(July 17, 2022 at 7:45 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(July 17, 2022 at 5:27 pm)TheJefe817 Wrote: This is a tricky one, as I fully admit I do not know what evidence would convince me. Certainly if something passes the strict testing conditions of something like the JRF million dollar test, maybe.
This strikes me as very strange. Why do we think that a scientific test could have anything to do with the supernatural? Science works as well as it does by limiting itself to certain natural parameters -- methodological naturalism. By definition, the supernatural would not be included in that.
Quote: In terms of religion-based supernatural proof, I actually like something I heard on a podcast recently. The host said he, like I, did not really know what evidence would convince him. However, if god is an omni, he *does* know what would convince me, and has failed to provide that evidence. Therefore, he either does not care about my lack of belief (as, by being omni, he should be able to provide it and knows I would not otherwise be convinced) or, more likely, does not exist at all.This is a version of an argument we hear a lot.
"I know what an omniscient and omnipotent entity would do, and nobody's doing that, so there must not be such an entity." This puts a lot of confidence in one's own abilities. Human beings are very far from being omni-anything. How are we to know what such an entity would care about, or how it would operate?
Sorry for my formatting - the quote thing is not working correctly for me ATM. On the first portion, I'm not saying a naturalistic test could necessarily prove it, just that this is within my conception of what I could potentially accept. There may be other evidence outside of the natural possible, but I have no concept of what that would be, and I'm not willing to start blanketly accepting every unproven scenario and then individfually disproving things instead. For now, the natural is all I am convinced of, so I am simply unaware what those other factors would be, so I'm unconvinced. I do not have a burden of disproof, so I'm awaiting proof - any proof - regardless of what form that takes. When I see said proof, I can evaluate whether it convinces me.
On the second part, if I'm retreading an old argument, I apologize - it's new ground to me. Again, same thing - I'm not necessarily instructing what a divine being would or should do, just saying it has not happened and speculating that this relates to either lack of desire to do so or lack of existence. But, I may be wrong. I just remain unconvinced in the presence of absolutely zero evidence. Note I said likely does not exist, which is just my leaning based on the character of the god described in the bible. I am not convinced beyond doubt he does not exist and would not presume to be able to prove it (same with goblins, etc).
