Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

So the evidence of Qur'anic revelation that you refuse is still evidence?

You'll have to be more specific: what particular evidence do you regard as compelling for the Koran?

Don't be obtuse. You said, foolishly, that evidence that is refused is still evidence.

I'm not. I'm asking you if you're just making up this "evidence" you think you have for the Koran, or if you have a case. Because in order to be evidence, it has to exist. And you already listed three of the evidences you say I have for the Bible, and admitted they exist, even though you say you also refuse to accept them as evidence.

So you should have no trouble producing your Koran evidence. It must exist, or it's not evidence.

Go ahead.

[iambiguous]

You'll have to be more specific: what particular evidence do you regard as compelling for the Koran?

Don't be obtuse. You said, foolishly, that evidence that is refused is still evidence.

I'm not. I'm asking you if you're just making up this "evidence" you think you have for the Koran, or if you have a case. Because in order to be evidence, it has to exist. And you already listed three of the evidences you say I have for the Bible, and admitted they exist, even though you say you also refuse to accept them as evidence.

So you should have no trouble producing your Koran evidence. It must exist, or it's not evidence.

Go ahead.

Let's settle this once and for all!

https://youtu.be/tHC5dPIcdJQ?si=fZYo8BOs_WmNSeYs

[Immanuel Can]

But why can't the laws be the "first cause"?

That's like asking why traffic laws can't be the cause of roads.

I am using the word, "laws" because I can't think of a better term, but by it I mean some state of affairs by which the conditions for how matter is able to exist and behave are set.

You're already assuming, then, the existence of matter. But what we're trying to explain is how matter got there. And when there's no matter for the laws to refer to, there's no laws either. So we need some kind of account -- a non-accident-dependent one, you say -- to explain how matter and laws came to exist.

It is my honest opinion that we cannot just assume there is such a thing as the material universe.

I find that surprising. I did not think there were any Pure Idealists today.

I think we can however assume that there is consciousness,

Okay. Why? Why can we assume that?

I'm sure you will be tempted to stick a label, such as idealism, on this, and then attack the idea on that basis, but I have no fixed notions or presuppositions, so it would be inappropriate to do so.

Not "inappropriate." Just not reasonable to expect a reasonable accounting for that belief from a person who says he's never really thought it through. I can accept that you don't know what you're really trying to say, and leave it at that; but it's not a very compelling case for Idealism, you'll have to admit.

God can only be assumed to be there, with no means of confirmation.

I don't believe that's true at all. And Creation is but the first of the many evidences for it. But you've already pre-decided there is not allowed to be any "means of confirmation," so it's not surprising if you continue to believe there isn't.

The fact that things exist is only evidence of things existing; it is not evidence of their being created by God.

That depends on the nature of the thing you observe.

If you find a working wristwatch lying in the woods, are you more rational if you note that the watch is sophisticated, composed of specified parts, and irreducibly complex -- all hallmarks of design, that you and I can recognize any day -- and then assume that the watch was lost by some traveller, or are you more rational if you say, "What a marvel, that this watchy-looking-thing came to exist by chance?

I have asked everyone in the world if they have genuine evidence of God's existence, and nobody could provide any.

Is this supposed to be a rejoinder I'm to take seriously?

What I am thinking is that the laws of physics cannot be be contravened, full stop. Are you saying that such a thought is to be regarded as a mistake?

Absolutely. It's a mistake on two fronts: one, to think that scientific laws are somehow insulated against contravention by a greater Force, and two, to think that something's been violated if a greater Force changes the outcome you expect.

I am working from the assumption that science knows of no circumstances under which the laws of physics are, or can be, contravened or violated.

That's a limitation of science itself. There's much science cannot tell us about. One of those things is any event in the past that is unique, or is not the same as the regularities it observes today, or does not leave it something to test. On such things, science is mute.

The word 'law' is a miswording. We should call them "observed regularities," because that's all they actually are. They don't have some sort of quasi-legal authority or right to always hold.

But on what authority do you claim to know that it is ever possible for the laws of physics, or observed regularities, not to hold?

That's easy: observation. It is usually the case that men don't rise from the dead. And if one does, then my studies in biology or "natural laws" will not assist me in finding out if somebody did. What they will tell me is that IF they did, something supernatural would have to have been at work.

The fact that your wife can act in a way that is contrary to your expectations in no way supports the theory that a supposed God is able to override the laws of physics.

It's not designed to argue for that point. It's just designed to point out to you that knowledge of one physical law or another does not give you perfect predictive ability of what is allowed to happen. So you're not in any rational position to say whether or not a miracle is possible. You're only in a position to know that if it did happen, it was, indeed a miracle.

But the point is, we don't see it.

The point is, we did.

By that I assume you mean you have read an account of it, which isn't really the same thing as seeing something.

Well, you believe in a ton of things you haven't seen, I'm sure. Science is one, you admit. Idealism's another, apparently. So I don't think your criteria for what you believe are nearly as high as all that. But even if you had seen something miraculous, you'd have to be willing to recognize it as what it was. And it's always possible to resist what one should know, even if it's before one's eyes. So I don't think you'd change your mind even if you did receive a chance to "see something."

But okay. What would you need to "see" that would convince you God exists?

...the existence of Boston is verifiable, whereas your claim of resurrection isn't.

I disagree. There's lots of rather compelling evidence for the resurrection, actually; but you'd have to be willing to do some reading to know about it.

[Peter Holmes]

You'll have to be more specific: what particular evidence do you regard as compelling for the Koran?

Don't be obtuse. You said, foolishly, that evidence that is refused is still evidence.

I'm not.

I'd forgotten how dishonestly you conduct these discussions. You said: 'Evidence that is refused is still evidence.' And I pointed out a logical implication of this silly claim. But instead of acknowledging its silliness, you choose to misunderstand the example of Qur'anic revelation, pretending that I'm saying there's evidence for it. Sorry - not interested.

I'm asking you if you're just making up this "evidence" you think you have for the Koran, or if you have a case. Because in order to be evidence, it has to exist. And you already listed three of the evidences you say I have for the Bible, and admitted they exist, even though you say you also refuse to accept them as evidence.

Misrepresentation. I didn't say you have evidence. I said you offer those four things - the universe, morality, revelation and Jesus - as evidence. Again, your dishonesty is evident.

You have no credible evidence for the existence of your team's god, just as the other team has no credible evidence for the existence of theirs. Both teams have claims, in the form of childish stories in old books. But there's an important difference between claims and the evidence for them.

Unless you have anything other than obfuscation and deflection from the point, I'm not interested in carrying on with this.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't be obtuse. You said, foolishly, that evidence that is refused is still evidence.

I'm not.

You said: 'Evidence that is refused is still evidence.'

Yes, I did. And I still do. But I was not at all being "obtuse," as you erroneously put it. It was a fair statement.

I'm asking you if you're just making up this "evidence" you think you have for the Koran, or if you have a case. Because in order to be evidence, it has to exist. And you already listed three of the evidences you say I have for the Bible, and admitted they exist, even though you say you also refuse to accept them as evidence.

I didn't say you have evidence. I said you offer those four things - the universe, morality, revelation and Jesus - as evidence.

I offer them. Indeed. And which one of them are you denying exists?

I'm not interested in carrying on with this.

So you have nothing to suggest there's any "evidence" for the Koran? Seems a funny point to try to make, then.

Listen, you're free to disbelieve anything you want. You can say you don't believe in Jesus, or in the Bible, or morality, or even the universe. What you can't say, though, is that they don't exist. They do. And you may not want to recognize them as evidence for what I recognize them for. That's your prerogative. But to say "there's no evidence"? No, there's none you'll acknowledge. That's all.

[Harbal]

That's like asking why traffic laws can't be the cause of roads.

I am using the word, "laws" because I can't think of a better term, but by it I mean some state of affairs by which the conditions for how matter is able to exist and behave are set.

You're already assuming, then, the existence of matter.

Yes, in this particular scenario, I am assuming the existence of matter.

But what we're trying to explain is how matter got there.

I think that is rather over ambitious of us. I can't begin to explain how matter got there, and you can only refer to some ancient text that was written by God knows who. Actually, God is probably the only one who does know who.

And when there's no matter for the laws to refer to, there's no laws either.

No, we don't know that to be the case. Maybe in the beginning there were laws, and it was these laws that allowed matter to come into existence. If you are not convinced, I could write that down and title it Harbible, and say the laws caused me to write it, to give it credibility.

So we need some kind of account -- a non-accident-dependent one, you say

No, that's actually what you say. I am not ruling out accidents.

to explain how matter and laws came to exist.

I could not even begin to explain how matter and laws came to exist, and I would be extremely sceptical about any claim of being able to.

It is my honest opinion that we cannot just assume there is such a thing as the material universe.

I find that surprising. I did not think there were any Pure Idealists today.

I don't know what a pure idealist is, or an impure one, for that matter, so I can't comment.

I think we can however assume that there is consciousness,

Okay. Why? Why can we assume that?

Oh, you know, the Descartes thing. If I can be sure of nothing else, I know I am at least thought, and I must be conscious to know that.

The fact that things exist is only evidence of things existing; it is not evidence of their being created by God.

That depends on the nature of the thing you observe.

If you find a working wristwatch lying in the woods, are you more rational if you note that the watch is sophisticated, composed of specified parts, and irreducibly complex -- all hallmarks of design, that you and I can recognize any day -- and then assume that the watch was lost by some traveller, or are you more rational if you say, "What a marvel, that this watchy-looking-thing came to exist by chance?

Whenever I see a watch, even if it is in a jewellers window, rather than in the woods, I assume it was deliberately manufactured.

I am working from the assumption that science knows of no circumstances under which the laws of physics are, or can be, contravened or violated.

That's a limitation of science itself.

Which is automatically a limitation to what we can claim to know about the physical universe.

There's much science cannot tell us about. One of those things is any event in the past that is unique, or is not the same as the regularities it observes today, or does not leave it something to test. On such things, science is mute.

I don't know what you're getting at.

But on what authority do you claim to know that it is ever possible for the laws of physics, or observed regularities, not to hold?

That's easy: observation. It is usually the case that men don't rise from the dead. And if one does, then my studies in biology or "natural laws" will not assist me in finding out if somebody did. What they will tell me is that IF they did, something supernatural would have to have been at work.

And what experience do you have of observing men rising from the dead?

By that I assume you mean you have read an account of it, which isn't really the same thing as seeing something.

Well, you believe in a ton of things you haven't seen, I'm sure. Science is one,

Science is usually quite reliable, and when science gets it wrong, and revises its position, I have no reluctance to revise what I believe to be probably true. Science says the universe started with the Big Bang, and although I don't really understand it, I have enough trust in science to make me think they are probably right, but if tomorrow they announced they were completely wrong about the Big Bang, it wouldn't matter a jot to me. I may well believe a ton of things I haven't seen, but I don't invest faith in them, or construct my life round them, or even let them matter much to me. When something is important to me, that is when I make an effort to find out if it is genuine.

you admit. Idealism's another, apparently.

No, I haven't admitted anything that fits that description.

But even if you had seen something miraculous, you'd have to be willing to recognize it as what it was.

Or what it wasn't.

And it's always possible to resist what one should know, even if it's before one's eyes. So I don't think you'd change your mind even if you did receive a chance to "see something."

If the day ever comes when you drop your resistance to the possibility of your being wrong about God and the Bible, that is the day you will become entitled to level that sort of criticism against me.

But okay. What would you need to "see" that would convince you God exists?

God, I suppose.

...the existence of Boston is verifiable, whereas your claim of resurrection isn't.

I disagree. There's lots of rather compelling evidence for the resurrection, actually;

If by "rather a lot", you mean none, I am prepared to take your word for it.

but you'd have to be willing to do some reading to know about it.

That's not going to happen, so it is just as well that I already know what I need to know.

[Immanuel Can]

I am using the word, "laws" because I can't think of a better term, but by it I mean some state of affairs by which the conditions for how matter is able to exist and behave are set.

You're already assuming, then, the existence of matter.

Yes, in this particular scenario, I am assuming the existence of matter.

Then you're not explaining how it came to be, what its origination is. You're just noting that it's here, however it got here.

And when there's no matter for the laws to refer to, there's no laws either.

No, we don't know that to be the case.

Yeah, we do. Laws are "laws of" or "laws about" material things. Without materials, there is not referent for the laws.

And laws aren't agents. They don't do things, or make things. They're merely descriptions of the dynamics of things that already exist.

I think we can however assume that there is consciousness,

Okay. Why? Why can we assume that?

Oh, you know, the Descartes thing. If I can be sure of nothing else, I know I am at least thought, and I must be conscious to know that.

I thought that's what you might be alluding to.

And that's right, in a very limited way. Descartes can show that something conscious exists, a "Harbal," if you will...but he can't show more. So he doesn't give us a justification for believing in the external world, or even for believing in other consciousnesses...which clearly you do, since you're speaking with me.

The fact that things exist is only evidence of things existing; it is not evidence of their being created by God.

That depends on the nature of the thing you observe.

If you find a working wristwatch lying in the woods, are you more rational if you note that the watch is sophisticated, composed of specified parts, and irreducibly complex -- all hallmarks of design, that you and I can recognize any day -- and then assume that the watch was lost by some traveller, or are you more rational if you say, "What a marvel, that this watchy-looking-thing came to exist by chance?

Whenever I see a watch, even if it is in a jewellers window, rather than in the woods, I assume it was deliberately manufactured.

Exactly the point. And when you see an entity immeasurably more complex, specified, irreducible and intricate than any watch, your conclusion should be the same: that some intelligence "manufactured" it "deliberately."

I am working from the assumption that science knows of no circumstances under which the laws of physics are, or can be, contravened or violated.

That's a limitation of science itself.

Which is automatically a limitation to what we can claim to know about the physical universe.

Actually, no. For we do know all kinds of things that are real, but which science seems quite unable to expound for us. Love, consciousness, morality, infinity...

There's much science cannot tell us about. One of those things is any event in the past that is unique, or is not the same as the regularities it observes today, or does not leave it something to test. On such things, science is mute.

I don't know what you're getting at.

Science is one way of knowing things, not the only way. It's a good way to unpack the material stuff, particularly in the present moment. But when we get beyond that, it's got no working method anymore.

By that I assume you mean you have read an account of it, which isn't really the same thing as seeing something.

Well, you believe in a ton of things you haven't seen, I'm sure. Science is one,

Science is usually quite reliable,

You assume. And for what it does well, it does well. But you claim not to be a scientist, so that's all second-hand to you. And yet you seem very sure of it...

And it's always possible to resist what one should know, even if it's before one's eyes. So I don't think you'd change your mind even if you did receive a chance to "see something."

If the day ever comes when you drop your resistance to the possibility of your being wrong about God and the Bible, that is the day you will become entitled to level that sort of criticism against me.

You misunderstand what faith is. Faith is a probabilistic estimation, based on what one already knows. It's not a gratuitous refusal to doubt. Doubt and faith coexist in everybody, because we're all limited, fallible creatures; but in some, as Browning pointed out, it's a life of faith shot through with occasions of doubt, and for others, it's a life of doubts shot through with only occasional moments of faith.

We'll see who it works out for, I guess.

[iambiguous]

Here's another YouTube video: https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube ... J9uPo,st:0

This one focuses on an attempt to argue, what, that Judaism and the Torah are the real deal? That only through them can we hope to arrive at moral commandments here and now and immortality and salvation there and then?

This one is particularly interesting because it includes an assessment of religion in general and of Christianity and Islam.

You tell me if his emphasis on "empiricism" here is or is not convincing.

As for this part...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...it never came up.

[Harbal]

You're already assuming, then, the existence of matter.

Yes, in this particular scenario, I am assuming the existence of matter.

Then you're not explaining how it came to be, what its origination is. You're just noting that it's here, however it got here.

I've already said that I don't know how it came to be.

No, we don't know that to be the case.

Yeah, we do. Laws are "laws of" or "laws about" material things. Without materials, there is not referent for the laws.

And laws aren't agents. They don't do things, or make things. They're merely descriptions of the dynamics of things that already exist.

I think you might be right, I've been conflating laws and forces. I should have said forces.

Oh, you know, the Descartes thing. If I can be sure of nothing else, I know I am at least thought, and I must be conscious to know that.

I thought that's what you might be alluding to.

And that's right, in a very limited way. Descartes can show that something conscious exists, a "Harbal," if you will...but he can't show more. So he doesn't give us a justification for believing in the external world, or even for believing in other consciousnesses...which clearly you do, since you're speaking with me.

I'm quite open minded about all this. I can't be sure that the external world exists, but I have to behave as though it does, so I don't see much to be gained by going out of my way to try and figure it out.

Whenever I see a watch, even if it is in a jewellers window, rather than in the woods, I assume it was deliberately manufactured.

Exactly the point. And when you see an entity immeasurably more complex, specified, irreducible and intricate than any watch, your conclusion should be the same: that some intelligence "manufactured" it "deliberately."

I assume you are thinking of life, particularly the more highly developed forms of life. Animals, for example, even human beings. Well I think you are making a mistake by comparing living organisms with mechanical constructions. Yes, both have moving parts, and have functions, but the analogy doesn't hold in the context of how each come into existence. You know my views about life and evolution, so why would you expect that line of reasoning to make any impact on me? If you were referring to something else, you will have to tell me what it is.

Which is automatically a limitation to what we can claim to know about the physical universe.

Actually, no. For we do know all kinds of things that are real, but which science seems quite unable to expound for us. Love, consciousness, morality, infinity...

I don't know what infinity has to do with the matter, but all those other things are immaterial, abstract things, and we are talking about science in regard to the physical universe.

Science is usually quite reliable,

You assume. And for what it does well, it does well. But you claim not to be a scientist, so that's all second-hand to you. And yet you seem very sure of it...

Science is responsible for my computer, my phone, my cooker, my car, my internet connection, my microwave oven, space exploration, nuclear power and weapons, medicine, medical equipment, robots, contactless payments............ Society and our life style is completely dominated by science. So yes, I am pretty sure about the capabilities of science.

If the day ever comes when you drop your resistance to the possibility of your being wrong about God and the Bible, that is the day you will become entitled to level that sort of criticism against me.

You misunderstand what faith is. Faith is a probabilistic estimation, based on what one already knows.

I don't misunderstand what religious faith is; it's a psychological state, and is not based on knowledge of anything. It doesn't make rational sense to have that much faith in anything; to be that sure about anything. Religious faith is a behavioural compulsion.

It's not a gratuitous refusal to doubt.

It is precisely that.

Human beings are capable of, and can achieve much by, exercising rationality, but our behaviour is driven by superstitious impulse far more than we realise, or want to admit.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, in this particular scenario, I am assuming the existence of matter.

Then you're not explaining how it came to be, what its origination is. You're just noting that it's here, however it got here.

I've already said that I don't know how it came to be.

Then what gives you a reason to think it wasn't created by God?

Whenever I see a watch, even if it is in a jewellers window, rather than in the woods, I assume it was deliberately manufactured.

Exactly the point. And when you see an entity immeasurably more complex, specified, irreducible and intricate than any watch, your conclusion should be the same: that some intelligence "manufactured" it "deliberately."

I assume you are thinking of life, particularly the more highly developed forms of life.

That for sure, but everything else, as well...the fine tuning of the whole universe, and of everything in it.

Science is usually quite reliable,

You assume. And for what it does well, it does well. But you claim not to be a scientist, so that's all second-hand to you. And yet you seem very sure of it...

Science is responsible for my computer, my phone, my cooker, my car, my internet connection, my microwave oven, space exploration, nuclear power and weapons, medicine, medical equipment, robots, contactless payments............ Society and our life style is completely dominated by science. So yes, I am pretty sure about the capabilities of science.

And yet, that knowledge came to you second-hand. You didn't invent science by yourself, did you? The technology you've been told was given you by science, you didn't invent any of it, did you? You listened to explanations from others, and you believed them. You say you don't understand the science involved (who could), and are not even sure about what science means as a theory...but you believe it created all these wondrous things you see around you every day...

Interesting. It seems your skepticism is of a highly selective sort.

[Harbal]

Then you're not explaining how it came to be, what its origination is. You're just noting that it's here, however it got here.

I've already said that I don't know how it came to be.

Then what gives you a reason to think it wasn't created by God?

I don't believe in God, so that isn't an option.

I assume you are thinking of life, particularly the more highly developed forms of life.

That for sure, but everything else, as well...the fine tuning of the whole universe, and of everything in it.

I don't know what you are referring to.

Science is responsible for my computer, my phone, my cooker, my car, my internet connection, my microwave oven, space exploration, nuclear power and weapons, medicine, medical equipment, robots, contactless payments............ Society and our life style is completely dominated by science. So yes, I am pretty sure about the capabilities of science.

And yet, that knowledge came to you second-hand. You didn't invent science by yourself, did you? The technology you've been told was given you by science, you didn't invent any of it, did you? You listened to explanations from others, and you believed them. You say you don't understand the science involved (who could), and are not even sure about what science means as a theory...but you believe it created all these wondrous things you see around you every day...

I said I didn't understand the Big Bang theory, but that isn't really a feature of my everyday life. I have a basic understanding of a few of the things I mentioned; I certainly know enough about science to know that I am not overestimating its achievements. I don't understand anything at all about God.

[Immanuel Can]

I've already said that I don't know how it came to be.

Then what gives you a reason to think it wasn't created by God?

I don't believe in God, so that isn't an option.

Then that's arbitrary. I suspected as much.

I assume you are thinking of life, particularly the more highly developed forms of life.

That for sure, but everything else, as well...the fine tuning of the whole universe, and of everything in it.

I don't know what you are referring to.

You've never heard of the "fine tuning argument" for the existence of God? Maybe that's one of the reasons you have come to think there's no evidence. That's one place you can find some...but just one of many.

I don't understand anything at all about God.

I believe you. All evidence points to that very thing.

[Harbal]

Then what gives you a reason to think it wasn't created by God?

I don't believe in God, so that isn't an option.

Then that's arbitrary. I suspected as much.

That for sure, but everything else, as well...the fine tuning of the whole universe, and of everything in it.

I don't know what you are referring to.

You've never heard of the "fine tuning argument" for the existence of God? Maybe that's one of the reasons you have come to think there's no evidence. That's one place you can find some...but just one of many.

I don't understand anything at all about God.

I believe you. All evidence points to that very thing.

We've strayed quite a long way away from my original point, which was that nothing you have put forward as evidence of God actually warrants that claim. I don't deny that there are phenomena that could be interpreted as signs of intentional design, but that only suggests a possibility. That sort of thing might be called a clue, but certainly not evidence. Even if there were something resembling evidence of intentional design, that still would not necessarily point to God; there could be, and are, any number of alternative theories. There are also numerous concepts of what God actually is.

[Immanuel Can]

We've strayed quite a long way away from my original point, which was that nothing you have put forward as evidence of God actually warrants that claim.

And I've pointed out that you don't know that. You say you don't even know what evidences I know -- such as the "fine tuning" argument, say. I think it's also therefore likely you don't know the mathematical arguments, the logical arguments, the theological arguments, the moral argument, the argument from evil, the various ontological arguments, the teleological argument, the argument from meaning, the argument from consciousness, the case from science, the archaeological evidence...it seems to me you're repeatedly telling me you don't even find it interesting to know what arguments for God there are. So I'm not hearing a very strong skeptical claim there: just a confession of indifference to the whole question.

What you do know, and what I think we can accept, is that Harbal does not know God. Harbal says he doesn't even know of any evidence for God. But whether such evidence exists cannot be decided based purely on what Harbal knows. Moreover, that conclusion only refers to the present moment. Presuming Harbal has not stopped learning and experiencing, he may learn something new today. How does Harbal know he won't learn some new evidence for God in the next five minutes? He certainly could...

I don't deny that there are phenomena that could be interpreted as signs of intentional design, but that only suggests a possibility.

Well, since, by your own admission, you don't know anything about things like the famous "fine tuning" argument, you may have an unrealistic sense of the relative "possibilities" of the two hypotheses, no?

That sort of thing might be called a clue, but certainly not evidence.

Well, all human empirical knowledge -- including science -- is probabilistic, not absolute. "Evidence" is always probabilistic, not absolute. So all evidence is a clue, not a certitude. Clues are all we ever get, for evidence. But some clues are just way, way stronger than others. The point is to have a proper sense of how strong a given clue actually is, and how many other clues line up with it: and then to venture our trust in the conclusion with the highest probability of being right.

You may say you want more, that you want certainty. You'll never get it. And if you imagine you have it, even in scientific matters, then it would only mean you've misunderstood your real position. Human knowing is probabilistic, not absolute. You'll never have more than that. That's something with which we all have to live, every day.

There are also numerous concepts of what God actually is.

Yes, but that is, as I pointed out earlier, only a second question. The first question always has to be whether or not there's any God at all, not what sort of God He is. If He didn't exist, then obviously, He'd be no sort.

[Harbal]

We've strayed quite a long way away from my original point, which was that nothing you have put forward as evidence of God actually warrants that claim.

And I've pointed out that you don't know that.

Let me try to be more precise, then. I have seen nothing from you that matches the requirements or standards I regard as necessary for something to legitimately be called evidence. I can't comment on anything you have posted that I haven't seen, of course. When I said, "nothing you have put forward as evidence of God actually warrants that claim", I was expressing my opinion.

You say you don't even know what evidences I know -- such as the "fine tuning" argument, say. I think it's also therefore likely you don't know the mathematical arguments, the logical arguments, the theological arguments, the moral argument, the argument from evil, the various ontological arguments, the teleological argument, the argument from meaning, the argument from consciousness, the case from science, the archaeological evidence...

Arguments aren't evidence, they are just arguments. My comments are based only on the posts of yours that I have seem myself, and those are the only ones I am referring to. I'm not saying that you haven't got an argument that I would find convincing in any way, I'm just saying I haven't seen one yet.

What you do know, and what I think we can accept, is that Harbal does not know God. Harbal says he doesn't even know of any evidence for God. But whether such evidence exists cannot be decided based purely on what Harbal knows. Moreover, that conclusion only refers to the present moment. Presuming Harbal has not stopped learning and experiencing, he may learn something new today. How does Harbal know he won't learn some new evidence for God in the next five minutes? He certainly could...

Yes, he certainly could, but if past experience is any guide, he certainly won't.

I don't deny that there are phenomena that could be interpreted as signs of intentional design, but that only suggests a possibility.

Well, since, by your own admission, you don't know anything about things like the famous "fine tuning" argument, you may have an unrealistic sense of the relative "possibilities" of the two hypotheses, no?

I can't be expected to change my opinion because of something I'm not aware of. If at some point somebody presents me with the gist of the "fine tuning" argument, I suppose I will respond to it. The trouble is, there is a tendency round here is for people to just post links to articles and stuff, rather than presenting the argument themselves, and I don't want to be reading pages and pages of stuff.

That sort of thing might be called a clue, but certainly not evidence.

Well, all human empirical knowledge -- including science -- is probabilistic, not absolute. "Evidence" is always probabilistic, not absolute. So all evidence is a clue, not a certitude.

But we expect it to cross a certain threshold before we consider it to be evidence.

But some clues are just way, way stronger than others. The point is to have a proper sense of how strong a given clue actually is, and how many other clues line up with it: and then to venture our trust in the conclusion with the highest probability of being right.

But this is the problem: I feel totally unable to venture any trust in much of what you say.

You may say you want more, that you want certainty.

When I am asked to believe something I consider to be immensely improbable, then yes, I would require certainty before accepting it.

And if you imagine you have it, even in scientific matters, then it would only mean you've misunderstood your real position. Human knowing is probabilistic, not absolute.

I think you need to be made aware of that more than I do. I have nowhere near as much faith in anything as you claim to have in the truth of the Bible and the existence of God.

There are also numerous concepts of what God actually is.

Yes, but that is, as I pointed out earlier, only a second question. The first question always has to be whether or not there's any God at all, not what sort of God He is. If He didn't exist, then obviously, He'd be no sort.

I don't anticipate ever getting to the second question.