Evidence Against God

[downbeatplumb]

I would first need to see a non-theistic solution to Chalmers' "hard problem."

That would be.

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.

Because it just does, seems to fit here.

Why should there be a hard answer?

[Adjusted Sanity]

Why can't absolute lack of evidence of his existence serve as proof of his non existence? I've never really got that.

There was no clear evidence that the earth was round at one point. Does that mean the earth was flat until we discovered it?

Just because something is unobserved doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you are free to disregard it without looking stupid.

[Norfolk And Chance]

There was no clear evidence that the earth was round at one point. Does that mean the earth was flat until we discovered it?

The earth isn't round. It's an oblate spheroid.

Just because something is unobserved doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you are free to disregard it without looking stupid.

We know more than enough about god to reason that he should have been observed by now, by credible means.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience....It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises.

I think the quote should read "it is widely assumed..." Given the overall success of explaining things scientifically it's not unreasonable to assume a natural solution may come along. But a compelling one has yet to appear. I don't think of this as a 'god in the gaps' kind of problem. The 'hard problem' isn't really a gap ; it's the foundation of everything we know and experience.

[Welsh cake]

I think theists should be more concerned with the appalling lack of evidence for the existence of said deity/deities they believe exists.

I mean let's face it, millions have devoted themselves to prayer, worship, debate and are continuing to do so as we speak. Altogether the believers are giving up an incalculable amount of time and effort that could have been better spend doing something worthwhile and productive that actually benefits someone.

The years of waste go by, until inevitably on their deathbeds (if they're lucky) they realise as the truth of their mortality hits them, they have nothing to show for it except regret. Deep down they know no personal god that supposedly watches out for them exists otherwise they wouldn't be dying. As their consciousness slips away they know they've wasted their lives and will die bitter and angry waiting for the afterlife that never comes...

[Norfolk And Chance]

...yet they'll never know the truth of their delusion after they die.

[Welsh cake]

...yet they'll never know the truth of their delusion after they die.

True, the best we can hope for is that they become misotheists.

[Phil]

Why can't absolute lack of evidence of his existence serve as proof of his non existence? I've never really got that.

There was no clear evidence that the earth was round at one point. Does that mean the earth was flat until we discovered it?

Just because something is unobserved doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you are free to disregard it without looking stupid.

Wrong. Very and severely wrong but often thought to be true. An absence of evidence when there should be evidence is unquestionably evidence of absence.

---

Lots of people think you can't prove a negative but popularity doesn't make the saying true. A negative can easily be proven. For example, the statement 2 + 2 = 5 is made and here is a small proof that it is false. You have 2 rocks in your left hand you throw on a table in front of you. You have another 2 rocks in your right hand you also throw on the table in front of you. The table does not hold 5 rocks therefore the statement that 2 + 2 = 5 is proven false. What is impossible to prove is a negative with infinite possibilities such as an undefined god. Once god is defined in concrete terms, it is a trivial matter to disprove it's existence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would Chalmers problem be an issue of god? How does a problem of consciousness lend credibility (or even possibility) to your god-claim Chad? Are you just picking problems that you feel would be difficult to solve in order to salvage a cherished idea? The vast wealth of knowledge from comparative mythology, psychology, archaeology, (and just about any other aspect of science where mis-attribution was the meat of the god claim) doesn't do it for you? You would instead pigeonhole your god-claim into whatever is mysterious at the time? Well, that hasn't been a very successful strategy in the past. There aren't too many weather gods laying about anymore.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Wrong. Very and severely wrong but often thought to be true. An absence of evidence when there should be evidence is unquestionably evidence of absence

Who actually coined that well known absence/evidence phrase?

Lots of people think you can't prove a negative but popularity doesn't make the saying true. A negative can easily be proven. For example, the statement 2 + 2 = 5 is made and here is a small proof that it is false. You have 2 rocks in your left hand you throw on a table in front of you. You have another 2 rocks in your right hand you also throw on the table in front of you. The table does not hold 5 rocks therefore the statement that 2 + 2 = 5 is proven false.

Aha, a simple proof of a simple fact, namely that 2+2=4. Just for a laugh, go and post it in the philosophy section and watch the buttmunches try and babble their way around it.