i happen to KNOW God exists, so i find your assumption that you are going to be dead for the rest of eternity ridiculous.

You are a damn fool

But not damned right? It takes a highly intelligent fool to make an oracle (a person of wise counsel). But i don't expect an atheist to understand that.

http://www.androcies.com

My efforts with you are pearls before swine.

[Thundril]

i happen to KNOW God exists,

to what extent do you 'KNOW'?
Are you fairly confident, very confident, or so absolutely certain that you do not believe you could possibly be wrong?

[attofishpi]

i happen to KNOW God exists,

to what extent do you 'KNOW'?
Are you fairly confident, very confident, or so absolutely certain that you do not believe you could possibly be wrong?

I am absolutely certain that I KNOW I could not possibly be wrong.

My only uncertainty is whether God or god is divine. Did we evolve into a binary system? Is god man made?

[attofishpi]

But not damned right? It takes a highly intelligent fool to make an oracle (a person of wise counsel). But i don't expect an atheist to understand that.

http://www.androcies.com

My efforts with you are pearls before swine.

Oooh, but i did enjoy the oysters! oink oink!!

[Thundril]

I am absolutely certain that I KNOW I could not possibly be wrong.

Can you honestly not remember a single occasion when, on reflection, you have considered that you have previously been wrong? About anything whatsoever?

[attofishpi]

I am absolutely certain that I KNOW I could not possibly be wrong.

Can you honestly not remember a single occasion when, on reflection, you have considered that you have previously been wrong? About anything whatsoever?

Thundril...did you take my response as arrogant or foolish or both? I thought you of all people would have started a more intelligent line of questioning.
Ive been wrong about copious amounts of things, including my expected response from you.

[TR3]

Since philosophy never dies, I’ll commit the sin of posting my comments to an old thread…

Antony writes in this article: “The question I wish to ask is this: How can the New Atheists employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism?”

Those who rely on empirical and logical evidence DO apply evidentialist principles to any testable hypothesis that is not IMAGINARY.

I’ll address Antony’s first point:

1) “But the New Atheists all believe that (probably) no God or other divine reality exists. And that belief must be evidence-based if it is to be rationally held, according to evidentialism.”
Given this premise, is there evidence that no God or other divine reality probably exists? Consider the following:

a) There are thousands of religions and gods imagined throughout history – all contradictory in ways trivial and fundamental. No objective evidence exists that convinces all theists to adhere to the same god concept, let alone atheists. This is evidence that no god concept is universal.

b) God concepts are most often based upon the time and location of the culture you are born into. Furthermore, exposure to the concepts of any religion is required for belief. (Jews do not wake up one morning as Hindus never having heard of having been exposed to the Bagvadhgita or Hindu concepts.) This is evidence that any one religion is not innate, but must be indoctrinated.

c) There is ample evidence that humans invent cults, religions, and deities. In addition, it is well documented that people suffer from visions, imaginings, hallucinations, schizophrenia, etc. that impart belief in something not real. There is also undisputed evidence that people can and will lie to suit their purposes. Therefore, based on all of this evidence regarding human nature, the probability is higher to believe any religion (whatever it may be) is based upon fiction than reality. Even if one denomination of one religion was ultimately correct, there is no way of testing which is the “true” religion hiding amongst all the false ones. And, given that, then all religions must be discarded until positive evidence exists tipping the scales in favor of that religion.

d) Evolution – a well-established scientific theory – provides evidence that man evolved from earlier life-forms and not from the magic hoodoo of some divine wizard.

e) Cosmology – when examining the universe, all evidence for mysteries previously solved points to natural explanations that follow the laws of physics. There is no reason to assume that the mysteries still remaining will have anything but a natural explanation, and therefore the God of the Gaps argument (Gawd didit!) isn’t applicable when seeking new answers. The theist may ask, what caused the Big Bang?, insisting they “know” that Gawd didit. But god is an imaginary concept held differently in the minds of the religious. God is, at most, an untestable hypothesis; and an untestable hypothesis falls below other potentially hypotheses that may one day be testable as science and technology progress.

f) The Bible – There is evidence that elements of the bible have been tampered with, outright forged, are contradictory, lack eyewitnesses, and have no identifiable authors. The elements that are included are done so by fiat vote by human clergy claiming divine insight based upon majority rule. How do others who claim to believe in the same god view the Christian bible? The Jewish religion will only share the first half of the bible, dismissing the claims in the New Testament. The Muslims believe the bible to be distorted or corrupted. Furthermore, the bible’s interpretation is not even agreed upon by those who attempt to follow it: Mormons, Baptists, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, etc., all have sometimes very different interpretations. Therefore, the evidence suggests that the bible is one of the least trustworthy, most contentious books ever offered as proof of a God (or trinity of Gods who are somehow still one).

g) Prayer – no scientific study has ever provided an experiment whereby results of prayer can be measured and replicated. The evidence is that there is no efficacy of prayer.

These are just some of the evidences I rely upon as an atheist: thousands of contradictory religions, belief based upon birth community, human delusions and fabrication, evolution, natural cosmology, the errant bible, the inefficacy of prayer. I’m sure there are many more things that I could include, but these are some of the evidences that I consider (and I know other atheists do as well) when dismissing theism. While they don’t disprove any God (including Odin or Zeus) or that a divine reality might actually exist, these evidences make any one religious vision highly improbable. They also undermine Michael Antony’s position that atheists are unwilling to apply the same evidentialist principles to their own worldview. The evidence has been examined by the atheist jury, and any one god actually existing has been found highly improbable. Therefore, based upon the evidence, it is reasonable to believe that no god or divine realm probably exists.

[attofishpi]

1) “But the New Atheists all believe that (probably) no God or other divine reality exists. And that belief must be evidence-based if it is to be rationally held, according to evidentialism.”
Given this premise, is there evidence that no God or other divine reality probably exists? Consider the following:

a) There are thousands of religions and gods imagined throughout history – all contradictory in ways trivial and fundamental. No objective evidence exists that convinces all theists to adhere to the same god concept, let alone atheists. This is evidence that no god concept is universal.

In what way are they fundamentally contradictory?
Are they not (in the majority) in agreement that there are consequences to be considered upon ones actions?

b) God concepts are most often based upon the time and location of the culture you are born into. Furthermore, exposure to the concepts of any religion is required for belief. (Jews do not wake up one morning as Hindus never having heard of having been exposed to the Bagvadhgita or Hindu concepts.) This is evidence that any one religion is not innate, but must be indoctrinated.

Sure, but is it not 'God' that decides the 'time' and 'location' of your birth, within which ever culture that 'it' decides is appropriate...ps. i know upon which conditions that decision is based.

c) There is ample evidence that humans invent cults, religions, and deities. In addition, it is well documented that people suffer from visions, imaginings, hallucinations, schizophrenia, etc. that impart belief in something not real. There is also undisputed evidence that people can and will lie to suit their purposes. Therefore, based on all of this evidence regarding human nature, the probability is higher to believe any religion (whatever it may be) is based upon fiction than reality. Even if one denomination of one religion was ultimately correct, there is no way of testing which is the “true” religion hiding amongst all the false ones. And, given that, then all religions must be discarded until positive evidence exists tipping the scales in favor of that religion.

Sure, but perhaps no religion is ultimatley 'false' since 'God' intended your existence to persevere with the inception of that particular doctrine.

d) Evolution – a well-established scientific theory – provides evidence that man evolved from earlier life-forms and not from the magic hoodoo of some divine wizard.

Sure, and surely something such as the bible should be taken with a grain of salt...do you really think 'God' would have intended it to be taken literally...really?!!
I don't buy bull (bible) i dont just buy crap...i do know that God (if divine) or whoever created 'it' is taking the piss...wanting us to think a little harder...and i do know that a judging God/'God' exists...and possibly its reason is the onset of entropy.

e) Cosmology – when examining the universe, all evidence for mysteries previously solved points to natural explanations that follow the laws of physics. There is no reason to assume that the mysteries still remaining will have anything but a natural explanation, and therefore the God of the Gaps argument (Gawd didit!) isn’t applicable when seeking new answers. The theist may ask, what caused the Big Bang?, insisting they “know” that Gawd didit. But god is an imaginary concept held differently in the minds of the religious. God is, at most, an untestable hypothesis; and an untestable hypothesis falls below other potentially hypotheses that may one day be testable as science and technology progress.

What if God is all existence all matter all energy all reality. It didnt start the universe perhaps, yet i know from experience that it CAN govern all of our reality.
Perhaps as an atheist you should attempt to prove otherwise.

f) The Bible – There is evidence that elements of the bible have been tampered with, outright forged, are contradictory, lack eyewitnesses, and have no identifiable authors. The elements that are included are done so by fiat vote by human clergy claiming divine insight based upon majority rule. How do others who claim to believe in the same god view the Christian bible? The Jewish religion will only share the first half of the bible, dismissing the claims in the New Testament. The Muslims believe the bible to be distorted or corrupted. Furthermore, the bible’s interpretation is not even agreed upon by those who attempt to follow it: Mormons, Baptists, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, etc., all have sometimes very different interpretations. Therefore, the evidence suggests that the bible is one of the least trustworthy, most contentious books ever offered as proof of a God (or trinity of Gods who are somehow still one).

Again, one does not have to take such doctrine literally as it was never intended to be so...to do so is to truly buy bull...to not think for ones self...the sages want more from us.

g) Prayer – no scientific study has ever provided an experiment whereby results of prayer can be measured and replicated. The evidence is that there is no efficacy of prayer.

To pray is an interesting word. Is it yet another random coincidence in the English language that pray is a homophone to prey?
The end of the New Testament talks of the beast 666. Why?
Isnt the beast our energy? Our food? Do we not prey for our food?
Was not Christ born amongst the animals? Did he not tell us to eat his flesh and drink his blood..Again, one must take the buy bull with a tiny grain of salt.
All of us prey every day - except perhaps the vegetarians.
God has a giant stake\steak in ENTROPY....
Be good and your soul just may reincarnate human...be evil and you may end up the energy of man..
Why port any?
Y PORT NE
ENTROPY.

These are just some of the evidences I rely upon as an atheist: thousands of contradictory religions, belief based upon birth community, human delusions and fabrication, evolution, natural cosmology, the errant bible, the inefficacy of prayer. I’m sure there are many more things that I could include, but these are some of the evidences that I consider (and I know other atheists do as well) when dismissing theism. While they don’t disprove any God (including Odin or Zeus) or that a divine reality might actually exist, these evidences make any one religious vision highly improbable. They also undermine Michael Antony’s position that atheists are unwilling to apply the same evidentialist principles to their own worldview. The evidence has been examined by the atheist jury, and any one god actually existing has been found highly improbable. Therefore, based upon the evidence, it is reasonable to believe that no god or divine realm probably exists.

A God\god becomes increasingly probable as entropy increases...unfortunatly ATHEIST...its a fact.

My evidence of a 'God'\god here:- '
Beyond Reasonable Doubt:- http://www.androcies.com

[Siobhan]

As an atheist, I agree with the author's view that there is simply a lack of empirical evidence, and I don't think that just 'knowing' is really a substantial argument. However, I am willing to accept a believer's claim about faith, and that it extends beyond empirical knowledge. I envy people who have that belief, but I simply cannot remove fact to make room for faith, as Kant suggested.