The Evidence Required Is?

[Rev. Rye]

Does anyone else agree with Rev Rye?

Its not that his list is unreasoned. His list is a great list, and very "to the point" breaking down good reasons to believe in things. Predictability, consistency, etc... He did a great job putting it together. I have great respect for Rev Rye as a friend and a very intelligent and humorous poster.

The problem is not with Rev ryes list....it's with me....

Crap. I should have mentioned earlier that I took it from a website;
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
I adapted a companion piece to this into another thread called "The Theist's Guide to an atheist forum."
I was originally going to post videos of this list being read aloud on Youtube, but, for some reason, they didn't show up. I should have mentioned this up front, but I was kind of rushed and forgot to do it. If I cam still do it, I shall rectify this.

That said, this list is really more for theists than atheists. The title is "The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists," after all. I don't carry this list around, trying to check whatever I hear theists saying and contrast it with the standards of the list. I really don't see why, if God exists, he would make it so that one would need philosophical arguments to try to prove it. Why not make it self-evident? Why wait until Martin Luther realised how corrupt the Catholic Church was in 1517 (I am an ex-Lutheran, BTW) or 1744 to show Emmanuel Swedenborg that Christian doctrine as it is is woefully flawed? Why not make it so that there's no ambiguity, especially when it appears that God cares whether or not one believes he exists?

[The Grand Nudger]

As if either of those two individuals had anything to add to the doctrine that wasn't as completely worthless as those who made prior revisions.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm not the kind of person that goes onto a contrary forum just to argue. As I stating in my introduction I am more interested in the questions than in the answers. And I will reflect on the answers and retorts I have heard from each of you. Some of what I heard is as follows:

Any artifact could be a hoax.
All documented miracles are either too old to be confirmed or have been explained away.
Ontological proofs are semantic games and most theological concepts are incomprehensible.
Revelations to others are relevant only to the receiver.
Visual or auditory visitations are indistinguishable from hallucinations.
Prophetic announcements would have to be clearly stated in advance and occur exactly as stated.
Advanced scientific knowledge unknown to the author would have to be stated in a form later adopted by contemporary science, like identifying left brain/right brain functions prior to neuroscience (my own example).
Why should I care?
No theological claim is falsifiable.

[Epimethean]

"Any artifact could be a hoax."

Except for those that are not and which have evidence to support such an understanding.

"Revelations to others are relevant only to the receiver."

So why waste our time with your original premise? We won't be receiving any revelations, so it is a moot point.


"No theological claim is falsifiable."

From Zeus to pink teapots, you are right: So they are all equally rubbish.

[Mystic]

A lot of people are arguing if God exists, it should be self-evident like the Sun. I agree to the extent, but I believe the only difference is that God self-evident nature is known through spiritual vision and knowledge.

Many of you argued that God should make it obvious he exists, and I think the best way to do that, is to make it properly basic knowledge in every soul. I do believe this is the case, which is why there needs no argument for God, rather just some soul searching.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A lot of people are arguing if God exists, it should be self-evident like the Sun. I agree to the extent, but I believe the only difference is that God self-evident nature is known through spiritual vision and knowledge.

Many of you argued that God should make it obvious he exists, and I think the best way to do that, is to make it properly basic knowledge in every soul. I do believe this is the case, which is why there needs no argument for God, rather just some soul searching.

One old fish says to the other, "The water is cold today." The other replies, "What's water?"

[Jackalope]

There is something to be said for the faithful poisoning the well they wish for us to drink from so thoroughly that it has come to the point where they might just have to introduce me to the fucker they so blindly follow, in person.

Then (as I've had occasion to mention before), after having done this I would be forced to say, "You were right, I was wrong, I still refuse to bend my knee".

+1

We've heard so much bullshit for so long, this is about what it would take. Call me close minded if you wish - but I didn't get to be this way on my own.

I'm with Rhythm - even if I had 100% solid proof that the god of the bible exists and is as described, I wouldn't worship the motherfucker.

[Cyberman]

It's an old response to an equally old question, but any god worthy of the appellation would already know what evidence would convince. That such evidence has not been forthcoming we should conclude - what? That the god/s do not want to convince? That non-accepters have been blinded to the evidence which so convinces the faithful (this alone opens up a whole new raft of questions)? Or perhaps that there is/are no god/s available for the experiment? This is where the principle of parsimony applies, advising us to run with the most plausible model that fits the available facts. If indeed the claims of theology are unfalsifiable, that is a problem for theological claimants. I would submit, however, as I have expounded at length elsewhere on this forum, that anything which causes a physical event in the Universe absolutely is within the realm of scientific investigation and falsifiabilty, even if we lack the means at present to detect it. Conversely, anything which cannot cause physical events in the Universe (and thus beyond the reach of science) is by definition outside the system and can be safely ignored as irrelevent and extraneous.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Stimbo, because your reductionist philosophy limits your ability to inquire only into physical events, you exclude apriori, anything not explained by physics, like the mind-body interaction. Subjective qualia are part of reality and most likely beyond the reach of the scientific method. Sure you HOPE that science with figure it out someday and have FAITH that that day will come, but c'mon. You sound like those Christians that say you'll be proven wrong in the afterlife. Try to work with the knowledge available today.

[Zen Badger]

Stimbo, because your reductionist philosophy limits your ability to inquire only into physical events, you exclude apriori, anything not explained by physics, like the mind-body interaction. Subjective qualia are part of reality and most likely beyond the reach of the scientific method. Sure you HOPE that science with figure it out someday and have FAITH that that day will come, but c'mon. You sound like those Christians that say you'll be proven wrong in the afterlife. Try to work with the knowledge available today.

And what knowledge would that be?