Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[Walker]

Crom just poked his head into my car and said...

All those who don't believe in me, or some version of me, good on you! But don't get cocky about it. Being ten feet ahead, in the middle of a marathon, ain't no lead at all.

...then he smote me (again) and went on his way.

At least this Crom did not shotgun you into submission (shotgunning being a term derived from Vietnam, so I've heard.)

[Immanuel Can]

Here is a clarification for the hard of thinking:
There is no evidence that there is a god.
There is evidence that there is no god.

Who here is arguing the latter? You are fighting a straw man, Mr Can.

I didn't say you were arguing it. I asked you if you wanted to stand behind the distinction between it and the first statement.

Hobbes says your distinction is no distinction at all, because he denies the coherence of the latter. If Hobbes is right, you added no information by the inclusion of the alternate premise. Is he right?

So far as I can tell, it seems you're now agreeing with him: there is no distinction. Is that right? Again, I'm asking, not telling.

Alright then, if you and he are on the same tune now, then...

Does your Atheism mean...

a) "I know I have seen no evidence personally for a god,"

b) "I know that other people cannot have seen evidence for a god"

c) "I know that there is no evidence for a god,"

d) "I do not know whether or not there is any evidence for a god," or

e) "My claim is not a knowledge claim at all, but is emotive, non-rational or a wish-expression."

Some knowledge claim must be behind Atheism, or it's obviously e). So what would that knowledge claim be?

[uwot]

I tried to make it as simple as I could:
'There is no evidence that there is a god.' means something different to 'There is evidence that there is no god.' I don't know if Hobbes can tell the difference, but clearly, you can't. The result being that you are attacking a position that nobody is defending. You are tilting at windmills, Mr Can.

Some knowledge claim must be behind Atheism, or it's obviously e). So what would that knowledge claim be?

You missed f) (How like a Christian!) I know that anything that has been presented as evidence for a god is no such thing.

[uwot]

"Mankind by its wisdom did not come to know God, " says the Bible, but also "God spoke." He didn't have to reveal His existence to mankind, but He did.

You can argue that He hasn't -- but it would be illogical to argue that IF God exists, he couldn't.

It's another gem from Mr Can! IF Santa exists, you can argue that He hasn't climbed down your chimney, but it would be illogical to argue that He couldn't.

[Obvious Leo]

We are told by science, in fact, that our universe is expanding. So into what is it expanding?

Science is not going to help you here because science makes no such statement. For a start physics is not a science but a branch of applied mathematics and the so-called "expanding space" is a mathematical statement and not a physical one. There a great many different spaces used in mathematics and the psuedo-Riemenannian hypersphere is merely one of many which is used in physics. The Cartesian space is nothing more than a non-Euclidean co-ordinate system and to ascribe physical properties to it is metaphysical horseshit. The "expanding", "contracting" and "curved' spaces of Einsteinian physics are mathematical metaphors and NOT physical constructs, in exactly the same way that the wave functions of subatomic physics are mathematical descriptors and not literal ones.

If you're going to try to use science to argue the case for the existence of something external to the universe then all you demonstrate is that you don't understand the objectives of science.

[Immanuel Can]

(You missed f) (How like a Christian!) I know that anything that has been presented as evidence for a god is no such thing.

I accept your rewording, even though it appears essentially merely to reproduce c).

On your side, then, this requires the background claim: "I know everything that has been presented as evidence for a god, have weighed it all rationally, and have eliminated any possibility that any of it could be true."

Whether such a background claim is plausible is open for all readers to judge.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Clearly you still do not understand the difference between:
There is no evidence for god.
There is evidence for no god.

The second line is meaningless. That is the difference.

I'll let you gentlemen decide whether uwot's distinction is important or not.

When you agree, I'll be able to know what sort of Atheism I'm addressing, and will be able to say something relevant.

You've not managed to say anything relevant, until you accept your burden, and say what the fuck "god" means.

[henry quirk]

This is me, helpin' the conversation along...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Christianity

From the piece: God in Christianity is the eternal being who created and preserves all things. Christians believe God to be both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world)..

Mannie, is this an acceptable definition? Can you work with it?

Hobbes, is this an acceptable definition? Can you work with it?

If so: proceed, gentlemen.

[henry quirk]

...this "I know I have seen no evidence personally for a god," most closely describes my position.

Bob tells me this makes me more agnostic than anything else...if so, I'm good with that.

[Hobbes' Choice]

This is me, helpin' the conversation along...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Christianity

From the piece: God in Christianity is the eternal being who created and preserves all things. Christians believe God to be both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world)..

Mannie, is this an acceptable definition? Can you work with it?

Hobbes, is this an acceptable definition? Can you work with it?

If so: proceed, gentlemen.

I'll take that, but I don't think "Mannie" is going to like a definition that is logically incoherent.

[henry quirk]

No offense to Mannie, but I'm not seein' why he wouldn't.

Any discussion about god is gonna be waist deep in incoherency (from the human perspective)...surely he knows this.

[Hobbes' Choice]

No offense to Mannie, but I'm not seein' why he wouldn't.

Any discussion about god is gonna be waist deep in incoherency (from the human perspective)...surely he knows this.

No offence, but he seems, so far to be only keen on attacking atheism from a logical perspective. Obviously all critiques of Atheism rely on some definition of God, which he has failed to nail down so far.

[uwot]

On your side, then, this requires the background claim:

No it doesn't. But anyway...

"I know everything that has been presented as evidence for a god, have weighed it all rationally,

Pretty much. As an undergraduate I had to read and criticise everyone from Plato to Plantinga. None of them, not Aristotle, not Aquinas, not Anselm, not Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant (for or against), Hegel, Kierkegaard nor anyone else stands up to scrutiny. I have debated publicly with advocates of intelligent design/irreducible complexity and the only vote I lost was in a Catholic college. Take whatever succour from that you wish.
Unlike you, however, I have always responded to the issues raised and do not try to manoeuvre my interlocutor into a position they do not hold. As I say, you are fighting your own straw man, which any fool can do. You have to do better, Mr Can.

and have eliminated any possibility that any of it could be true."

You're being silly again. You cannot prove that anything doesn't exist, not Russell's teapot, the Loch Ness monster, sasquatch or fairies. What you are asking is akin to asking whether I have looked under every toadstool on the planet to prove that fairies don't exist, then allowed for the possibility that they might be hiding, or that they are only visible to those that really, really believe in them. As an afairyist I have absolutely no burden of proof, I am only obliged to demonstrate that any argument that claims to show they exist is inadequate. Same with god. Same with the resurrection. The arguments that either are true are only compelling to those who wish them so.

Whether such a background claim is plausible is open for all readers to judge.

I haven't made any such claim and it doesn't follow from anything I have claimed. If you think otherwise, present your argument and I will show you the logical gaff you have made.

[Immanuel Can]

and have eliminated any possibility that any of it could be true."

You're being silly again. You cannot prove that anything doesn't exist, not Russell's teapot, the Loch Ness monster, sasquatch or fairies.

Good of you to point that out. Quite so...but it's not my "silly." It's the Atheist's. Atheism makes a claim it cannot back. It essentially says, "I know the unknowable."

Realistically, an Atheist has two choices: 1) When he says that God does not exist, he's making a knowledge claim, or 2) When he says God does not exist, he's not making a knowledge claim (maybe a wish statement, a personal claim, an inclination or an emotion). There are only those two choices. Basic logic, that: a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. If it is a knowledge claim, it's a knowledge claim: if it's not, it's not.

But if it's 2) it's not serious as a consideration for anyone else. And the Atheist doesn't just want to say that he knows...he wants to add that other people ought to know it too, or ought to listen to him for some reason.

If it's a knowledge claim, then the onus is on the Atheist to explain how he knows. But the burden of proof to claiming "God does not exist" is, as you rightly say, beyond possibility.

So we're back to wishful thinking. And truthfully, that's all Atheism ever is.

[Immanuel Can]

This is me, helpin' the conversation along...

Thanks, Henry, but I'm fine. This isn't my strand, and the terms of debate were set by the original poster. I've been looking for someone willing to shore up his sagging case, but nobody's been willing to do that. And that's fine. But I feel no need to launch a different debate off his strand.

As for Mr. Hobbes, he certainly can start his own strand with a topic he cares about, and if I'm interested I might join in. But we've had lengthy conversations which, I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you, failed to convince him of anything. And I'm not sure anything would.

However, at the moment, I'm focused on responding to another person, and have no interest in starting a second, off-topic conversation with Hobbes. I wish to stay on focus. And that focus is whether Atheism has anything to offer in terms of evidence, which of course would be directly relevant to the existing strand.

If I suspect at any time in the future Hobbes is actually interested in anything I might have to offer, I may reengage with him. I bear him no ill will. But for now, he seems in a rather irate state, one from which I cannot imagine an intellectual conversation emerging. So I'm content.

But it's always nice to hear from your courteous, refreshingly blunt and quite curmudgeonly self.