Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[Hobbes' Choice]

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.
You've missed the category that most accurately represents most Atheists, and the one not covered by either of your points.
I cannot "disbelieve" a thing that is not clearly defined, and there is not need to "believe in no God".
Simply enough I have not use for belief at all.

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.
"Supreme Being" is no definition. I have no obligation to even consider such are risible invention.

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.

As I can see You have not made any sort of case or argument. A two word epithet is not better than a one word epithet. What is 'supreme'?


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.

Atheism is a default position. It's just common sense. What is irrational is "GOD" and those that believe.

[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.

[Immanuel Can]

You're not getting it. I am making no claim of any description.

You are making no claim? Not even that God doesn't exist? Okay.

..but am refusing to acknowledge the validity of a claim which by its very definition lies beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry.

But the claim you're not making is based on denying a "definition"? But you're not making that claim?

You'll forgive me if I find your use of language disingenuous there. It's self-contradictory in two lines.

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.

Has it escaped your notice that "God" is not a member of the set "things within the universe"? That's what we mean when we say that God is "transcendent," not merely "immanent" within the universe. No Christian believes in a merely immanent god, though perhaps some Gnostic or Pantheistic sects would accept your terms; so by definition no one here is defending the proposition that God should be found within the universe.

[Obvious Leo]

You are making no claim? Not even that God doesn't exist? Okay.

I feel certain that I've made my position on this question perfectly plain through repetition. The existence or non-existence of the supernatural is not a legitimate subject for either scientific or philosophical enquiry by definition. Naturally this rules out the absurd notion of transcendent cause.

[Immanuel Can]

I feel certain that I've made my position on this question perfectly plain through repetition. The existence or non-existence of the supernatural is not a legitimate subject for either scientific or philosophical enquiry by definition. Naturally this rules out the absurd notion of transcendent cause.

If that's your position, you haven't done a thing to justify your use of the word "absurd." Essentially, you've simply said,

"The natural world exhausts the real.
I haven't found God in the natural world.
Therefore, God is not real."

Premise one is arbitrary, and there's no non-circular way to assert it. You simply cannot know if it is true. Number two is applicable only to your personal experience: but, should one person in the universe have a genuine experience of a phenomenon that is not purely naturalistic (such as an encounter with God) then it's decisively defeated. And there's no way for you to know that has not happened, and plenty of people to assert it has. Either way, premise two is trivial in relation to anyone but yourself. It might convince you, but why should it convince someone else?

Your conclusion, therefore, is arbitrary as well. It may express your personal hope, but it expresses nothing you have a reason to be certain is true.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

[Obvious Leo]

I feel certain that I've made my position on this question perfectly plain through repetition. The existence or non-existence of the supernatural is not a legitimate subject for either scientific or philosophical enquiry by definition. Naturally this rules out the absurd notion of transcendent cause.

If that's your position, you haven't done a thing to justify your use of the word "absurd." Essentially, you've simply said,

"The natural world exhausts the real.
I haven't found God in the natural world.
Therefore, God is not real."

Premise one is arbitrary,

Premise one is the entire logical foundation of metaphysics and the philosophy of knowledge. The knowable cannot be explained in terms of the unknowable. and there's no non-circular way to assert it. You simply cannot know if it is true. Number two is applicable only to your personal experience: but, should one person in the universe have a genuine experience of a phenomenon that is not purely naturalistic (such as an encounter with God) then it's decisively defeated. And there's no way for you to know that has not happened, and plenty of people to assert it has.

I cannot be required to explain the cognitive experiences of another mind
Either way, premise two is trivial in relation to anyone but yourself. It might convince you, but why should it convince someone else?

I have never in my life tried to convince anybody about the existence or non-existence of that which is unknowable. I've got far more useful things to do with my time.

Your conclusion, therefore, is arbitrary as well. It may express your personal hope, but it expresses nothing you have a reason to be certain is true.

There is no position I take on any philosophical question which I have any reason at all to be certain is true. Absolute Truth is a self-indulgent myth.

[uwot]

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

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.
Now that's cleared up, perhaps you need some of the other points to be explained. We can go through it bit by bit if necessary:

..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.

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.

[Immanuel Can]

I feel certain that I've made my position on this question perfectly plain through repetition. The existence or non-existence of the supernatural is not a legitimate subject for either scientific or philosophical enquiry by definition. Naturally this rules out the absurd notion of transcendent cause.

If that's your position, you haven't done a thing to justify your use of the word "absurd." Essentially, you've simply said,

"The natural world exhausts the real.
I haven't found God in the natural world.
Therefore, God is not real."

Premise one is arbitrary,

Premise one is the entire logical foundation of metaphysics and the philosophy of knowledge. The knowable cannot be explained in terms of the unknowable.

First, we have not established God is "unknowable." Christians insist He is not. But your first statement is also untrue. You might wish it were so, but it is not. You are simply expressing Materialism. And Materialism cannot be demonstrated rationally, because it requires as its supposition that Materialism is true. So it's circular.

I cannot be required to explain the cognitive experiences of another mind

Quite so. That is also why you cannot rationally be an Atheist. You cannot expect anyone else to take seriously the idea that you know whether or not they know God.

There is no position I take on any philosophical question which I have any reason at all to be certain is true. Absolute Truth is a self-indulgent myth.

Well, do you assert that as an absolute truth?

If so, it is obviously wrong, for there IS then one absolute truth -- namely that there is no absolute truth.

Meanwhile, here you are on a philosophy forum, insisting absolutely that Theism is untrue. If there were no absolute truth, you would be asserting no more than the claim "I don't want to believe Theism." That would be possibly true, but is hardly something that promises any argument with anyone else's contrary view. In fact, it doesn't rise to being an argument at all -- just a statement about oneself.

If you didn't in fact care, and if you didn't think there were a truth, you wouldn't be bothering.

But if your statement is not being asserted as an absolute truth, then it's not absolutely true, which means it's not true at all, since "absolute" is categorical.

I think you can see there's absolutely no way to make your absolute statement rational. It contradicts itself.

[Obvious Leo]

First, we have not established God is "unknowable."

Anything which is assumed to exist external to the universe is unknowable. That's why it's called a universe.

I'm sick of the rest of your shit.

[Immanuel Can]

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

I didn't say that. You misread.

"Probability" doesn't enter into the question of whether or not God would make Himself known, since His choice is not a matter of "probability" but of will, obviously. But probability estimates enter into our thinking when we consider whether or not the Supreme Being may or may not have chosen to reveal Himself in various aspects of the natural world. It's highly probable that God, assuming He exists, could decide to do so. I think "Supreme Being" pretty much covers that possibility, don't you?

Meanwhile, you've got some business to sort out with Hobbes. He doesn't agree with your description of what is entailed in Atheism. When you sort that out with him, please get back to me and let me know what kind of Atheism you gentlemen thinks accurately describes the position. He rejects the distinction you were at pains to make.

If so, it seems that the Atheists are having a hard time deciding what they (don't) believe.

[Immanuel Can]

First, we have not established God is "unknowable."

Anything which is assumed to exist external to the universe is unknowable. That's why it's called a universe.

There's nothing in the world "universe" that confines 'the real' to its environs. We are told by science, in fact, that our universe is expanding. So into what is it expanding? Thus, that there is something beyond what we know is deductively certain. We can remain uncertain about what it is, but not about the fact that it is there.

Anything beyond it would be impossible for humans to locate by themselves, but there isn't any reason why an intelligence beyond that universe -- in fact, which created that universe -- could not make Himself known if He so chose.

"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.

[uwot]

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

I didn't say that. You misread.

Look again, Mr Can, that is exactly what you said:

...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...

Meanwhile, you've got some business to sort out with Hobbes. He doesn't agree with your description of what is entailed in Atheism. When you sort that out with him, please get back to me and let me know what kind of Atheism you gentlemen thinks accurately describes the position. He rejects the distinction you were at pains to make.

If so, it seems that the Atheists are having a hard time deciding what they (don't) believe.

Mr Can, the gift that keeps on giving! Tell you what, you get all the theists on the planet to agree, and I'll have a chat with Hobbes.
Anyway, that relates to this bit:

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.

Here's the rest again:

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

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.
Now that's cleared up, perhaps you need some of the other points to be explained. We can go through it bit by bit if necessary:

..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.

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.

[henry quirk]

This is what Crom told me the other day, over coffee...

I created the universe and filled it up with life of every kind. Why I did this is none of your bee's wax. All you need to know: I instilled in each of you everything you need to live, to survive, to thrive. All you need to do is live, survive, thrive. Stop looking to me, or to whatever version of me you fixate on, for answers or solace. Look to yourself first and your fellows second. I can't stress this enough, everything you need to make a full, and fufilling, life for yourself is there in you, so stop wrestling with each over me and get to it.

...then he smote me and went on his way.

[henry quirk]

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.