Conversion

[Eilonnwy]

This was said a while ago, but I'm a busy lady so I tend to drop in and out of convo's. So this is me dropping back in.

As for what would make me believe in God? Testable and reliable evidence, that satisfies the rigourous standards of the scientific method.

The core principle of the scientific method is that the scope of inquiry that it limits itself to is the investigation of the natural and observable world of natural causes.

In other words, that is an a priori exclusion of the investigation or even the testing of any hypothesis that contains propositions that suggest a factor which transcends the natural world.

This is methodological naturalism, and if you then ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

All you can possible ask without question begging is evidence for Gods existence according to the classical sense of science as "rational and empirical investigation and inquiry", which makes no a priori presumption of naturalism that would exclude the proposition of God to begin with.

The answer to that question would be, for instance, the TAG, an a priori argument, or the a posteriori argument from potentiality/contingency I formulated in my own thread.

If you believe in a god that has an effect on the natural world. It can be tested. Saying something is supernatural and cannot be tested is a cop out. You're basically saying "This thing is real, but you can't test it!" It's absurd. You're claiming knowledge about something you have just admitted you can't know anything about. The only way you can know something is real is if it can be tested and produce reliable results.

And please learn your logical fallacies. You say I'm begging the question, or exercising circular reasoning. Far from it. I didn't make a statement about god's nonexistence based on a conclusion that relies on it's premise. I said what it would take for me to believe in god. Simply put, if god is claimed to influence the natural world, then you have a parameter with which to make a judgment and that's the scientific method. Logical fallacies apply to truth statements, I wasn't making a truth statement. I was saying what it would take to convince me. An explanation of begging the question, since you need a reminder: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presump...-question/

Here's a good argument explaining why saying something is supernatural and beyond "knowing" or "testing" makes believing in it completely absurd.
[youtube]Y2pxjDM-k0g[/youtube]

[Tiberius]

No, it is not a statement of creation. That is an invalid equivocation of terms on your part.

Or an invalid equivocation of terms on your part.

Rather, it does something to prove it by analysing the intrinsic logical coherence (regardless of extrinsic evidence) of the epistemic structure of Christianity versus atheism.

Yet morality and logic can be explained without a God (as can knowledge), so it ultimately fails to prove anything.

A God who is not consistent with the biblical doctrine of God as a transcendent, omniscient intellectual being would not lead to the logical coherence that the TAG concludes that the Christian worldview has.

How exactly is the Islamic God any different? It is both transcendent, omniscience, etc. What if I were to dream up a certain God that had all the attributes of the Christian God without being the Christian God (i.e. not Yahweh). Surely in that case the TAG argument could apply there as well?

It is worthless to compare FSM to a self-existent transcendent God. FSM is composed of matter, and is flying through space in time

You evidently have not studied Pastafarian doctrine at all. Don't talk about things you know nothing about.

YHWH is one of the names for God, which refers to God's transcendence and self-existence; ehyeh asher ehyeh, I am that I am, I shall be that I shall be, etc. It is implicit in the notion of a self-existent transcendent and necessary being.

Stop dodging the question. You knew full well that I meant the specific Christian God. How does TAG point solely to the Christian God, when any number of Gods that share it's attributes could equally be the resultant deity?

[Jon Paul]

Saying something is supernatural and cannot be tested is a cop out.

I have never said that it cannot be tested. But if the scientific method presupposes naturalism methodologically, and then a conclusion that contains propositions that transcend the natural realm (e.g. God exists) is excluded a priori, which a priori excludes Gods existence as within it's scope of investigation and followingly can never reach that conclusion. This is the case in methodological naturalism. So it is not me who says that Gods existence is untestable, it is science that as a methodological principle rejects testing it. And that is not a ground on which to reject Gods existence; if one did that, it would be begging the question. However, that is not what the scientific method does.

If you believe in a god that has an effect on the natural world. It can be tested.

I agree. I don't believe God is directly observable since there would be no mechanism of observation, but as I have said all along, I believe that the proposition that God exists is testable and verifiable through empirical evidence, after the effect, that is, not by direct observation, like you don't necessarily sentence someone for murder because you directly observed the murder, but because you found the fingerprint on the murder weapon after the effect, which is still empirical evidence of the thing.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am curious to know of such emprical evidnece for God, JP. Not that I remotely believe you have any, so rather - I'm curious to know what you believe to be evidence, but almost certainly isn't from my perspective, I'd be more likely to be hallucinating false evidence (from what I believe to be true so far) - so I'd be absolutely astonished if you somehow produced some. I don't consider it to be impossible, but that's about it.

Just to be clear.

EvF

[Jon Paul]

Or an invalid equivocation of terms on your part.

I have not equivocated created with uncreated. You are welcome to address a "created logical order" version of TAG, but it is not the real TAG you would be addressing then.

Yet morality and logic can be explained without a God (as can knowledge), so it ultimately fails to prove anything.

The argument does not attempt to "explain it", in the sense of explaining how humans discovered or developed awareness of moral or logical principles, which is not even the concern of the argument. The concern of the argument is the origin of the conceptual reality of the logical order in the universe to begin with, as it actually exists regardless of the human awareness or limits of human awareness about it.

How exactly is the Islamic God any different? It is both transcendent, omniscience, etc.

You proposed the FSM, not the Islamic God.

The Islamic concept of God is a much more relevant example, because it to a large extent builds on the biblical doctrine of God, as is evident in the Quran (a book which is written a half millenium after the Gospel and a full after the OT) and it's recognition of the Bible and Gospel which the Quran itself calls "the inspired word of God", clearly indicating together with the many references and loans from the Bible that it's authors had extensive knowledge of the bible. All that it does affirm which is relevant to the TAG is taken from the biblical doctrine of God itself. In other words, the Islamic example is relevant insofar as it conforms to the biblical doctrine of God. But the partial perversion of Islamic doctrine, such as the capriciousness of the Islamic doctrine of God makes it doctrinally insufficient when it comes to immutability and omniscience.

What if I were to dream up a certain God that had all the attributes of the Christian God without being the Christian God (i.e. not Yahweh). Surely in that case the TAG argument could apply there as well?

That is irrelevant to the validity of the Christian worldview. You are taking that knowledge from the Christian and biblical doctrine of God, and even in it's pure doctrinal form, by it's mere conformity to the Christian doctrine of God, it is only a confirmation of the Christian worldview. Whether you actually call it "the Christian God" or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is the doctrinally biblical content of it.

---

I am curious to know of such emprical evidnece for God, JP. Not that I remotely believe you have any, so rather - I'm curious to know what you believe to be evidence, but almost certainly isn't from my perspective, I'd be more likely to be hallucinating false evidence (from what I believe to be true so far) - so I'd be absolutely astonished if you somehow produced some. I don't consider it to be impossible, but that's about it.

My argument from potentiality/actuality for Gods existence in my thread is an argument which depends on empirical knowledge after the effect.

[Eilonnwy]

Saying something is supernatural and cannot be tested is a cop out.

I have never said that it cannot be tested. But if the scientific method presupposes naturalism methodologically, and then a conclusion that contains propositions that transcend the natural realm (e.g. God exists) is excluded a priori, which a priori excludes Gods existence as within it's scope of investigation and followingly can never reach that conclusion. This is the case in methodological naturalism. So it is not me who says that Gods existence is untestable, it is science that as a methodological principle rejects testing it. And that is not a ground on which to reject Gods existence; if one did that, it would be begging the question. However, that is not what the scientific method does.

If you believe in a god that has an effect on the natural world. It can be tested.

I agree. I don't believe God is directly observable since there would be no mechanism of observation, but as I have said all along, I believe that the proposition that God exists is testable and verifiable through empirical evidence, after the effect, that is, not by direct observation, like you don't necessarily sentence someone for murder because you directly observed the murder, but because you found the fingerprint on the murder weapon after the effect, which is still empirical evidence of the thing.

You kidding me, right? Your argument is that science can't study after effects, and then you describe how science does precisely that through murder investigations. You know what they call it when they study murders, right? Forensic science.

If it has an effect, ANY KIND of effect, it can be examined by science and the scientific method. For instance, we KNOW dark matter exists even though we don't know what it is. We know it's there because we can study it's effects.

[LukeMC]

I have never said that it cannot be tested. But if the scientific method presupposes naturalism methodologically, and then a conclusion that contains propositions that transcend the natural realm (e.g. God exists) is excluded a priori, which a priori excludes Gods existence as within it's scope of investigation and followingly can never reach that conclusion. This is the case in methodological naturalism. So it is not me who says that Gods existence is untestable, it is science that as a methodological principle rejects testing it. And that is not a ground on which to reject Gods existence; if one did that, it would be begging the question. However, that is not what the scientific method does.

With nature being all that is contained within the universe and all that can be tested for an all that can be known about the universe, and you placing your god outside of this, you're up-front admitting that this God cannot be tested for by any reasonable means known to man. Oh wait, that would be forgetting your means, which I'm about to get onto.

I believe that the proposition that God exists is testable and verifiable through empirical evidence, after the effect, that is, not by direct observation, like you don't necessarily sentence someone for murder because you directly observed the murder, but because you found the fingerprint on the murder weapon after the effect, which is still empirical evidence of the thing.

Then I pray you do tell, in the most simplistic and easily digestable way possible, what is this testable and verifiable evidence one last time so that we can be quite sure of your reasoning in its entirety? I beg of you to convince me. Just lay it out and if it has any merit I'll be the first to entertain the ideas. But please, back up any assumptions you make.

[Tiberius]

I have not equivocated created with uncreated. You are welcome to address a "created logical order" version of TAG, but it is not the real TAG you would be addressing then.

No, what you have done is said that God is the source of morality but not the creator of morality. This is something you have yet to explain to a sufficient level. How can morality be uncreated yet still present. If morality is sourced from God, then surely that means God is creating this "morality field" of which we are part? You'll have to explain it a bit better, because I think I speak for every atheist on these forums when I say "I have no idea what you are going on about". So please, explain what morality is in a way that is easy to understand without all the metaphysical/philosophical language.

The argument does not attempt to "explain it", in the sense of explaining how humans discovered or developed awareness of moral or logical principles, which is not even the concern of the argument. The concern of the argument is the origin of the conceptual reality of the logical order in the universe to begin with, as it actually exists regardless of the human awareness or limits of human awareness about it.

Can you prove that logical order to the universe actually exists, and that it isn't just born out of the human mind? Everything we experience goes through our perception (in our brain), so the other explanation is that the universe has no intrinsic order, but that order is simply a product of our brains. We are pattern seeking animals; this is why we see patterns in everything from clouds to inkblots. It is quite possible that the patterns extend further, and can be applied to the universe itself. This alone is another explanation that defies your TAG argument (which says that such things can only be explain through God).

You proposed the FSM, not the Islamic God.

No, but why is the FSM doctrine excluded? The FSM is immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent; everything the other Gods are. The FSM created the universe with order, etc. Everything the TAG argument asks of God, the FSM provides. Please provide a rebuttal that explains (clearly) why the FSM doesn't apply as a resultant God for the TAG argument (and no dodging the question by saying "the FSM is created by man"; I'm not doing that with your points, so don't do it with mine).

That is irrelevant to the validity of the Christian worldview. You are taking that knowledge from the Christian and biblical doctrine of God, and even in it's pure doctrinal form, by it's mere conformity to the Christian doctrine of God, it is only a confirmation of the Christian worldview. Whether you actually call it "the Christian God" or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is the doctrinally biblical content of it.

How is the Christian worldview "valid", anymore than a secular humanist worldview? The Christian worldview relies on God existing, and yet the TAG argument is a supposed proof of God which relies on the Christian worldview being true.

Circular anyone???

[Eilonnwy]

Ahh, TAG. Even if you can use it to prove god exists, (which I most certainly think you can't. It's not logically sound), you can't make the jump from saying God exists to saying it's the Christian God, Jewish God, Thor, Zeus, Allah, etc...

[Jon Paul]

You kidding me, right? Your argument is that science can't study after effects, and then you describe how science does precisely that through murder investigations. You know what they call it when they study murders, right? Forensic science.

No, my argument is that we can precisely empirically test things after the effect, without directly observing them.

If it has an effect, ANY KIND of effect, it can be examined by science and the scientific method. For instance, we KNOW dark matter exists even though we don't know what it is. We know it's there because we can study it's effects.

Of course. But what science cannot do is test a proposition that involves something that transcends the natural world, because science assumes methodological naturalism. Meaning that science is unwilling to test the proposition that "God exists", so long as it's scope of inquiry is limited to conclusions about the natural world.

Then I pray you do tell, in the most simplistic and easily digestable way possible, what is this testable and verifiable evidence one last time so that we can be quite sure of your reasoning in its entirety? I beg of you to convince me. Just lay it out and if it has any merit I'll be the first to entertain the ideas. But please, back up any assumptions you make.

By studying and collecting knowledge about the nature of the universe and natural phenomena, we can deduce logical conclusions and understand conceptual realities (e.g. as done in physics). Ultimately, this makes it possible to verify the existence of a necessary being after the effect, such as in the case of the argument from potentiality/actuality in my thread, which depends on empirical knowledge of the universe, or in the case of the Kalam cosmological argument (which someone else mentioned).