(January 11, 2017 at 4:01 pm)Yadayadayada Wrote: Atheists, please define "evidence".

Look at any dictionary for the definition of evidence.

MW:

1. 1a :  an outward sign :  indicationb :  something that furnishes proof :  testimony; specifically :  something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
   
2. 2 :  one who bears witness; especially :  one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
   
   
   I think for theological arguments the second definition is most important. The witnessing by believers is all the evidence of god we have. I have never been convinced by a believer that their sky fairy is real.

I've never been convinced by a believer that it would matter to me if their skyfairy were real. I certainly don't give a shit about a christ real or imagined.

god is a fucking tease. I'm still waiting.

(January 12, 2017 at 10:24 am)Yadayadayada Wrote: So, what EXACTLY would you need to see to be able to say, "Wow yes, there is a God..."  What do you consider evidence?

GOD.

I mean, we're talking about a being that created everything that exists, is more powerful and awe-inspiring than we can even imagine and capable of anything he sets his mind to. According to your holy book, he manifested himself in the distant past and performed supernatural feats that left witnesses stunned and delivered pronouncements that blew their minds. He coyly offered the secrets to life, the universe, and everything to those who took the proper steps in the proper order and an eternity in a world as impressive as he was. The message he delivered is of utmost importance to every person living ever since he walked the Earth.

...and he refuses to show up.

Get him to show up, and you wouldn't have to ask what we consider evidence. It's obviously not something outside of his ability. And no, don't point to a funny-shaped cloud and claim it's a sign. And no, pointing at the church that was left standing when a tornado reduced everything else to rubble doesn't count. And no, the fact that a baseball player hit a home run in a clutch situation and thanked god afterward doesn't count either. Get him to show up. It's not too much to ask.

(January 12, 2017 at 5:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I agree that QM is strongly counter-intuitive. So also are our notions about the solidity of objects and the constancy of time and space intervals. I don't see that as the same as being unintelligible. As I understand it QM is one of the most thoroughly tested and consistent theories in all of science. Its perplexing findings just show that we need a better model of causality.

Sounds more like our current physical models of some phenomena are incomplete not that the phenomena themselves are beyond the reach of inquiry.

Perhaps.  QM is thoroughly tested but not widely understood.  Much of it has do with probabilities, like how a particle has a probability of being in different places until observed.  There may even be an element of randomness to it, which would lead one to believe it may very well not be as intelligible as we'd like.  The theories put forth to explain wave function collapse seem so outrageous that it appears as if our basic understanding of the universe is flawed.  Not to mention that we have to go even further down the rabbit hole with string theory to try to explain the existence of particles.  Perhaps understanding this is all a matter of time, but one could just as easily assume that the fundamentals of the universe are beyond our reason.

How about the Uncertainty Principle?  That says that the more precisely you try to measure one trait of a particle the less you can know about another of that particle's traits.  There is a certain amount of unintelligibly built into the foundations of the universe.

(January 12, 2017 at 5:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Something can be intelligible without being widely understood.

I guess that depends on how you are using "intelligible."  If you mean "able to be understood," then I guess that would barely qualify, but if you mean "clear," things like QM don't qualify.

(January 12, 2017 at 5:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: All of this is true. I would say in reply that people are able to overcome those bias. While in a particular illusion, one line may appear longer to the unaided eye, one can use a ruler to determine the actual lengths are equal. As I see it reason is self-correcting rather than inherently flawed. If two clocks show a different time, I can bring in a third, etc.

What you're describing here is empirical verifiability.  Congrats, Chad!  You are now a proponent of science!

But I mentioned that in the part of my quote you chose to edit out.  It's only self-correcting in the sense that collectively we can overcome it.  If there was only one person in the world, their ability to understand reality would be greatly limited. It would be nigh impossible for them to overcome their biases on their own because of the flaws in how the brain processes information. It's becoming increasingly demonstrated that we humans come to conclusions first and interpret the world around us to fit those beliefs as opposed to the other way around.

(January 12, 2017 at 2:45 pm)Yadayadayada Wrote:

(January 12, 2017 at 2:29 pm)robvalue Wrote: I find the question incoherent.

The question is simple as can be.

Quote:I call myself an atheist to keep things simple, because I'm likely not to believe in any definition that is put forward. But as we are seeing, people can rarely even define the thing they believe in.

What we are seeing is that people can rarely even define the thing they don't believe in.

Each believer seems to have different ideas as to what a god or gods are /is so you really have to address those ideas individually.

I litteraly have no fixed ideas about gods, just as I don't have a preconceived notion on the mating habits of lesser spotted unicorns.

(January 13, 2017 at 11:22 am)Faith No More Wrote: How about the Uncertainty Principle?  That says that the more precisely you try to measure one trait of a particle the less you can know about another of that particle's traits.  There is a certain amount of unintelligibly built into the foundations of the universe.

...or if universe inflation accelerates to distances that cannot be traversed at the speed of light...or what's beyond the event horizon of a black hole...etc....etc...

What I am saying is the regardless of specific epistemological limits we can be reasonably confident that those limits are lawfully imposed.

(January 13, 2017 at 11:22 am)Faith No More Wrote: What you're describing here is empirical verifiability.  Congrats, Chad!  You are now a proponent of science!

Always have been, my friend.

(January 13, 2017 at 2:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: What I am saying is the regardless of specific epistemological limits we can be reasonably confident that those limits are lawfully imposed.

Can we?  Who's this "we"?   Never have two more thoroughly pregnant words been dropped so casually. Sometimes...I see things people say and think, "well, they jumped into the deep end on that one" but at least I know where the deep end is. Other times, they jump from the highboard, somehow miss the entire pool and the earth...establish an orbit, and then spin off into space.

(January 13, 2017 at 2:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: [quote='Faith No More' pid='1486512' dateline='1484320973']
How about the Uncertainty Principle?  That says that the more precisely you try to measure one trait of a particle the less you can know about another of that particle's traits.  There is a certain amount of unintelligibly built into the foundations of the universe.

(January 13, 2017 at 2:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: ...or if universe inflation accelerates to distances that cannot be traversed at the speed of light...or what's beyond the event horizon of a black hole...etc....etc...

What I am saying is the regardless of specific epistemological limits we can be reasonably confident that those limits are lawfully imposed.

Unless you can come up with a mechanism that would enable god to set the limits what you have is nothing.
At the moment the "laws" are just a description of what happens.
What is needed is a further idea of how they came to be what they are, but saying it is god is just forcing him into a gap in our knowledge.

...does it help if I state it more neutrally? All current observations suggest that epistemological limits result from lawful processes.