The Evidence Required Is?

[downbeatplumb]

Some say belief in deity is not scientific in the sense of not being falsifiable. But can't something be true even if it isn't falsifiable. For example, in the movie Contact, the boyfriend of the Jodie Foster character says, "prove that I love you." That appears to be an example of the kinds of statements that can be true but not be disprovable and in the same class as the "Hard Problem" of David Chalmers. How can you prove that other people are self-aware? If a computer passed the Turing test could you prove that it was or was not conscious? Etc.

I think I can answer the "prove you love your father" question to an acceptable level.

1: Love is an acknowledged, common and well understood human emotion.
2: It is the norm to love close family members, when people dont it is shocking and sad.
3: Jodie fosters character acted in a way consistant with love for her father.
4: Her characters emotions displayed appropriate respsonses to his demise.

She did not make an extradinary claim in saying she loved her father so he above "proofs" would be sufficient to prove with a reasonable level of certainty she loved her father.

Comparing love for a father to the existance of the impossible magic man in the sky is just silly.

[ThomM]

What kind of evidence or proof would it take for you to believe in deity?

THe deity

IT is supposed to be everywhere - so all it needs to do is appear to EVERYONE all the time - and speak for itself.

[Welsh cake]

Sincere question, is this opinion held by pretty much every atheist here or do some believe that the physical universe is governed by consistent laws? It seems to go contrary to the basic assumption of scientific inquiry.

You need to exercise a little scientific discipline here, the universe isn't governed by our scientific laws. The laws themselves are simply analytic statements, observations about reality that usually feature an empirically determined constant without exception. Laws explain the fundamental interactions of our universe but they can't explain why those interactions are constantly occurring.

It [math] did not exist independent of minds before the big bang, that's absurd.

Anyone can imagine an alternate universe with different physical constants. No one can imagine a physical universe where logic and math do not work, that would be absurd, literally.

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about the human imagination! I'm addressing your comments on the philosophy of mathematics, specifically your claims on mathematical realism. Kindly stay on topic.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sincere question, is this opinion held by pretty much every atheist here or do some believe that the physical universe is governed by consistent laws? It seems to go contrary to the basic assumption of scientific inquiry.

Laws explain the fundamental interactions of our universe but they can't explain why those interactions are constantly occurring.

Exactly my point. Glad to see you understand.

[Welsh cake]

Exactly my point. Glad to see you understand.

Chad, grow up.

Can you comprehend that without making yet another fucking non sequitur?

Tool...

[Neo-Scholastic]

Can you comprehend that without making yet another fucking non sequitur?

Tool...

I'm really enjoying the conversation and have been given much to ponder thus far. I hope your not really upset, but if you are then I'm sorry.

[Bgood]

I think it is sad that evidence doesn't convince people. This is due to doubt. We think the evidence provided is doubtful. People should go with their best instincts. What seems more real? What seems more plausible? God is man-made....obviously! Politics is the instrument for man to gain power and wealth. This is self evident. What is the big mystery and conflict over this shit anymore?!!! As far as all you pessimistic atheists, what is wrong in believing in positive reinforcement? Success breeds success does it not?

[KichigaiNeko]

[Cyberman]

I think it is sad that evidence doesn't convince people.

Don't be sad, it's only because the evidence isn't convincing. When I was considerably younger I, like most kids brought up in Western society, believed in Santa. Not in any fundamentalist burn-the-heretic way, which might have made my childhood a bit more dramatic, but in the quiet little innocence of youth encountering something magical in an otherwise mundane world. How could Santa not be real in the face of all the evidence? There were of course the presents, which were definitely not at the foot of my bed when I'd fallen alseep the previous night. There was the half-consumed mince pie and glass of sherry I and my younger sister had left out for the purpose, plus the little note handwritten and signed by Santa personally. Sometimes there were sooty footprints on the carpet despite the fact we never had an open fire of any kind. On top of all this physical evidence, the real clincher was the personal confirmatory testimony of our parents; what possible reason would they have to lie about something so important?

As childhood advanced and our innocent yet sincere questions became more sophisticated, the evidence that had been so convincing to a young impressionable mind gradually lost its plausibilty and the rationalisations became correspondingly more implausible. Eventually, naturally, inevitably, the scales of innocence fell away, replaced by the light of understanding, like some rite of passage. When my little nephew came along I carried on the tradition of leaving a little note in disguised handwriting (when such time came that he decided he didn't believe any more, 'Santa' even left him a note threatening to send the elves round, which he thought was hilarious). Right up to the last xmas I was part of I would give the occasional gift to someone "From Santa". I was finally in on the joke.

The point of all this is that evidence in and of itself is just a piece of data to be considered. Theists and others in the game of trying to sell implausibility tend to throw one datum point onto the table, sometimes even machine-gunning totally unrelated points at us, and call us closed-minded when we dare to be unconvinced. All we ever ask for is to be shown something more compelling than a half-eaten mince pie. Unfortunately, most of the time the theist doesn't even have that; instead s/he has an invisible mince pie that someone once told a story about in an atrociously-written book.

[Whateverist]

I think it is sad that evidence doesn't convince people. This is due to doubt. We think the evidence provided is doubtful. People should go with their best instincts. What seems more real? What seems more plausible? God is man-made....obviously! Politics is the instrument for man to gain power and wealth. This is self evident. What is the big mystery and conflict over this shit anymore?!!! As far as all you pessimistic atheists, what is wrong in believing in positive reinforcement? Success breeds success does it not?

Hmmm .. someone has to tell you. Oh hell, I'll do it.

Bgood you are starting to sound like a parody of an Eastern teacher.

I am beginning to feel hunger. This is because I have not yet had breakfast. My stomach is not yet satisfied with the nutrition I have consumed. What to do?

I am not a bachelor. This is because I have married. I will likely not be a bachelor again unless my wife dies.

See what I mean? If not, are your eyes open? No, truly open?