Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[thedoc]

Neptune has been very closely studied by a large number of astronomers using a wide range of different telescopes. It was also visited by the Voyager 2 spacecraft in 1989 and a wealth of empirical data was collected on this mission. On the balance of probabilities we can safely accept the existence of Neptune as a validated fact and thus no belief in its existence is necessary.

Nice dodge, I notice that you didn't actually answer my question, but diverted to other data.

"Did you, yourself, personally observe Neptune through a telescope, or do you personally know someone who has?"

[Obvious Leo]

Nice dodge, I notice that you didn't actually answer my question, but diverted to other data.

No question was put to me on this subject.

"Did you, yourself, personally observe Neptune through a telescope, or do you personally know someone who has?"

Yes to both.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Once again Neptune is defined BY THE EVIDENCE. and its existence is therefore quite evident. Nothing of the kind can be said for your undefined "god"

Apparently you have observed Neptune through a telescope, or know someone who has.

Of course. But the evidence of Neptune goes much further than a simply observation of it. It's existence is not in question, neither is its definition.

[Immanuel Can]

You misunderstand the position of the atheist, doc. An atheist does not believe there is a god and this is a completely different statement from what you're saying. Belief and non-belief are not equivalent constructs.

Let us accept your statement, that "an Atheist does not believe there's a God." Okay. Your words exactly.

However, we certainly need to clarify, because stated in the form you give it, it is ambiguous.

So we must ask, does it mean, "An Atheist admits he does not know anything about any God," or "An Atheist positively asserts that he knows there is no God"? As you have framed it, it could mean either: but it clearly cannot mean both at the same time. The latter is a statement of knowledge, and the former a claim of unknowing.

If it's the former, it's trivial.

If it's the latter, it's implausible.

So is the form of Atheism you wish to speak about the trivial kind, or the implausible kind?

[Obvious Leo]

I have no authority to say what other people believe or don't believe. I'm merely making a point about the use of language because any discussion in philosophy is just so much navel-gazing unless the players are using common definitions of the terms being used. Since you haven't even seen fit to define the god you believe in then your side of the conversation hasn't even started. However I'm willing to set the ball rolling by defining the god I don't believe in because this is the god which the men in frocks were trying to brainwash me into believing in.

According to the Roman church teachings of my youth god is an omnipotent and omniscient being who exists external to the physical universe and is responsible for its existence. Since this is the bit that I don't buy then the rest of the religious embellishment tacked onto it as after-market sales strategies are of no interest to me.

[Obvious Leo]

This is why Richard Dawkins pisses me off so much. I respect him as a scientist but I have very little regard for his judgement when it comes to advancing the cause of science in the non-scientific community. He runs around the world trying to explain that virgins can't have babies, blokes can't come back from the dead, that you can't fit two of every animal in the world onto a boat, that blokes can't live to be 900 years old, that you can't feed 5000 people on a tin of sardines and a couple of bagels, etc etc.

I've met him a couple of times and it took considerable self-restraint on my part not to grab him by the shoulders and shake the living shit out of him and then deliver my opinion, which is this:

"For fuck's sake man, have a bit of self-respect. You are a revered man of science and you really ought to know better than to get sucked in by such a transparently bogus ploy. When you argue with these plonkers you're playing right into their hands. All you need to do is LAUGH AT THEM.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You misunderstand the position of the atheist, doc. An atheist does not believe there is a god and this is a completely different statement from what you're saying. Belief and non-belief are not equivalent constructs.

Let us accept your statement, that "an Atheist does not believe there's a God." Okay. Your words exactly.

However, we certainly need to clarify, because stated in the form you give it, it is ambiguous.

So we must ask, does it mean, "An Atheist admits he does not know anything about any God," or "An Atheist positively asserts that he knows there is no God"? As you have framed it, it could mean either: but it clearly cannot mean both at the same time. The latter is a statement of knowledge, and the former a claim of unknowing.

If it's the former, it's trivial.

If it's the latter, it's implausible.

So is the form of Atheism you wish to speak about the trivial kind, or the implausible kind?

There is no ambiguity.
If there is then it derives from the fact that "god" is meaningless if not defined, and as you have not yet had the balls to define god, this is going to remain a problem for you.

An atheist does not believe in god, needs no further explanation.
There are people who do not believe in Fairies too.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no authority to say what other people believe or don't believe. I'm merely making a point about the use of language because any discussion in philosophy is just so much navel-gazing unless the players are using common definitions of the terms being used.

Agreed. That's why it's so important, if I'm going to be fair to you, that you define precisely what you mean by Atheism. I'll come back to that at the end of this message.

Since you haven't even seen fit to define the god you believe in then your side of the conversation hasn't even started.

Not so. I'm afraid perhaps you' ve mistaken the primary question for the secondary one.

The primary question has to be, "Does a Supreme Being exist?" and only after that one's settled is it even coherent to ask, "What are the characteristics of this Supreme Being?" So long as the first question is under debate (which, by definition of Atheism, it is), there isn't even a coherent possibility of talking about the potential characteristics of any such Being.

However I'm willing to set the ball rolling by defining the god I don't believe in because this is the god which the men in frocks were trying to brainwash me into believing in.

I probably don't believe in that Supreme Being either. If He wants you to believe in ignorance, or merely by the authority of men in frocks, I would agree with your conclusion that their "god" is unlikely to be the real one.

According to the Roman church teachings of my youth god is an omnipotent and omniscient being who exists external to the physical universe and is responsible for its existence. Since this is the bit that I don't buy then the rest of the religious embellishment tacked onto it as after-market sales strategies are of no interest to me.

Okay, I see. You don't buy the whole Supreme Being concept, by definition. Got it. And statements about the exact nature of the Supreme Being are not interesting to you, since you don't believe in the very concept. Okay.

But we're still not getting an answer to which kind of Atheism you wish to sponsor: do you wish to say "I personally don't know evidence for God," or "There exists no God?" Again, the first one is likely true, but not informative as to what others may know. In that sense, it's true but trivial. The second one would be a very ambitious claim, which (if true) would bind all rational persons to your conclusion -- provided you had sufficient evidence to show your claim to be rational. Without such evidence, though, it would be irrational to accept your claim.

So again, you're between "trivial" Atheism and "irrational" Atheism. Which do you want?

[Immanuel Can]

There is no ambiguity.

Factually incorrect. OL has rightly asked us to distinguish between two different claims, both sometimes called "Atheism": disbelieve in God, and belief in no God. This we are doing.

If there is then it derives from the fact that "god" is meaningless if not defined, and as you have not yet had the balls to define, god this is going to remain a problem for you.

The definition "Supreme Being" will suffice for now. As I pointed out to OL, any claims about the Supreme Being's identity beyond that can, for the moment, remain undecided, for they are logically secondary to the question of whether any such Being can exist.

An atheist does not believe in god, needs no further explanation

As you can see above, this isn't so. For one may disbelieve in God because one does not personally know Him, or one may disbelieve because one imagines one has evidence that God does not -- or cannot -- exist.

Atheism survives only because it's never asked to define itself. If it ever did, its irrationality (or alternately, its triviality) would become so manifest that no one would ever be an Atheist...at least, no rational person would.

[Obvious Leo]

But we're still not getting an answer to which kind of Atheism you wish to sponsor: do you wish to say "I personally don't know evidence for God," or "There exists no God?" Again, the first one is likely true, but not informative as to what others may know. In that sense, it's true but trivial. The second one would be a very ambitious claim, which (if true) would bind all rational persons to your conclusion -- provided you had sufficient evidence to show your claim to be rational. Without such evidence, though, it would be irrational to accept your claim.

You're not getting it. I am making no claim of any description. I am refusing to acknowledge the validity of a claim which by its very definition lies beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry. As a philosopher of science I understand that meaningful statements about the nature of the universe can only be made on the basis of information available from within the universe itself. This understanding has underscored the philosophy of applied metaphysics throughout human history and therefore the burden of justifying it does not lie with me.

[Obvious Leo]

The definition "Supreme Being" will suffice for now. As I pointed out to OL, any claims about the Supreme Being's identity beyond that can, for the moment, remain undecided, for they are logically secondary to the question of whether any such Being can exist.

The question is NOT whether such a being can exist. The question is whether the existence of such a being can be established by using the formal rules of logic and the answer is NO. That is what atheism is to me at least.

[Dubious]

So again, you're between "trivial" Atheism and "irrational" Atheism. Which do you want?

How about just atheism without the modifiers which are not necessary given the same consequence. Or put another way if A=B & B=C then A=C. My brilliance in logic astounds me! I don't think anyone EVER - except me - made it so incandescently clear. What counter argument could possibly pollute such crystalline transparency?

[Dubious]

Atheism survives only because it's never asked to define itself.

How can any definition be more definitive than rubbing out ANY creator external to the circumference of the Universe or whatever it is which encompasses it. Anything absolute can be stated decisively and succinctly being immune to any philosophical embellishments since it is THAT which can no-longer be modified. The one word "atheisim" both connotatively and denotatively is precisely the kind of word whose meaning doesn't need to be sustained by additional inferences.

[uwot]

..would the fact of my having no evidence for Neptune be sufficient reason for me to deny Neptune's existence?

The difference between god and Neptune is that Neptune is, if you insist 'allegedly', made of familiar substances; without going into detail: rock and gas. The effect it has on other lumps of rock and gas can be measured, it can be seen through telescopes, and we have sent a probe to where we calculated it to be, and hey presto, there is a lump of ordinary rock and gas exactly where all the evidence suggests it to be. Some or all of the evidence could have been manipulated, or even fabricated, to dupe fools like you and I, for reasons we will never fathom, but the claims are all verifiable by technology that is available to us.

I think you can easily see the unreason of your claim. Atheism is not able rationally to affirm "there IS no evidence," only "I, personally, have no evidence, nor do my skeptical friends."

On the other hand, God, according to mainstream christian beliefs, is either insubstantial, or made of something that cannot be detected by any contrivance that human beings could muster. Not only is there no actual evidence for a god of that sort; there is no conceivable evidence.

Meanwhile, millions claim otherwise, and by what empirical proof would Atheism assert the whole bunch of them were nothing but superstitious lunatics or liars?

You are at pains to point out the different shades and flavours of religious belief, yet you lump all atheists together into one brute herd. I gather there are some traditions according to which there is a special place in hell for hypocrites. Too bad if they are right, as that's a red hot poker up the bum in perpetuity for you.

Atheism could WISH it, but it would be absurd to take seriously any claim it had proof for it.

You are projecting. As I told you, it is the beliefs you wish were true that bear the burden of proof. Atheists, most of them, wish nothing whatsoever with regard to any god.

Atheism cannot even begin to meet the basic standard of proof for "there is no _____", let alone "evidence for no God."

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

This is priceless:

...it would be surprising if the Creator of the universe, assuming He exists, were merely to present Himself as an object to be studied by the sciences and limited wisdoms of men. It would be, to say the least, quite a condescension for the Supreme Being.

However, it would be equally improbable to suppose that the Creator would not be manifest in at least indicative forms with the Creation...

What possible criteria can you suggest that makes it "equally improbable" that your god would and wouldn't make his presence known?

Anyway: if you can stop making meaningless analogies between material an immaterial things, we can move on and have a laugh with your argument from, or to, design.

[Obvious Leo]

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

This is a neat summary of the impasse we're at. I and most atheists would assert the first of these statements whereas IC and his obfuscationist brethren will seek to argue against the second, which is NOT the statement being made. This is a very popular strategy for politicians when a question is put them that they don't want to answer. They simple change the question into one which they can answer in accordance with their own agenda.

we can move on and have a laugh with your argument from, or to, design.

Yes. Although shooting fish in a barrel is not very sporting I was rather hoping to have some fun with the teleological argument myself.