Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 2:35 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 2:17 pm I know we've talked about this before, but there really isn't any evidence of God's existence. There might be things that suggest it to you, but that isn't evidence.

All "evidence" is something that "suggests" the truth. When a murder has been committed, perhaps there are no witnesses. The disposition of the body is "suggestive" of a murder, not a suicide, perhaps. The blunt instrument on the floor is "suggestive" of being the murder weapon. The DNA traces are "suggestive" of the identity of the murderer -- but never quite conclusive, since he might have been present for other reasons. But taken together, these things may well "suggest" that there is no other possible "reasonable" conclusion than that X murdered Y.

Well what do you see in "existence" that is analogous to the dead body, and what evidence have you identified that shows it didn't die of natural causes?

Head trauma, perhaps. Blood spatter. The presence of a weapon with the deceased's brain matter on it. Being bludgeoned to death looks rather different from "natural causes," doesn't it?

"Suggestions" come in various intensities, ranging from low-percentage to high-percentage. "Low" might be 50-50. "High" might be 99.999%. But in all cases,"evidence" is never more than suggestive.

But when you come across a state of affairs that current human knowledge does not seem able to explain, you are only allowing for one possible conclusion; God.

Show me where this has ever been the case.

However, when you say "there really isn't any evidence," then you're making a categorical claim about all that exists, here, there or anywhere. It's not a modest claim: it proposes that the speaker has been everywhere that "evidence" could exist, and seen it all, and excluded all possibilities that anywhere, anytime, there is or has been any evidence.

When I said there is no evidence, I just assumed you to know that I meant no evidence that we are aware of.

Who is "we"? Are you suggesting you're able to speak for all mankind? Then you are indeed claiming a level of certitude you simply cannot possibly have. I don't think there's a "we" rationally available in your claim. Just an "I."

And I have no knowledge of Boston. I have never been there. Others have told me it exists. Some claim to have personal experience with Boston. There are those who say there are pictures and artifacts from Boston, though I have no certain way of knowing if they're telling me the truth. Would I be wise, then, to disbelieve in the existence of Boston? And if I did, would it negate the right of others who did have some experience of Boston to believe in Boston?

Your personal confession of unknowing about God is neither surprising nor compelling, then. Anyone could fully accept your claim that you are "not aware of any evidence of God," and not even question it. Why should they? But that would still count for zero in the question of whether or not God -- or Boston -- exists.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:46 pm Your personal confession of unknowing about God is neither surprising nor compelling, then. Anyone could fully accept your claim that you are "not aware of any evidence of God," and not even question it. Why should they? But that would still count for zero in the question of whether or not God -- or Boston -- exists.

I suppose not all of us has had God personally introduce himself to us. What did God look like when he introduced himself to you? Was it a "he" a "she" or did God come as a burning bush? And what did God say to you that convinced you that s/he/it was God?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:35 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:20 pm

Are my reasons for being agnostic unsound and irrational? And if so, why do you feel that way?

Not "irrational," which implies mental disorder of some kind; just not specifically rational. That is, they are based on feeling and personal experience, not on evidence, or logic or proof of some kind. They are, perhaps, a testimony to the limitedness of your personal experience: you have an absence of knowledge of any evidence, you're saying.

And as you also say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

So being agnostic because one doesn't possess evidence that there is a god is not "specifically rational"? How so?

Because it does not involve reasoning. Instead, it depends on one's (lack of) a particular kind of experience, or one's absence of knowledge of something.

You see, Gary, we tend to use the word "reasoning" two ways: colloquially, people use it simply to mean something equivalent to, "I have some motivation for X," as in "I have reasons to go to the store." But philosophers are more precise in their use of the term "reason": for them, it means, "employing logic, specific evidence or proofs of some kind." And very formally, it can even imply "capable of being rendered as a syllogism."

So what you're doing is having a motivation not to believe in God. You're not reasoning-out why God must, rationally, not exist, or even questioning why you don't, at present, have access to the relevant arguments, proofs, evidence or experience. You're just saying, "I don't believe in God, because I (perhaps) lack the evidence or knowledge I feel I need in order to do so, at present." That's not enough to say, "I'm reasoning that God doesn't exist," or even "I'm reasoning that we can't know if God exists." It just says, "Gary doesn't (presently) know."

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:46 pm Your personal confession of unknowing about God is neither surprising nor compelling, then. Anyone could fully accept your claim that you are "not aware of any evidence of God," and not even question it. Why should they? But that would still count for zero in the question of whether or not God -- or Boston -- exists.

I suppose not all of us has had God personally introduce himself to us.

That is plausibly true...though He certainly has made his presence known to the human race very broadly. There's nothing that tells me you aren't an exception to that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:57 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:35 pm
Not "irrational," which implies mental disorder of some kind; just not specifically rational. That is, they are based on feeling and personal experience, not on evidence, or logic or proof of some kind. They are, perhaps, a testimony to the limitedness of your personal experience: you have an absence of knowledge of any evidence, you're saying.

And as you also say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

So being agnostic because one doesn't possess evidence that there is a god is not "specifically rational"? How so?

Because it does not involve reasoning. Instead, it depends on one's (lack of) a particular kind of experience, or one's absence of knowledge of something.

You see, Gary, we tend to use the word "reasoning" two ways: colloquially, people use it simply to mean something equivalent to, "I have some motivation for X," as in "I have reasons to go to the store." But philosophers are more precise in their use of the term "reason": for them, it means, "employing logic, specific evidence or proofs of some kind." And very formally, it can even imply "capable of being rendered as a syllogism."

So what you're doing is having a motivation not to believe in God. You're not reasoning-out why God must, rationally, not exist, or even questioning why you don't, at present, have access to the relevant arguments, proofs, evidence or experience. You're just saying, "I don't believe in God, because I (perhaps) lack the evidence or knowledge I feel I need in order to do so, at present." That's not enough to say, "I'm reasoning that God doesn't exist," or even "I'm reasoning that we can't know if God exists." It just says, "Gary doesn't (presently) know."

But I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. That's what agnostic means. Did you not know what agnostic means?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:59 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:46 pm Your personal confession of unknowing about God is neither surprising nor compelling, then. Anyone could fully accept your claim that you are "not aware of any evidence of God," and not even question it. Why should they? But that would still count for zero in the question of whether or not God -- or Boston -- exists.

I suppose not all of us has had God personally introduce himself to us.

That is plausibly true...though He certainly has made his presence known to the human race very broadly. There's nothing that tells me you aren't an exception to that.

I can assure you, God has not made himself (or herself) known to me. But you still didn't answer my questions. What did God say to you that made you believe that who you were talking to was God? And what did God look like when you met him (or her)?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:57 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:41 pm

So being agnostic because one doesn't possess evidence that there is a god is not "specifically rational"? How so?

Because it does not involve reasoning. Instead, it depends on one's (lack of) a particular kind of experience, or one's absence of knowledge of something.

You see, Gary, we tend to use the word "reasoning" two ways: colloquially, people use it simply to mean something equivalent to, "I have some motivation for X," as in "I have reasons to go to the store." But philosophers are more precise in their use of the term "reason": for them, it means, "employing logic, specific evidence or proofs of some kind." And very formally, it can even imply "capable of being rendered as a syllogism."

So what you're doing is having a motivation not to believe in God. You're not reasoning-out why God must, rationally, not exist, or even questioning why you don't, at present, have access to the relevant arguments, proofs, evidence or experience. You're just saying, "I don't believe in God, because I (perhaps) lack the evidence or knowledge I feel I need in order to do so, at present." That's not enough to say, "I'm reasoning that God doesn't exist," or even "I'm reasoning that we can't know if God exists." It just says, "Gary doesn't (presently) know."

But I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. That's what agnostic means. Did you not know what agnostic means?

I'm saying I completely believe you about that. Gary doesn't know God. If he says that, why should I doubt him? And Gary says that because he doesn't know anything about God, he's not made up his mind. He's an agnostic. Fine: how could I deny what he insists is true about himself? I have no basis to do so.

But Gary's experience is not compulsory to anybody else. Gary's present experience isn't even compulsory to Gary, in the future. Gary might not know anything about God now, and might come to do so tomorrow.

So I can accept every bit of what you're saying, and it has no implications for anybody but Gary, and only at Gary's present level of knowledge.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:03 pm But you still didn't answer my questions.

They don't seem serious to me. Especially, the "or her" nonsense convinces me that you're speaking facetiously; and I don't feel the need to waste time on mere flippant remarks.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:06 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:57 pm
Because it does not involve reasoning. Instead, it depends on one's (lack of) a particular kind of experience, or one's absence of knowledge of something.

You see, Gary, we tend to use the word "reasoning" two ways: colloquially, people use it simply to mean something equivalent to, "I have some motivation for X," as in "I have reasons to go to the store." But philosophers are more precise in their use of the term "reason": for them, it means, "employing logic, specific evidence or proofs of some kind." And very formally, it can even imply "capable of being rendered as a syllogism."

So what you're doing is having a motivation not to believe in God. You're not reasoning-out why God must, rationally, not exist, or even questioning why you don't, at present, have access to the relevant arguments, proofs, evidence or experience. You're just saying, "I don't believe in God, because I (perhaps) lack the evidence or knowledge I feel I need in order to do so, at present." That's not enough to say, "I'm reasoning that God doesn't exist," or even "I'm reasoning that we can't know if God exists." It just says, "Gary doesn't (presently) know."

But I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. That's what agnostic means. Did you not know what agnostic means?

I'm saying I completely believe you about that. Gary doesn't know God. If he says that, why should I doubt him? And Gary says that because he doesn't know anything about God, he's not made up his mind. He's an agnostic. Fine: how could I deny what he insists is true about himself? I have no basis to do so.

But Gary's experience is not compulsory to anybody else. Gary's present experience isn't even compulsory to Gary, in the future. Gary might not know anything about God now, and might come to do so tomorrow.

So I can accept every bit of what you're saying, and it has no implications for anybody but Gary, and only at Gary's present level of knowledge.

Fair enough. So if God introduces himself to me, what will s/he/it look like? And what will God say to demonstrate that the being I am in the presence of is God? I mean, what did God look like when you met him and what did God say that convinced you that the being in front of you was God?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:09 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:03 pm But you still didn't answer my questions.

They don't seem serious to me. Especially, the "or her" nonsense convinces me that you're speaking facetiously; and I don't feel the need to waste time on mere flippant remarks.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I can assure you that it was not my intention to be facetious nor flippant.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:09 pm ...the being in front of you...

Facetious again?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:09 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:03 pm But you still didn't answer my questions.

They don't seem serious to me. Especially, the "or her" nonsense convinces me that you're speaking facetiously; and I don't feel the need to waste time on mere flippant remarks.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I can assure you that it was not my intention to be facetious nor flippant.

It's not my "feeling." It's your wording.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:23 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:09 pm ...the being in front of you...

Facetious again?

Well, according to the Bible, God came to Moses in the form of a burning bush and talked to him. Is it unreasonable to think that when God comes to someone, God will appear physically and say something to the person? And if not, then how are we to even presume that we are in the presence of God? I mean, I've never been to Boston but I've seen photos and people I know who have been to places or seen things that I haven't have shown me photos or at least can describe the place physically in terms of what they saw, heard, smelled, touched. If someone told me they'd seen bigfoot or a unicorn, I'd be skeptical unless they could show a photo.

And if God doesn't present himself physically to a person and doesn't say anything verbally, then what in the world is it that someone is experiencing that they ascribe to having been in the presence of God?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:24 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:09 pm
They don't seem serious to me. Especially, the "or her" nonsense convinces me that you're speaking facetiously; and I don't feel the need to waste time on mere flippant remarks.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I can assure you that it was not my intention to be facetious nor flippant.

It's not my "feeling." It's your wording.

I get the feeling you're dodging my questions. I don't know that I feel like I can trust your word on matters if that's the way you're going to be.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:33 pm Is it unreasonable to think that when God comes to someone, God will appear physically and say something to the person?

Is it reasonable to suppose that the Supreme Being, having had one kind of interaction with Moses, owes it to every other person to have the same sort of interaction?

What would you suppose is the answer, Gary?

I mean, I've never been to Boston but I've seen photos and people I know who have been to places or seen things that I haven't have shown me photos or at least can describe the place physically in terms of what they saw, heard, smelled, touched.

Well, suppose you had not only the physical evidence of the visible universe around you, and not merely the testimony of those who have had interactions with God of various kinds, but also a written revelation? Would that do it for you?

If not, how about the Incarnation. Suppose God Himself came to earth as the most universally-recognizable moral authority ever to touch the planet, walked among men, and was resurrected to the heavens, all with witnesses present? Would that do it for you?

Or do you need a personal encounter different from that? If you do, then I'm the wrong person to be asking. I'm not God's booking-agent. But you could speak to Him directly about that.