Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[Esquilax]

I don't reject "empirical" scientific evidence and I just posted to another thread today concerning archaeological evidence for the bible. I trust science to the degree that we should. But I also believe in the existence of the supernatural even though science rejects that.

So... you trust science up until the point that it contradicts something you want to believe.

Too many very intelligent people throughout the centuries believed in the supernatural for me to dismiss it - science or not.

Argument from popularity: many people believing something doesn't make it true, and by the way, how many of those smart people also believed in a flat earth, or alchemy, or any number of demonstrably flawed concepts?

If you're not open to anything other than science, then you're the closed-minded one. Science has been proven wrong often, but I wouldn't dismiss it because it has been correct very often. The same and other very intelligent people believed in science also, but I and they wouldn't put all our eggs in that one basket.

I think you have a very skewed view of how evidence and investigation work, Lek. The bible is correct on a number of things, however, that doesn't mean everything in the bible is true; Spiderman comics have New York in them, that doesn't mean Spiderman exists. Its magic claims still have yet to be demonstrated, or even shown to be possible... which is the problem we have.

[discipulus]

rasetsu, are you a human?

No, I am not. Though I can adopt that perspective, if you like, as I have a feeling it was an assumption you were making before you began this tack.

So you are not a human.

What are you then?

---

So... you trust science up until the point that it contradicts something you want to believe.

That is not what he said or even intimated.

Argument from popularity: many people believing something doesn't make it true, and by the way, how many of those smart people also believed in a flat earth, or alchemy, or any number of demonstrably flawed concepts?

This is not an argument from popularity. Notice what he said. He said that too many intelligent people believed in the supernatural for him to dismiss it. He did not say that many intelligent people believed the supernatural existed and therefore the supernatural exists. You have presented a strawman of his position.

If the vast majority of people throughout history had been atheists, I could not justifiably dismiss atheism. I would ask myself why they were atheists and set out to investigate their arguments and reasonings for their views.

I think you have a very skewed view of how evidence and investigation work, Lek. The bible is correct on a number of things, however, that doesn't mean everything in the bible is true; Spiderman comics have New York in them, that doesn't mean Spiderman exists. Its magic claims still have yet to be demonstrated, or even shown to be possible... which is the problem we have.

What you say is true, just because the bible is correct on a number of things, it does not necessarily follow that therefore everything in the bible is true. Nor does he state this. Once again you are constructing a strawman of his position.

You then go on to state that the bible's "magic" claims have yet to be demonstrated or even shown to be possible.

The error in this reasoning is not unique to you, but a great many atheists I have dialogued with commit this error. It is called a "category mistake". You essentially are asking for non-transcendant, empirical, scientifically verifiable, conrete, material evidence for a transcendant, immaterial, incorporeal being that exists beyond the scope of scientific observation and measurement.

Secondly, empiricism as I have stated earlier is self-refuting. So I hope you are not an empiricist. What you should ask for is evidence that would be consistent with that of a transcendant being.

Thirdly there is no evidence that can be presented for the existence of God that cannot be simply dismissed or explained away by them that are unwilling to accept it.

[Esquilax]

So you are not a human.

What are you then?

None of us are human. But to express what we truly are, even through the mundane and limited expressions of written English, would cause your mind to snap, if not outright kill you. We are honest beings, but not needlessly cruel; you may keep your limited and fragile life, if some obfuscation is all that is required of us.

Suffice it to say that you have stumbled onto a collective of varied entities representing many different factions. The swirling patterns of our alliances and conflicts have little to do with Earth, though as a necessary proviso of our existence, they do protrude into your reality on occasion, as they are now.

Tremble, mortal. For you are far beyond your ken, now.

---

---

[Crossless2.0]

If the vast majority of people throughout history had been atheists, I could not justifiably dismiss atheism. I would ask myself why they were atheists and set out to investigate their arguments and reasonings for their views.

Um, the vast majority of people throughout history (including you) have been atheists -- at least with respect to gods they didn't worship. No need to look far for the reasons. What are your reasons for not believing in these other gods? And don't quote your Bible. That's just a form of special pleading.

The error in this reasoning is not unique to you, but a great many atheists I have dialogued with commit this error. It is called a "category mistake". You essentially are asking for non-transcendant, empirical, scientifically verifiable, conrete, material evidence for a transcendant, immaterial, incorporeal being that exists beyond the scope of scientific observation and measurement.

You mean the Christian god, that "transcendent, immaterial, incorporeal being that exists beyond the scope of scientific observation and measurement," whose followers believe that he has intervened repeatedly in the material world? Yes, confirmable evidence would be nice.

[Esquilax]

That is not what he said or even intimated.

It is the short version of his position, however; you can't claim to respect science while still rejecting its conclusions based on personal preference.

This is not an argument from popularity. Notice what he said. He said that too many intelligent people believed in the supernatural for him to dismiss it. He did not say that many intelligent people believed the supernatural existed and therefore the supernatural exists. You have presented a strawman of his position.

No, I actually haven't; the argument from popularity is still in effect, as "many people accepted this," is a shaky ground to even entertain the possibility that such a thing is true.

If the vast majority of people throughout history had been atheists, I could not justifiably dismiss atheism. I would ask myself why they were atheists and set out to investigate their arguments and reasonings for their views.

There is, however, no direct link between that historical fact and atheism being true. Nor is such strength in numbers even required for investigation; you should be evaluating the positions of every claim that you come across, not merely the popular ones. That's just due diligence.

Also, what you're talking about there is reason and evidence, so to disregard the determinations of science- which is made of reason and evidence- in favor of the supernatural merely because it was widely believed is fallacious reasoning.

What you say is true, just because the bible is correct on a number of things, it does not necessarily follow that therefore everything in the bible is true. Nor does he state this. Once again you are constructing a strawman of his position.

Actually, you're right there, I think I misread Lek's post a little. Sorry about that, Lek.

You then go on to state that the bible's "magic" claims have yet to be demonstrated or even shown to be possible.

The error in this reasoning is not unique to you, but a great many atheists I have dialogued with commit this error. It is called a "category mistake". You essentially are asking for non-transcendant, empirical, scientifically verifiable, conrete, material evidence for a transcendant, immaterial, incorporeal being that exists beyond the scope of scientific observation and measurement.

Look, I'm so tired of hearing this line of crap. You don't get to put your god beyond the reach of any form of testability or detectability and then complain when I say that nobody has justified their magic claims over him. Just saying "oh, there can be no evidence for miracles or god," doesn't suddenly mean that you're all absolved of the burden of proof. What it means is that you have formulated a position that can never be rationally justified, and therefore should not be believed.

Secondly, empiricism as I have stated earlier is self-refuting. So I hope you are not an empiricist. What you should ask for is evidence that would be consistent with that of a transcendant being.

You sure did state that it's self refuting.

Of course, when you did so you failed to take into account that we can compare the kinds of things we'd have to believe if we removed this expectation of at least some empirical support, versus those things we would believe if we retained it. What you'll find is that the former position, where you'd have to consistently lower your standards of evidence in order to accept things without empirical backing, leads to the acceptance of mutually exclusive, contradictory positions, as suddenly you'd have to accept all religious claims, not just your own.

Meanwhile, no such logical inconsistencies exist within a position that accepts empirical evidence alone, which is evidence enough, I would say, that empiricism works. Since the other position in this binary leads to contradictions, it cannot function. This is support in favor of the statement ""We should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven."

Now, I'm not a strict empiricist in the sense that I'd need complete scientific proof, because that's a useless concept. I would, however, require evidence that leads to the proposition under consideration.

Thirdly there is no evidence that can be presented for the existence of God that cannot be simply dismissed or explained away by them that are unwilling to accept it.

Which is a perfect way to cover up a lie! "Oh, I could tell you the truth, but you wouldn't believe it. Oh, you just won't accept my evidence because you don't want it to be true!" Simply a wonderful way to avoid considering the prospect that maybe your evidence isn't as convincing as you think, merely by reinterpreting everyone's motives so that they just hate your evidence. It's not you, there's something wrong with them!

[Angrboda]

No, I am not. Though I can adopt that perspective, if you like, as I have a feeling it was an assumption you were making before you began this tack.

So you are not a human.

What are you then?

What does it matter? I've offered to pretend to be human for the sake of argument. Now, do you have a point to make or don't you?

[fr0d0]

You mean the Christian god, that "transcendent, immaterial, incorporeal being that exists beyond the scope of scientific observation and measurement," whose followers believe that he has intervened repeatedly in the material world? Yes, confirmable evidence would be nice.

The Christian God, given that he created everything to those of us that believe, provided physical evidence in the form of everything we know exists. How much more evidence would you need??

[truthBtold]

You mean the Christian god, that "transcendent, immaterial, incorporeal being that exists beyond the scope of scientific observation and measurement," whose followers believe that he has intervened repeatedly in the material world? Yes, confirmable evidence would be nice.

The Christian God, given that he created everything to those of us that believe, provided physical evidence in the form of everything we know exists. How much more evidence would you need??

Silly silly dumb

[Angrboda]

You mean the Christian god, that "transcendent, immaterial, incorporeal being that exists beyond the scope of scientific observation and measurement," whose followers believe that he has intervened repeatedly in the material world? Yes, confirmable evidence would be nice.

The Christian God, given that he created everything to those of us that believe, provided physical evidence in the form of everything we know exists. How much more evidence would you need??

We've been down this road many times. So far no theist has made a convincing demonstration that the mere existence of the universe is evidence for anything but its mere existence.

[max-greece]

Wow - covered the gamut this thread hasn't it.

Too many assumptions and statements to address so a few wildly fired shots will be all I can manage (weekends hit forum time for me).

An atheist doesn't actually have to be a believer in science. An atheist merely rejects faith in God. They don't even really need an alternative explanation in order to reject another, for example:

I walk out of my front door one morning to discover a newly planted apple tree sapling. It wasn't there when I last looked the previous evening. As I am standing there puzzling over its origin a neighbour leans out of his window and says:

"See that. Pixies did it last night - they woke me up. Bloody pixies."

With that he closes the window.

I do not know where the Apple tree came from. Should I therefore accept the pixie explanation?

Atheists are nihilists:

For me I'd answer kinda yes, kinda no on this. I see no grand plan. I see no evidence that there is anything other than this life. There's no point, as such.

The strange things is that I find that thought liberating. The idea that there is a point to my life given to me by a third party I find demeaning. Does it, for example, mean that anything that I might do that is not on point is somehow reduced in value? If our point (as we have seen claimed by many theists on this forum) is to praise the deity of creation how is that better than not having a point? What does it mean for the value of things we do that are off point? Is Beethoven's Ninth worse less if it does not praise God? Was Rodin's kiss a waste of material?

Obviously the side point to the above is why an all powerful, universe creating God needs or wants our praise in the first place?

Whilst there may be truths in any religious book that in and of itself proves nothing as to its origin. Where, however, there are obvious, factual errors in that book I would argue it does indeed prove its origin to be, at least, not that of an omniscient, moral God.

Supposing God:

How do we know he did all this for us? What if he did it for something else entirely and we are a byproduct?
Why does God have to be omniscient or indeed morally perfect? Could he not be perfectly immoral, for example? Or, merely a bit different from us?
Even if he is our one and only God how do we know that in the world he frequents he is not a janitor, who created the universe to pass the time whilst he waits for the bell to ring so he can go and clean the toilets?
Why is he so astonishingly inefficient?

A 13.72 billion year old universe - 70% dark matter, 30% dark energy, 1% everything we can see, 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars per. One planet - living in a shooting gallery 4.6 billion years old.

4 billion years of life, 3.5 of which was entirely single celled. 570 million years of multicellular life. 5 great extinction events.....

All for us? With our 200,000 years - of which he has only apparently shown an interest in the last few thousand.

Are we well designed? Physcially - not really.
Coding wise? 90% redundant.

Don't see it myself.

Note: Bit long winded but even this is the short version - really, really short version.