What do believers say when you ask or tell them..

[tavarish]

I have no choice but to reject your answer, because it had nothing to do with the question I asked. Let me explain.

The answer you gave me was, "It seems true prima facie." But notice that word "seems" right there; that refers to your thinking, informing me of your cognition. But my question did not inquire about you; it asked something about the claim; i.e., I asked if it is true (in itself), not if it seems true (to you). So perhaps I should back up and ask my first question again, now that you know what's actually being asked.

TAVARISH: There is no objective evidence to support the claim that God exists.
ARCANUS: Is that claim true?
TAVARISH:

Here's where we go to war over semantics.

Can I objectively demonstrate to you that there is no objective evidence to support the claim that God exists? No.

To do so would be, for the most part, impossible, as it would be a logistics nightmare to prove something doesn't exist.

What I mean (and I did say "seem" on purpose), was to convey the notion that objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method backing up a God claim has not been put forth by anyone to my knowledge.

I don't claim to know everything, nor do I claim an absolute truth in my claim. I also don't make that claim out of a lack of information seeking or grudging bias. If you have some evidence conforming to that criteria, please present it.

I also choose this method of analyzation because it is the most consistent with what we, as a species, observe in reality. Moreover, others can re-test the claims to eliminate as much bias as possible. Yes, I understand that science cannot prove itself, and logic is self-validating. It can still give us a very good idea of how to separate fact from fantasy objectively.

Is the claim true? In my experience, yes. I can come to a conclusion based on the consensus of various scientific fields of study in the world.

Absolutely and unequivocally? I don't know.

I can be proven wrong, however.

If you do have objectively verifiable evidence for the existence of God, please don't keep quiet.

(emphasis mine)

The reason why the belief and the concept can only be verified subjectively is because both of those things are items of cognition, internal or belonging to the thinking person. They are subjective by definition, accessible only to the person cognizing them. They are held in the mind. Beliefs and concepts both are subjective. It is unreasonable to expect, much less ask for, objective evidence for that which is subjective by nature. As I said previously, you are conflating belief in God (internal to the person) with the existence of God (external to the person).

I understand this, and don't contest it. I also don't have issue with people believing in whatever they want. I'm not trying to disprove someone's belief IN God. I'm trying to illustrate that God, as an objective claim, has no accompanying objectively verifiable evidence supporting him. I can believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn all I want, but that doesn't mean her holy hooves are real. I'm not asking for objective evidence for a subjective claim here.

Personally, the biggest issue I have is that people lack the honesty to say "Yes, it may only be a figment of my imagination." Thankfully, most of the theists here are intellectually honest with themselves and peers.

You shouldn't, so I suspect you have faulty understanding of what 'biased' means.

Atheism is biased by definition. In the first place, it is "a particular tendency or inclination" toward godless beliefs and values; i.e., an atheist by definition is far more likely than not to prefer and form beliefs and values that make no reference to God. And naturally that "inhibits impartial judgment" when it comes to evaluating claims, notably those that involve God. Atheism is NOT impartial, for an absence of God is at the starting point of all evaluation.

I'd disagree with you. Would you contend that newborns have a inclination toward godless beliefs and values? Would they also be biased in that context? What about those who have no knowledge of a God concept?

Your assessment works on the presupposition that the atheist would already have a working knowledge of the concept of God, and reject it. It wouldn't work as far as those individuals who it has never occurred to, as they would also be atheists by definition.

Also note that I'm talking about atheism being the disbelief in the claim that a God exists, not a claim that no God exists.

You're also using God as a needless factor in the equation. If I were to evaluate why an apple falls from a tree, with no prior knowledge or belief in God, would you then say I was biased in assessing this question if it did not include a supernatural possibility?

What somebody does or doesn't believe could not possibly be any more irrelevant! The degree of its irrelevance practically defies comprehension! So you have not found any good reason to believe God exists. Okay, but... so what? The beliefs you have or don't have tells us about you, and not a thing about the real world. Nobody is going to learn anything about the nature of reality by discovering what your beliefs happen to look like and your reasons for them. They'll only learn stuff about you.

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I meant atheism is the default position for mankind, as we are not born with inherent knowledge of a God or God. You can be biased and still be an atheist, but ONLY an atheist can be unbiased. If I want to independently verify something, the way that I can eliminate bias in the experiment is to work with people with no emotional or social attachment to the subject material.

Partly, but not wholly. That's why your statement was false.

Exactly why I said replace "wholly" with "partly", as it suits the conversation better.

No, because its definition includes objective elements (e.g., notitia). You have a shamefully blinkered notion of what faith is, no doubt influenced by a diet of straw man rhetoric. And considering how engrained this straw man view is, you've been taking it in for a very long time.

Evidence that is independent of the thinking person. That's what 'objective' means. And on this same issue, the demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.

I agree.

I'll reference another post I made on this same subject:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3149-pos...l#pid60201

When theists make claims about the origin of the universe, that's cosmology.

When theists make claims about the origin of life on earth, that's biology.

When theists make claims about the origin of the species, that's evolution.

When theists make claims about the the healing power of prayer, that's medical science.

More often than not, the particular actions of the Christian God are in the realm of testable, verifiable science.

The problem I have isn't with the subjective claims. It's the objective ones I have a problem with.

You really need to extract yourself from such feculent and sloppy rhetoric. I mean, what manner of nonsense is this here? The fact that I failed to defend my claim? What claim? Absolutely every single claim I've made in our conversation I've backed up solidly, so what claim could you possibly be referring to? Speaking of indefensible claims! I have a strong suspicion that you're going to retract this claim here, and that would be good. But what would be even better is if you abandon the habit of such rhetorical twaddle, characterizing your opponent with nonsense that doesn't even square with reality. It fails the test of rationality and leaves little to be proud of.

And again, what you do or don't believe has no significance beyond biographical value.

Whoa there. It was a general statement, not directed at you personally, not to mention that it's a statement that you agree with.

The claim is the same one I've been referring to throughout this entire discussion: The claim that God objectively exists.

It's the fundamental presupposition at bottom of my entire world view, I said. Presuppositions aren't verified, they are presupposed.

Now, you might want to fault me somehow on this so let me spin things around to make a point you've probably never thought about before. Your standard of evidence is independent empirical verification, right? How do you independently verify the validity of that standard? Do you use your standard of evidence to verify your standard of evidence?

For something to be independently and accurately verified, it has to comport with logic and be free of bias. Logic itself is self-validating - I understand the issues with this. You have to assume logic itself is true to judge other values by that standard. Logic presupposes itself.

It's not a perfect system, but it does have the best working example of how to describe and learn about our surroundings and separate fact from fantasy.

Is there anything in your belief in God and your belief in the existence of God that could be verified independently? Do you believe that God objectively exists? What reasoning do you have to support this claim?

You said you used the Bible as evidence ...

No, I did not.

Yes, you did:

Do you believe that God was the creator of the universe? If yes, what evidence do you have to support this claim?

The Bible, primarily. (I don't have the time to get into the other supports, nor does this forum grant that much space. So I'll just stick with the Bible in this conversation.)