Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote:I'll narrow it down, then:

Immanuel Can wrote: One can approach the evidence to prove, or with an inclination to disprove. Once can even approach it with indifference. In the first case, one is open to the possibility of confirmation; in the second, one is perhaps less open or even closed altogether; in the third, one is in no frame of mind even to recognize the evidence AS evidence.

What you still don't understand is that you can take anything as evidence for a metaphysical belief.

No, I'm not saying that. You're far too impatient here. I'm laying the groundwork for firmer conclusions. For so long as one takes one of the latter two epistemological stances, one will NEVER find any evidence; for one will willfully disregard anything that contradicts one's hypothesis that: a) belief in God must be disproven at all costs, or b) there can be no evidence. Either one simply reflects a confirmation bias, and prevents one from considering the hard evidence equitably.

You have not, and I would suggest cannot provide a single piece of evidence.

Your parenthetical remark here suggests you are Atheist type 3: ignorant of the evidence and refusing to believe any exists. And if so, I can't help you -- not because such evidence does not exist, but because you simply would not accept anything if it did exist. Your mind's made up without reference to evidence.

If things are otherwise, you may indicate, of course. If they are as I describe, then there's no next step, I'm afraid.

Immanuel Can wrote:Your parenthetical remark here suggests you are Atheist type 3: ignorant of the evidence and refusing to believe any exists.

If you believe that my problem is that I am ignorant of the evidence, and you care for my soul, you can easily cure my ignorance and save my soul. What can you do to save me, Immanuel Can?

uwot wrote: If you believe that my problem is that I am ignorant of the evidence, and you care for my soul, you can easily cure my ignorance and save my soul. What can you do to save me, Immanuel Can?

My belief is not the issue. Yours is. For your claim to know that there is no evidence for the existence of God is an empirical claim -- or at least, you framed it as an empirical claim. Is that how you wish us to understand it, or did you really mean only, "I personally know of no evidence for God"?

Immanuel Can wrote:

uwot wrote: If you believe that my problem is that I am ignorant of the evidence, and you care for my soul, you can easily cure my ignorance and save my soul. What can you do to save me, Immanuel Can?

My belief is not the issue. Yours is. For your claim to know that there is no evidence for the existence of God is an empirical claim -- or at least, you framed it as an empirical claim. Is that how you wish us to understand it, or did you really mean only, "I personally know of no evidence for God"?

Although I characterized myself as an atheist I am probably better described as agnostic. I agree with uwot that there can be no evidence of such unobservable, nonphysical things. In fact, although I am agnostic regarding what may exist beyond science (God, nothing, unicorns, etc.), I am positive that there is no evidence for the existence of God - empirical, non-testimonial evidence.

Immanuel Can wrote:He doesn't have to be. But many routinely choose to be. For example, they choose to use the impersonal pronoun for God ("it") in the hopes of inflaming discussion rather than advancing it. It's a mere rhetorical tactic, and when it appears it usually signals the end of reason.

Not at all, I scare-quote because in the past theists have said I'm inconsistent in my beliefs, so now I make it clear that, one, I do not think your 'God' exists and two, if 'it' did, I seriously doubt 'its' a male.

There's no bother. (Except for to the Atheist, if God is truthful and Theist are right, of course.) Atheists often mistake the earnestness of Theists for some sort of pique, or worse, some sort of selfish intent to win an argument: in point of fact, in some cases it's an earnest concern for (what the Theist sincerely believes) is the welfare of the Atheist's soul -- which, oddly enough, is a thing for which the Atheist often takes no care, and in fact which the Atheist himself does not even believe he possesses...

Show me a 'soul'?

No bother for us. We expect it. After all, we believe in free conscience and the right of people to be wrong if they so desire. But we would wish them a better situation than they wish on themselves, sometimes.

How christian of you, sometimes condemning another to an eternity of torment at the whim of a 'God' who already 'knows' the result. Tyrannical is not the word.

Arising_uk wrote:How christian of you, sometimes condemning another to an eternity of torment at the whim of a 'God' who already 'knows' the result. Tyrannical is not the word.

Nobody's being tyrannical. You have the most perfect of freedoms -- the perfect freedom to choose whether you will have anything to do with God or not. In fact, do you not proclaim your own freedom? Is it not you who insist that you do what you want to do, and believe what you want to believe? Have I stopped you? Is my hand heavy upon you?

Of course not. Both you and I believe in human freedom. And you will choose your eternal destiny. Should you choose to spend forever outside the presence of the One who is the source of all truth, goodness, light and love, what can you expect but all the opposites? And if God does not stop you from making such a wretched decision, do you suppose I can?

But I can suggest, humbly, that you don't do that. It seems the least I owe you as a fellow human. But where, o where is the "tyranny" in all that?

Arising_uk wrote: How christian of you, sometimes condemning another to an eternity of torment at the whim of a 'God' who already 'knows' the result. Tyrannical is not the word.

No Christian, that I know, would condemn you to eternal suffering, nor would the God that I believe in. You are given the choices and you condemn your self by those choices. It is you who needs to take responsibility for your own decisions and stop trying to blame others. A Christian doesn't condemn or save anyone, all a Christian can do is to make the other person aware of the choices they face, and it is God, through the Holy Spirit, that does the rest. Blaming the christian, is blaming the messenger for the message they bring.

Wyman wrote:I am positive that there is no evidence for the existence of God - empirical, non-testimonial evidence.

See, that's typical of what I have classified as the Type 3 kind of Atheism. Interestingly, there's an abundance of empirically verifiable physical entities, plus a host of metaphysical properties of those entities, that are understood by Theists as clear evidence of the existence of God. But it seems that no matter how many there are, some people just don't "see" them. And that's interesting.

It begins with the natural world itself. The Bible says, "The heavens (i.e. the cosmos) declares the glory of God, and their expanse tells for the working of His hands." It says this because our universe manifests such precision, such balance, such congeniality to life, and such beauty that it is quite impossible rationally to believe it's a product of chance -- for the open-minded or the Theist, perhaps, but oddly enough, not for the skeptic, apparently. Then there are wonders of nature, such as multiple-species symbiosis, which no Naturalistic account of the world is currently able to explain. Then there's causality itself, which automatically bespeaks a First Cause. Then there are historical evidences, the testimony of personal witnesses, and powerful arguments even from Atheist "saints" like Nagel or Flew, or more recently of Aczel, another scientific rationalist. Then there are moral evidences, like the persistent belief in objective moral values -- manifest even in Atheists, since they insist religion is "bad," which requires an objective moral valuation. Then there are other metaphysical evidences, like the existence of individuality, intelligence, choice and aesthetics, and the intuitive argument from the intuition of the soul. Then there are sociological evidences, like the abundance of charitable work, scholarly work and the arts generated by faith in God, all of which is at least possibly indicative of something more going on in this world than mere mechanics...

...it just goes on and on. And Atheism continues to claim "there is no evidence."

The Theist scratches his head. He wonders, "How can they not see any of the abundance of evidences that are so clear?" And I think there are but two explanations: 1) total ignorance of the available evidence, or 2) a disposition so antagonistic that absolutely NOTHING would ever count as evidence.

Arising_uk wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:... In short, if you say "produce him" and the Christian points to the Bible, they've answered your challenge. ...

Eh! But the Bible was knocked-up many centuries later by the priests of the HRE and they were selective in their choices.

Perhaps. Of course, the Christian says this was all God's plan. And so the dance continues on and on.

Wyman wrote:I agree with uwot that there can be no evidence of such unobservable, nonphysical things. In fact, although I am agnostic regarding what may exist beyond science (God, nothing, unicorns, etc.), I am positive that there is no evidence for the existence of God - empirical, non-testimonial evidence.

But if an unobservable, non-physical thing could have an effect on observable, physical things, that effect would count as evidence, right? And how do we know that such a thing is impossible? It seems to me that "there can be no evidence..." is a statement you can't possibly back up, if for no other reason than that you can't develop a scientific experiment to show it to be true. (Or maybe you can and I'm just not aware of such an experiment.)

Immanuel Can wrote:Nobody's being tyrannical. You have the most perfect of freedoms -- the perfect freedom to choose whether you will have anything to do with God or not. ...

I see, so when it suits you this 'being' is not a 'Supreme Being' at all, by this I assume you mean the usual three O's attributes, and that therefore this 'God' does not 'know' what I'm going to choose and as such has not the three O's as attributes?

I, In fact, do you not proclaim your own freedom? Is it not you who insist that you do what you want to do, and believe what you want to believe? Have I stopped you? Is my hand heavy upon you?

Not at all, I just said 'If'.

Of course not. Both you and I believe in human freedom. ...

Nope, I believe in choice not sure what this 'human freedom' is, is it the same as 'free-will'?

And you will choose your eternal destiny.

Nope, I'll just make choices during this once in a lifetime opportunity thanks.

Should you choose to spend forever outside the presence of the One who is the source of all truth, goodness, light and love, what can you expect but all the opposites? And if God does not stop you from making such a wretched decision, do you suppose I can?

Nope, I expect you to gloat like all sanctimonious 'christians' do. But once again, are you claiming that your 'God' is not the 'supreme being' and does not have the three O's?

But I can suggest, humbly, that you don't do that. It seems the least I owe you as a fellow human. But where, o where is the "tyranny" in all that?

Because if your definition of your 'God' is the one of the three O's then it is a tyrant in 'its' unachievable demands as 'its' already preset what's going to happen, the Lord is Thy Shepherd remember and you know what happens to sheep in the end. But have no worries about me as if your 'God' exists then they all do, as 'Have no other 'Gods' ...' implies other 'God's', as the African Christians apparently believe, but this means the Buddhists will have a point as well and since I was partly raised as one I'll be choosing that 'afterlife' thanks. As bowing, scraping and adoring for eternity holds no pleasure for me.

Arising_uk wrote:I see, so when it suits you this 'being' is not a 'Supreme Being' at all, by this I assume you mean the usual three O's attributes, and that therefore this 'God' does not 'know' what I'm going to choose and as such has not the three O's as attributes?

You've completely lost the distinction between what theologians call "foreknowledge,"which is the property most attribute to God under the category of "omniscient," and what a small subset of theologians advocate (the Ultracalvinists, for example), namely "Determinism" or "predestination," to some. It's a complex and interesting theological discussion, but I see no point in doing that discussion for you here: you don't seem much interested, and I'm not all that keen to type columns and columns for no reason. I can refer you to the literature if your interest is genuine.

I wrote: "And you will choose your eternal destiny...."

Nope, I'll just make choices during this once in a lifetime opportunity thanks.

Don't thank me now; thank me later if this discussion eventually makes any difference to you. If it doesn't, or if your own view turns out to be true, then you won't have to thank me at all. But I hope you will.

I expect you to gloat like all sanctimonious 'christians' do.

If that's your experience, then you whoever you're hanging around with, they aren't Christians. None of the ones I know (and I know a lot) do that.

Immanuel Can wrote:You've completely lost the distinction between what theologians call "foreknowledge,"which is the property most attribute to God under the category of "omniscient," and what a small subset of theologians advocate (the Ultracalvinists, for example), namely "Determinism" or "predestination," to some. ...

So you are saying that your 'God' does not know what I will choose?

It's a complex and interesting theological discussion, but I see no point in doing that discussion for you here: you don't seem much interested, and I'm not all that keen to type columns and columns for no reason. I can refer you to the literature if your interest is genuine. ...

No need, thought about it a lot in my youth and read the same arguments transposed into phil of religion, as you say, interesting but pointless to me as I think your 'God' does not exist in any sense that matters or will matter to me.

Don't thank me now; thank me later if this discussion eventually makes any difference to you. If it doesn't, or if your own view turns out to be true, then you won't have to thank me at all. But I hope you will.

I sincerely think not as I'll be with the Buddhists thanks.

If that's your experience, then you whoever you're hanging around with, they aren't Christians. None of the ones I know (and I know a lot) do that.

Of course they are, are you saying you're not going to be happy in your 'Heaven'? You're going to be eaten-up over those you know who are in 'Hell'?

Arising:

You seem resolute. I accept that. I think we've gone as far as we're going to get, at least on this strand.

Arising_uk wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: If that's your experience, then you whoever you're hanging around with, they aren't Christians. None of the ones I know (and I know a lot) do that.

Of course they are, are you saying you're not going to be happy in your 'Heaven'? You're going to be eaten-up over those you know who are in 'Hell'?

Arising, If I remember correctly you claim to be an atheist, yet you seem to think you are competent to tell Christians what they believe. I have always contended that someone outside a religion, really doesn't know what the believers of that religion believe. So I give your pronouncements the credence they deserve.