Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:Sure. Here's the procedure I recommend.

My experiences won't convince you, I'm sure -- and they shouldn't, since they're not yours; so I won't refer to them. ...

But that's what I asked you for?

... Then there are conceptual-analytic arguments like the Ontological Argument of Plantinga...but most people don't even understand those, let alone have a chance of refuting them, so I'm going to pass by them as well. ...

I think it much like Anslem's and Descartes's but with Modal Logic and a fancier term.

Immanuel Can wrote:... And apparently you get up in the morning and look at the same created world I do; but you apparently see no design in it, even if I do. ...

I see design I just don't ascribe the same cause.

I also assume you're aware of the epistemological impossibility of Atheism. ...

I don't see why as it's that there is no evidence for 'God' not that there is evidence of no 'God'. Like I say, show me your evidence?

So I'm going to restrict my field to one thing: your experience. In particular, I offer you the following test: take a gospel (one of the first four books in the New Testament). Take one chapter a day, and read it. Ask God, if He's there, to show you. Do it for sixty days. And if, after sixty days, you've found nothing, then you get your Atheism back. ...

Okey doke, I'll get back to you. As a twist can I ask Odin instead tho' and if 'He' replies will you believe in him?

That's my challenge to you. You wanted evidence, and that's how you'll find it.

We'll see.

You may be unwilling to try, I suppose: but I've read "Beyond Good and Evil," (and Hume, and Russell, and other such noteworthy Atheists). Not only that, but I've read the Gita, the Torah, the Koran, the Tao...and a bunch of other such stuff. So I'm going to believe that you have at least as much willingness to address the relevant evidence as I do. Assuming that, then, go and do as I suggest, and we can talk in two months.

I've read the Bible once right through and dip into the NT now and then, read the Quran(in the right order), dipped the Bhagavad Gita and the Torah and done pretty much the canon of Philosophy so willing has always been my thing.

But if it should turn out that you simply won't look at the evidence, then would your Atheism be, in any sense, rational?

Well mainly due to 40 odd years of thinking and reasoning about it.

So, here's a thing:
There is no evidence for a god. Any god. Each god whose advocates claim that he, she or it exists, have specific and and particular descriptions of his her or its attributes, powers and preferences, right down to their taste in female attire.
If one examined the evidence presented for each of the claims made on behalf of each deity, it would fail to meet the standards of even a kangaroo court. (Why kangaroos would want to try gods is a mystery beyond my ken. btnhnt) If one were to subject any particular god's exercise of any single one his or its purported powers in any single instance to a controlled scientific test, it would fail.

However: There is no conclusive evidence that zero gods of any kind can possibly exist.

The theist equate those two facts, call it a stalemate and go on to say:
"Unbelief is a belief."

Skip wrote:So, here's a thing:
There is no evidence for a god. Any god.

Thats clearly far too much for you to conclude. You would have to know all that other people knew or had experienced to make such a statement, at least if you were to advance it as a rational postulate rather than a personal wish.

Each god whose advocates claim that he, she or it exists, have specific and and particular descriptions of his her or its attributes, powers and preferences, right down to their taste in female attire.
If one examined the evidence presented...

Wait a minute...above you said there WAS no "evidence" did you not? It would seem so...

More importantly, the multiplicity of wrong answers does not make a rational argument regarding the existence or non-existence of a right one. It's a non-sequitur, rationally speaking. If it were not, then by the same logic the plethora of conceivable wrong answers to the equation 2+2 would count as an argument that there was no such thing as 4.

If one were to subject any particular god's exercise of any single one his or its purported powers in any single instance to a controlled scientific test, it would fail.

That might be the same as to say that God doesn't agree to be placed in a beaker, measured with a yardstick, peeped at with a telescope or pinched in vernier callipers. It argues only that God, if He exists, transcends the human desire to subject Him to scientific control...hardly surprising, for a Supreme Being.

Nevertheless, you are quite wrong as to evidence, scientific or otherwise. If design is discernible in the universe at all, then it posits a Designer, for one thing. However, most Atheists simply refuse to see that as evidence, even if, like Arising (see above) they admit to seeing the design. And there is, of course, no way to respond to a disposition that sees the evidence but refuses to recognize it as evidence. No further evidentiary arguments are left thereafter.

However: There is no conclusive evidence that zero gods of any kind can possibly exist.
The theist equate those two facts, call it a stalemate and go on to say:
"Unbelief is a belief."

I have not met a Theist who makes the argument the way you state it, but perhaps you have. As you frame it, it's not logically sound. Nevertheless, there are better arguments to be had.

Skip wrote:"Unbelief is a belief."

I can see why theists can (and want to) think that. But would they apply the same conclusion to themselves regarding something they have no belief in because it simply does not exist for them? (Like invisible flying monkeys.) To claim that every possibility in the universe, that we hold no belief in, is itself a belief, is just not true. There is nothing filling the space. It's not a denial or resistance. Simply because a lot of people choose to believe in one thing or another, does not mean that those who don't, therefore have "unbelief" which is a "belief". Does that make sense?

It seems like theists are desperately trying to equate their belief with others who don't share it, by insisting that people who don't have their belief are believers of a different kind. Why is this necessary? Why not accept and allow there to be a realm of freedom from all of that? Atheists are not a group to be assigned characteristics. They are vastly diverse. The more that theists try to apply their principles to such a vast open space, the more they muck it up. It is a different world that, apparently, is invisible to theists. And I think the reason for that is because to fully fathom it would dismantle the theist's structure -- so it's a self-protective veil.

I imagine there are MANY ideas that we all have that are self-protective veils... until we are ready to accept what is behind and beyond them. I'm guessing there's SOOOO MUCH beyond where we are! We can't see it as long as we are fixated on self-protective ideas.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Arising_uk wrote: Sure, you tell me how you know that this 'God' exists.

Sure. Here's the procedure I recommend.

My experiences won't convince you, I'm sure -- and they shouldn't, since they're not yours; so I won't refer to them. And I'm going to give you credit as if you know the various intellectual arguments, such as the Cosmological and Moral Arguments, and I'm going to assume that for some reason of your own, they don't compel doubt of your Atheism. So let's say they're out. Then there are conceptual-analytic arguments like the Ontological Argument of Plantinga...but most people don't even understand those, let alone have a chance of refuting them, so I'm going to pass by them as well. And apparently you get up in the morning and look at the same created world I do; but you apparently see no design in it, even if I do. So the evidence from the natural world is also gone.

I also assume you're aware of the epistemological impossibility of Atheism. (Even Dawkins knows and admits that one, so I don't doubt you would too.) And apparently even that has not persuaded you away from Atheism, so I guess that's all gone too.

So I'm going to restrict my field to one thing: your experience. In particular, I offer you the following test: take a gospel (one of the first four books in the New Testament). Take one chapter a day, and read it. Ask God, if He's there, to show you. Do it for sixty days. And if, after sixty days, you've found nothing, then you get your Atheism back.

That's my challenge to you. You wanted evidence, and that's how you'll find it.

You may be unwilling to try, I suppose: but I've read "Beyond Good and Evil," (and Hume, and Russell, and other such noteworthy Atheists). Not only that, but I've read the Gita, the Torah, the Koran, the Tao...and a bunch of other such stuff. So I'm going to believe that you have at least as much willingness to address the relevant evidence as I do. Assuming that, then, go and do as I suggest, and we can talk in two months.

But if it should turn out that you simply won't look at the evidence, then would your Atheism be, in any sense, rational?

In all fairness IC, I know of a similar test which I often pose to people to show the strength of belief. I ask them for one month (perhaps I should ask them to do two as well,) to set up a small alter, and pray each day to a coke bottle. At the end of this time, I ask them to throw out that coke bottle, unceremoniously. They all have difficulty parting with it. It's human nature. And all it proves is that people can convince themselves of almost anything, including whatever it is we decide to worship, as worthy of worship.

I should mention that this test, and your variation of it, is a standard exercise in psychology circles, to observe this phenomenon.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Skip wrote:So, here's a thing:
There is no evidence for a god. Any god.

Thats clearly far too much for you to conclude. You would have to know all that other people knew or had experienced to make such a statement, at least if you were to advance it as a rational postulate rather than a personal wish.

Each god whose advocates claim that he, she or it exists, have specific and and particular descriptions of his her or its attributes, powers and preferences, right down to their taste in female attire.
If one examined the evidence presented...

Wait a minute...above you said there WAS no "evidence" did you not? It would seem so...

More importantly, the multiplicity of wrong answers does not make a rational argument regarding the existence or non-existence of a right one. It's a non-sequitur, rationally speaking. If it were not, then by the same logic the plethora of conceivable wrong answers to the equation 2+2 would count as an argument that there was no such thing as 4.

If one were to subject any particular god's exercise of any single one his or its purported powers in any single instance to a controlled scientific test, it would fail.

That might be the same as to say that God doesn't agree to be placed in a beaker, measured with a yardstick, peeped at with a telescope or pinched in vernier callipers. It argues only that God, if He exists, transcends the human desire to subject Him to scientific control...hardly surprising, for a Supreme Being.

Nevertheless, you are quite wrong as to evidence, scientific or otherwise. If design is discernible in the universe at all, then it posits a Designer, for one thing. However, most Atheists simply refuse to see that as evidence, even if, like Arising (see above) they admit to seeing the design. And there is, of course, no way to respond to a disposition that sees the evidence but refuses to recognize it as evidence. No further evidentiary arguments are left thereafter.

However: There is no conclusive evidence that zero gods of any kind can possibly exist.
The theist equate those two facts, call it a stalemate and go on to say:
"Unbelief is a belief."

I have not met a Theist who makes the argument the way you state it, but perhaps you have. As you frame it, it's not logically sound. Nevertheless, there are better arguments to be had.

See?

Immanuel Can wrote:If design is discernible in the universe at all, then it posits a Designer, for one thing.

No, it doesn't. You're applying puny human logic to something so vastly beyond HUMAN. Design can be collaborative and collective and synchronistic... and maybe energetic. There does not need to be "a Designer". Such a theist argument ignores other possibilities... which seems to be a methodology of necessity for many theists to justify and protect the particular boundaries and structure they have sworn themselves to. Surely such a pattern limits free-thinking and broader understanding.

They think nitpicking and quibbling [what they perceive as] tiny holes in our reasoning will compensate for/cover/counter the huge holes in their reasoning. Then they blightly move on to sweeping generalizations about the beauty and complexity and purpose of the universe, as if we didn't know the meaning of those terms. If they can just find a teeny-tiny gap in their own interpretation of any scientific theory, they'll attempt to drive a great big gollumphing Jehovah through it and expect nobody to notice.

No self-respecting god would tolerate that kind of apologetics!

Lacewing wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:If design is discernible in the universe at all, then it posits a Designer, for one thing.

No, it doesn't. You're applying puny human logic to something so vastly beyond HUMAN. Design can be collaborative and collective and synchronistic... and maybe energetic. There does not need to be "a Designer". Such a theist argument ignores other possibilities... which seems to be a methodology of necessity for many theists to justify and protect the particular boundaries and structure they have sworn themselves to. Surely such a pattern limits free-thinking and broader understanding.

I will just add that you have focused on reading philosophy so much, you forgot to study science. An understanding of probability and how it works over such vast time scales will get rid of the designer notion you have. I had it too and refused to accept that things like the human body, in its mind-boggling complexity could come into being without a designer. But sure enough, it can. Read a few good books on evolution and probability and you might just get it too.

sthitapragya wrote:

Lacewing wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:If design is discernible in the universe at all, then it posits a Designer, for one thing.

No, it doesn't. You're applying puny human logic to something so vastly beyond HUMAN. Design can be collaborative and collective and synchronistic... and maybe energetic. There does not need to be "a Designer". Such a theist argument ignores other possibilities... which seems to be a methodology of necessity for many theists to justify and protect the particular boundaries and structure they have sworn themselves to. Surely such a pattern limits free-thinking and broader understanding.

I will just add that you have focused on reading philosophy so much, you forgot to study science. An understanding of probability and how it works over such vast time scales will get rid of the designer notion you have. I had it too and refused to accept that things like the human body, in its mind-boggling complexity could come into being without a designer. But sure enough, it can. Read a few good books on evolution and probability and you might just get it too.

Yes, profound things happen over profound expanses of time, like intelligent multicellular organisms. Lacewing clearly needs no convincing, having explicitly stated that she neither believes in a designer or is a theist.

She is talking about nature's own designs, just as we humans stem from the "designs" of our DNA, plants stem from a seed and so forth. Without repeatable patterns there can be no science.

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, a lot of people seem to think the Anselmian-Plantinga argument boils down to "If you think God exists, he must." And they think that something like "Yeah, well, what about unicorns?" is a complete answer. Thus they misunderstand both the argument and the relevant concerns with the argument.

I didn't ask about a lot of people, I asked you. I'll do it again: what is this ontological argument that is so difficult to understand?

Lacewing wrote:... You're applying puny human logic to something so vastly beyond HUMAN. ...

Logic is not 'human' nor puny, it comes from there being things and states of affairs and applies to anything that is a thing or a state of affair, as such it applies to 'Gods' as well as humans.

Arising_uk wrote:

Lacewing wrote:... You're applying puny human logic to something so vastly beyond HUMAN. ...

Logic is not 'human' nor puny, it comes from there being things and states of affairs and applies to anything that is a thing or a state of affair, as such it applies to 'Gods' as well as humans.

Logic is utterly human. How could it be otherwise?

It does not "apply to"; it is "applied to". Think it over. its' the difference between a Platonic fantasy and reality.

Dalek Prime wrote: In all fairness IC, I know of a similar test which I often pose to people to show the strength of belief. I ask them for one month (perhaps I should ask them to do two as well,) to set up a small alter, and pray each day to a coke bottle.

That's not the test I'm proposing. I'm not suggesting that Arising should pray to a Bible so he will get affection for it and not throw it out. I'm not asking him to engage in totemism or to evoke feelings without evidence.

On the contrary, I'm giving Arising credit for at least having properly examined the alternate sources of evidence, and having already dismissed them. Consequently, I'm not rehearsing with him all the other kinds of evidence that are available. I'm believing him when he implies he's looked at all that and found "no evidence." I could not make a more charitable assumption, though I personally don't believe it could be true.

The final evidence is personal evidence; and that is the very thing that Arising actually wants. What Arising is not yet seeing is that God is the One who sets the terms on which He can be known. And He says those terms involve the exercise of faith. I don't, of course, mean a rejection of, or even a softening of one's commitment to evidence or reason; rather, God being personal, He has definite terms on which He will condescend to reveal Himself to us. it would seem that He chooses to leave the cynical and hard-hearted in the state they choose for themselves: and this is precisely why so many Atheists state "There's no evidence for God" -- they're not in a state to recognize any of the evidence as evidence, nor to address themselves to God in any way respectful of His identity and nature. They come insultingly; and thus they find their insult returned in the form of the silence of the heavens. But what form of reply should the Supreme Being make to a creature with the temerity to come cynically, mockingly, and without any good faith?

I'm believing that Arising is not cynical. That may be too much for me to believe, but I think it's the charitable assumption, so I make it here. All I'm asking of him is the tiniest bit of faith. For "...whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." Those are not my terms, they are the terms God Himself sets out in the book of Hebrews 11:6.

If Arising is to have any chance of seeing anything, then, he needs to exercise a modicum of good faith. And if he does, I'm leaving him entirely free to see whatever he sees, and decide whatever he decides. But if he does what I suggest, he will know definitively, and will not need me to tell him anymore.

There is no better evidence than first-hand evidence. I cannot do Arising any greater favour than to tell him the method to arrive at that.

Immanuel Can wrote: That's not the test I'm proposing. I'm not suggesting that Arising should pray to a Bible so he will get affection for it and not throw it out. I'm not asking him to engage in totemism or to evoke feelings without evidence.

On the contrary, I'm giving Arising credit for at least having properly examined the alternate sources of evidence, and having already dismissed them. Consequently, I'm not rehearsing with him all the other kinds of evidence that are available. I'm believing him when he implies he's looked at all that and found "no evidence." I could not make a more charitable assumption, though I personally don't believe it could be true.

The final evidence is personal evidence; and that is the very thing that Arising actually wants. What Arising is not yet seeing is that God is the One who sets the terms on which He can be known..

For this test to work you would have to categorically state exactly what you mean by god and offer a proof to start the ball rolling.
As for as I can see you have steadfastly refused to offer either.

You are also asserting against any evidence that Arising or others have not already gone through a thoroughgoing process of thought and discussion on this matter beforehand.
You, of course can take both tacks; either unpack the basic of their atheism, or offer in its place a counter offer of a argument for god. The choice is your, but you seem unwilling to do either.
You talk and talk, and pick at the edges but you say nothing of substance.

What do you mean "God"?