Atheism, Evidence and the God-of-the-Gaps

[Chad32]

Hitler. That guy from Germany with the concentration camps. Also started world war II. Not that jews were the only people he killed.

Please don't tell me you've never heard of people beng killed for heresy or apostasy, or I'll have to believe you're being willfully ignorant or dishonest.

Hitler was a big fan of Nietzsche. That was the influence that led to the Holocaust.

Is that like iron chariots when it comes to the protection that a personal god should give to his followers? I believe that was my earlier point. If I'm going to dedicate my life to someone, he should give me a blessed life. But apparently people who read Nietzsche can keep god from stopping them from killing his followers.

[KevinM1]

Too bad your god didn't save Fr. Thomas Byles or Fr. Joseph Peruschitz.  Guess they weren't holy enough.

Alternatively, maybe they were holy enough to send on the voyage. Weren't they the priests who were hearing confessions as the ship went down? Probably saved a lot of souls that.

There were three priests aboard, btw.

Here's a good article: http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04...e-titanic/

And yet, your god saved one and not the others.  Why?  Mysterious ways, of course.

Nothing you have presented, in any way, shape, or form, is a convincing argument for the existence of your god.  You claim that the resurrection story is convincing.  The only conclusion I can draw from that  admission is that you have very little intellectual curiosity outside of regurgitating old, tired apologist drivel we've all heard before.

And, yes, most of us would likely dismiss a supposed meeting with god as something more mundane.  Why?  Occam's Razor.  Theists like to pretend that god is the simplest answer, but logically the opposite is true.  That kind of thinking also falls into God of the Gaps territory (see what I did there?).  That's why, as I've said repeatedly, that you first need to define god (and let's not pretend that the Christian god is well defined), then you need to establish that any purported evidence for it actually isn't evidence of something else.

Good luck with that.

And even if we did meet the real deal god (assuming, for argument's sake that it's your flavor and not, say, Vishnu), that certainly doesn't mean we'd become worshipers.  That assumption that if your god is real that we'd naturally fall in line and become good little sheep in Jesus' flock always gets me.  There's a huge gulf between potential acknowledgement and worship.

[Iroscato]

I do, for one. An emotional part of me wishes there was some evidence of a higher power, just so that the question of where this universe came from was answered (before we even get into the problem of where the creator came from).
I also did struggle for a while with what faith I had as a child, before I realised the utter lack of evidence meant I could no longer simply have blind faith. That was before I reached double figures, I struggle to think how grown-ass adults still do it daily.

Adults don't have blind faith. They have an informed faith.

You should, too.

Yeah...unfortunately my low tolerance for bullshit keeps getting in the way.

[Jenny A]

---

I've answered this one a couple times now.  You need to start by defining god.  What is it exactly that you are trying to prove? 

If you are merely trying to show that there is a very powerful being, so powerful that it's actions appear outside the laws of nature, then you need to produce some verifiable miracles that appear outside of the laws of nature.  And to make a miracle more likely than not you'll need more than eyewitness testimony.  A few amputees (verified by medical examination) and healed overnight by prayer, and once again verified by medical examination would fit the bill.  And it is important that the miracle be associated with the powerful being either by only working in connection with prayer to him or some other means.  Otherwise you have proven the miraculous event but not the agency thereof.

---

Jenny, I'm not familiar with this website, but the owner states that the Catholic Church has validated 67 miracles which have occurred at Lourdes. Make of them what you will.

I make it the same thing as I make of other such claims.  There is nothing like the level of verified evidence suggested in my multiple doctor examined before and after limb regrowth scenario.  It's eyewitness testimony the church has endorsed, nothing more.  The churches endorsement adds nothing.  Nor are these "miracles anything like the regrowth of a limb.

If you are trying to prove the gods of the Bible, add few returnees from heaven recently enough dead to be verified as their former selves describing heaven and meeting their maker would do just fine provided they all agree and they aren't given a chance collude in telling their stories.  But visions of them by believers won't do it.  You'll need to actually produce them for skeptics.

Hmmm...a little more dicey, but okay...I'll give this a shot. Consider the experience of Colton Burpo (the little boy in Heaven is For Real) and this is key cross-reference his experience of seeing Jesus with that of Akiane Kramarik, who painted the picture that Colton latter recognized as being the Jesus that he saw in heaven.

Nothing like what I requested.  Not even close.  Show me the little tyke's death certificate and a few more of him also with death certificates to examine.  

If you are actually trying to prove an omnipotent being, then you need more than just regrowing limbs and returnees from the dead, you need a variety of miracles on demand.  Creating a few planets in our neighborhood overnight, repairing the ozone layer with a snap of his fingers and so on.   A few explanations for how the world does work, not yet discovered by man and far out of our range of knowledge that test out would be helpful. So would a series of really unambiguous prophecies about specific unlikely events that can be shown unambiguously to come true and no prophecies that do not come true (if the Bible is Yahweh's word, he's already failed this last).  Do enough of those things and an omnipotent being becomes more likely than not.  But really, I repeat, by definition an omnipotent being would know exactly what evidence I would accept even if I don't know.  Apparently he either doesn't know or he's not interested in providing proof.

All of those things are a very tall order.  But not nearly as tall an order as the claim that there is an all powerful being operating outside the laws of nature.

Gee, most people are willing to settle for gas money mysteriously found in their seat cushions.     

Apparently, many people are.  I just figure the money dropped out of my pockets, but that's just me.

What I find funny, is the evidence that is actually offered:  inner certainty on the part of the believer; we don't know how the universe or life began, therefore god; the Bible says so; I was once in a really tight spot and I survived; I feel better believing; and the ever popular, you believe you just won't admit it.  It's so far from convincing evidence of an all powerful being as to be ludicrous.  It's as if a three year old boy with a pea gun approaches a nuclear armed destroyer and asks it to surrender and after the laughter dies down, says, "so what can I do that would scare you into surrender?"

It's almost exactly like that.

That would be the difference between you and me, I require extra ordinary proof before I accept an extra ordinary claim.  You do not as long as you really want to believe the claim.  I suspect though that before you'd invest your retirement savings in my time machine, you'd want similar proof.

[Randy Carson]

You've made it clear that you worship the god of the Bible. The crimes I've listed are drawn from that.

Or are you now going to disavow the Bible wholly or in part?

Be specific.  Do not shilly-shally, because I will be hammering you with the above quote every single time you cite the Bible in any argument, otherwise.

Parkers, I have no idea what your personal issues are but what you believe to be hammering is simply iron strengthening iron. So, hammer away at me all you like.

I disavow nothing (beyond Genesis 3 anyway, and even then I'd want to discuss each point specifically).

God has committed no crimes.

Man, you must spend a lot of time reading crappy books, Parkers. Why not take a look at the one I recommended? At least you will be able to argue against what Christians REALLY believe about God and not the strawmen you set up, okay?

Hitler was a big fan of Nietzsche. That was the influence that led to the Holocaust.

You're wrong about this, as well. Hitler's anti-Semitism was drawn largely from Wagner and Hitler's friendship with his widow, as well as the anti-Semitism that had percolated throughout Central Europe since before the time of Luther -- an anti-Semitism that your sect happily supported for centuries -- imbibed during his homeless years in Vienna. The influence Nietzsche had on Hitler was not regarding anti-Semitism, but rather, the idea of the Hero, one who did what was best for his people without regard to other populations.

You saw the photo.

Hitler visited the Weimar Nietzsche because he had read Nietzsche and admired him. The Aryan race was a twisted version of Nietzsche's "superman". Hitler understood with chilling clarity the moral implications of a Nietzschean world without God. Once he had attained power, he created the concentration camps to implement the Darwinian law of nature that would bring about the elimination of the unfit and the creation of a civilization that was fit for the master race.

So, yeah, Hitler's "final solution" was all about doing "what was best for his people without regard to other populations." and the connection is obvious.

Nietzsche > Hitler > Auschwitz

But noooo...according to the stuff I'm told in the "Why Be Good?" thread, atheism (and the death of God) has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

I guess Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (to name a few) just weren't as evolved as the rest of you.

[Mudhammam]

Hitler was a big fan of Nietzsche. That was the influence that led to the Holocaust.

He was also a big fan of that Catholic priest turned anti-Semite Martin Luther whose influence on Germany fueled the racist and gruesome treatment of Jews. And unlike with Nietzsche, nobody had to grossly misunderstand Luther's writings to use them in support of Nazi fascism.

[Randy Carson]

Nature is what mortals call God.

Which is why I am an atheist, and also why you are a theist.

Because I'm an immortal? Woo-hoo!

[Randy Carson]

Alternatively, maybe they were holy enough to send on the voyage. Weren't they the priests who were hearing confessions as the ship went down? Probably saved a lot of souls that.

There were three priests aboard, btw.

Here's a good article: http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04...e-titanic/

And yet, your god saved one and not the others.  Why?  Mysterious ways, of course.

Um...because the other three were aboard the Titanic, hearing confessions and praying with the hundreds of others that God saved spiritually as a result?

Pretty straightforward, isn't it?

Nothing you have presented, in any way, shape, or form, is a convincing argument for the existence of your god.  You claim that the resurrection story is convincing.  The only conclusion I can draw from that  admission is that you have very little intellectual curiosity outside of regurgitating old, tired apologist drivel we've all heard before.

Gee, I'm not sure I've ever really gotten around to the evidence for the resurrection in my four little threads...guess I should at some point.

And, yes, most of us would likely dismiss a supposed meeting with god as something more mundane.  Why?  Occam's Razor.  Theists like to pretend that god is the simplest answer, but logically the opposite is true.  That kind of thinking also falls into God of the Gaps territory (see what I did there?).  That's why, as I've said repeatedly, that you first need to define god (and let's not pretend that the Christian god is well defined), then you need to establish that any purported evidence for it actually isn't evidence of something else.

Good luck with that.

What is a definition of God that you would accept?

And even if we did meet the real deal god (assuming, for argument's sake that it's your flavor and not, say, Vishnu), that certainly doesn't mean we'd become worshipers.  That assumption that if your god is real that we'd naturally fall in line and become good little sheep in Jesus' flock always gets me.  There's a huge gulf between potential acknowledgement and worship.

Actually, if you've been paying attention, you will have seen me make the same point; I've even quoted Hitchens to that effect.

So, I'm fully aware of the fact that Jesus could show up, and some percentage of folks would spit on the ground and mutter, "I will not serve."

[Randy Carson]

Adults don't have blind faith. They have an informed faith.

You should, too.

Yeah...unfortunately my low tolerance for bullshit keeps getting in the way.

So does that presupposition.

[Randy Carson]

Gee, most people are willing to settle for gas money mysteriously found in their seat cushions.     

Apparently, many people are.  I just figure the money dropped out of my pockets, but that's just me.

Ah, but Jenny, don't you see it? God planned for you to drop the money out of your pocket without realizing it so that you would find it later.

Simple, huh?