Proof and evidence will always equal Science

[polymath257]

I don't think that intelligent theists usually say that God is an object in the universe.

That's right.

I am one of those 'douchbag' atheists that see God as equivalent to the tooth fairy.

So you acknowledge that your view of God is not that of intelligent people.

[/quote]

No, my view is not that of intelligent *theists*. Intelligent people can disagree. And intelligent people can be wrong about basic things.

Intelligent theists have at least admitted that the object of their veneration isn't a big sky-daddy. That is, at least, a first step.

---

I skimmed that thread, but don't see your argument there.

You're right. This was the post of which I was thinking...

https://atheistforums.org/thread-47154-p...pid1486079

From that link:
"Fairies, Unicorns, Santa Claus, Bigfoot and the like would by any definition be contingent non-transcendent material beings. The Christian God is non-contingent, transcendent and immaterial. There is no point of comparison. It is a massive category error. "

No, fairies are NOT considered to be material. So there is an overlap.

More importantly, the phrases 'contingent' and 'transcendent' are ones that need to be defined and their relevance discussed and understood. Is dividing things into 'contingent' vs 'necessary' or 'transcendent' vs 'mundane' actually a good classification scheme that leads to better understanding? Or are they outmoded ways of thinking that need to be discarded because they don't fit the world as it actually is?

My position is that the whole notion of 'necessary existence' vs 'contingent existence' is a basic mistake (although a long standing one).  It is based on a notion that the 'forms' of things are already existing and that they need to be actualized in order to produce specific cases. That, to me, is simply nonsense.

Instead, what is often discussed as 'contingency' is actually a matter of causality. And causality is *always* a matter of physical laws and their application. The whole notion of 'necessity' needs to be dripped as useless. Furthermore, the notion of causality is something that needs to be tested and supported by actual observations. And, for the last century or so, we have realized that classical notions of causality are simply false.
As for 'transcendency', I have no idea what that even means in practice. it seems to be a catch-all term to witness that people are in awe, but the actual definition seems to be elusive.

So, even your 'definition' of God is problematic on several levels.

But *far* more relevant is that there is no actual evidence that Gods, fairies, unicorns, or any number of other mythological creatures actually exist. They seem to be made up notions with no actual referent. if anything the case of God(s) is in a worse shape because the philosophy underlying it is so poor. At least we would know whether we actually found a unicorn or not.

[Anomalocaris]

In my neighborhood I don't interact with many 'highly educated' theists IRL. For 50+ years all theists I've interacted with believe god exists and actively manipulates the material world. I see it on TV, hear it on the radio and get a personal dose at weddings and funerals. One recovering addict I often speak with tells me how every obvious coincidence is a 'hand of god' miracle.

I've never personally met any that take Bel's or Neo's position. No offense guys but you might need to come down from the mountain top and admit that you might be the exception rather than the rule.

I suspect they are not the exception really.  they are much like many of the others in the reason for and manner of their belief.  Except they have a combination two other traits:
1.  They are not so secure in their own beliefs as to say ridiculous or not to someone intelligent, this is their belief.
2.  They have exaggerated notion of their own ability to obscure the ridiculousness of their belief with overblown word games when the ridiculousness is pointed out. 

if they had simply said it must be true because it is ridiculous, then at least it shows the conviction of faith.

[brewer]

In my neighborhood I don't interact with many 'highly educated' theists IRL. For 50+ years all theists I've interacted with believe god exists and actively manipulates the material world. I see it on TV, hear it on the radio and get a personal dose at weddings and funerals. One recovering addict I often speak with tells me how every obvious coincidence is a 'hand of god' miracle.

I've never personally met any that take Bel's or Neo's position. No offense guys but you might need to come down from the mountain top and admit that you might be the exception rather than the rule.

I suspect they are not the exception really.  they are much like many of the others in the reason for and manner of their belief.  Except they have a combination two other traits:
1.  They are not so secure in their own beliefs as to say ridiculous or not to someone intelligent, this is their belief.
2.  They have exaggerated notion of their own ability to obscure the ridiculousness of their belief with overblown word games when the ridiculousness is pointed out. 

if they had simply said it must be true because it is ridiculous, then at least it shows the conviction of faith.

I think they believe they're the exceptions, exceptional exceptions. And I know they're all about belief.

[Anomalocaris]

I suspect they are not the exception really.  they are much like many of the others in the reason for and manner of their belief.  Except they have a combination two other traits:
1.  They are not so secure in their own beliefs as to say ridiculous or not to someone intelligent, this is their belief.
2.  They have exaggerated notion of their own ability to obscure the ridiculousness of their belief with overblown word games when the ridiculousness is pointed out. 

if they had simply said it must be true because it is ridiculous, then at least it shows the conviction of faith.

I think they believe they're the exceptions, exceptional exceptions. And I know they're all about belief.

But I suspect they inwardly rely very much on the number of “unexceptional” believers to buttress to themselves why they should believe.  

they don’t think the ridiculousness of the common belief of the common believers makes the common belief ill founded.   the number of common believers very much contributes to their own belief.   they just think they are better at obscuring the ridiculousness of the very same common belief before any critical examiner than the common believer.    

which makes them not uncommon believers, just uncommonly unscrupulous advocates of the same ridiculous common belief.

[Mister Agenda]

Remember the "Do chairs exist?" thread? Whether you answer yes or no to that question, you accept some sort of metaphysical theory. As Bel points out, you can't prove a metaphysical theory with evidence... but you can make substantive logical arguments. So it's not dogmatic or anything.

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but are you saying that metaphysically speaking, chairs aren't evidence for the existence of chairs because physical evidence has no bearing on metaphysics?

---

Thank you for proving what I have been repeating in these boards for two years. God and the soul belong to a different category, you can't dissect the supernatural in a laboratory. And yet this is precisely what athests ask for when they drop their "give me evidence for God". It also became clear to me that there can't be deductive proof for the divine, because deductive reasoning is merely about logical consistency, it doesn't add information -let alone existence- to the premises.

So you know your theistic assertions are both unevidenced and unprovable, yet you keep trying to get skeptics to believe you and it's their failure if they don't buy what you're trying to sell?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Klorophyll

I don't know much about other religions, but Islam acknowledges that the soul is undefinable, unknowable: 

"And they ask you about the soul. Say: The soul is one of the commands of my Lord, and you are not given aught of knowledge but a little." (Qur'an 17:85)

This line of revelation purportedly came to the Islamic Prophet when a group of Jews challenged him to reveal the reality of the soul. 

Alternately, a false prophet would have dissembled and said, ‘It’s a secret that only God knows’.  Oddly enough, this is exactly what Mohammed did.

Go figure.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

You can argue for the existence of god but you can't argue god into existence.

Who exactly is doing that? No one. That's who.

The idea that the existence of God can be proven by a good enough argument sans any evidence is very common. I don't see many theists preceding an argument for the existence of God with the caveat 'of course this doesn't prove God exists, but....'.

[Jehanne]

So Ten is making an argument that if there was evidence for God then God would be part of science and not part of religion...and what he is also saying is that that other stuff that falls out of the domain of science has no practical use.

Thank you for the clarification. I can respect that position while at the same time it seems very counter-intuitive to me. Kinda of like if-the-only-tool-you-have-is-a-hammer kinda way. Most of life's experiences are outside the domain of science, such as the obligations we have to future generations and also only to ourselves, the honor we have for our ancestors, etc. The world of meaning and significance is closed to atheists, though I can tell that some of you still see the Light :-)

I mean, the "no evidence" bromide is so lame. I don't believe most of you are such sticklers about evidence for everything else in your lives. Something about other people believing in God, which is something normal and basic to many people,...something about people believing in God really bothers a "no evidence" heckler. There's a whole host of basic concepts that most normal people take for granted (like "the Past exists" and "Numbers are immaterial.") and for which there isn't the level of "evidence" equal to the one demanded by sticklers about evidence for God. Let me tell you what I consider evidence. Evidence is that which is evident. And there are lots of things that are evident about the world...such as the multiple-realizability of meaning...that suggest a totality...a Cosmos, if you will (although the Gnostics called it the Pleroma),...that is much richer, and meaningful than mundane reductionist thinking allows. :-P

Is it wrong for an adult amputee to pray for a miraculous healing?

[polymath257]

So Ten is making an argument that if there was evidence for God then God would be part of science and not part of religion...and what he is also saying is that that other stuff that falls out of the domain of science has no practical use.

Thank you for the clarification. I can respect that position while at the same time it seems very counter-intuitive to me. Kinda of like if-the-only-tool-you-have-is-a-hammer kinda way. Most of life's experiences are outside the domain of science, such as the obligations we have to future generations and also only to ourselves, the honor we have for our ancestors, etc. The world of meaning and significance is closed to atheists, though I can tell that some of you still see the Light :-) 

I don't see statements about obligations to have truth values. They are opinions, even if they are very common opinions. There is nothing inherent in the universe that dictates them.

And, in contradiction to what you  realm of meaning and significance is very important to many atheists (as they are to me). I just don't see them as having *cosmic* or *eternal* meaning or *cosmic* significance simply because they make our lives easier in this little marble we call the Earth.

I mean, the "no evidence" bromide is so lame. I don't believe most of you are such sticklers about evidence for everything else in your lives. Something about other people believing in God, which is something normal and basic to many people,...something about people believing in God really bothers a "no evidence" heckler. There's a whole host of basic concepts that most normal people take for granted (like "the Past exists" and "Numbers are immaterial.") and for which there isn't the level of  "evidence" equal to the one demanded by sticklers about evidence for God. Let me tell you what I consider evidence. Evidence is that which is evident. And there are lots of things that are evident about the world...such as the multiple-realizability of meaning...that suggest a totality...a Cosmos, if you will (although the Gnostics called it the Pleroma),...that is much richer, and meaningful than mundane reductionist thinking allows. :-P

I don't consider numbers to 'exist' either. They are a good language to use to help us understand and model aspects of reality. But there is no 'number 2' that exists independently of pairs of specific objects.

And yes, I *do* question things like what it means for the past to 'exist' and what evidence we expect about such. I think about things like the mutability of the past and in what sense the future exists.

As for what is or is not 'evident': there are a great many concepts and ideas that have been regarded as 'evidently true' by many people that are *known* to be false. For ages, it was 'evident' that the world is flat (some people still consider that to be evident). Others considered it evident that heavy things fall faster than lighter things. People easily delude themselves into thinking that what they like is evident and what they dislike is impossible. That is how religions are formed.

Your 'multiple realizability of meaning' isn't a fact about the universe, but more a fact about the psychology of some people. And no, I don't consider that to imply any sort of 'totality, a 'Cosmos' (why is that capitalized any way?).

Meaning is something *humans* (and potentially other conscious creatures) assign to things and events. it isn't something inherent in those things or events. They are added on in our attempts to understand things more deeply. Sometimes that works and other times it does not. If you take psychedelics, you may well find rather trivial things to *feel* deeply meaningful. That doesn't mean that they are.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Klorophyll

I don't know much about other religions, but Islam acknowledges that the soul is undefinable, unknowable: 

"And they ask you about the soul. Say: The soul is one of the commands of my Lord, and you are not given aught of knowledge but a little." (Qur'an 17:85)

This line of revelation purportedly came to the Islamic Prophet when a group of Jews challenged him to reveal the reality of the soul. 

Alternately, a false prophet would have dissembled and said, ‘It’s a secret that only God knows’.  Oddly enough, this is exactly what Mohammed did.

Go figure.

Boru

 One of many lies found in Islam. (most if not all religions contain some lies)   Two of my favourites is the stubborn instance that chunks of the Quran are not lifted from the Torah. The other is that Muhamad dictated the Quran. That's up there with the Orthodox Jewish and literalist Christian claims that Moses wrote The Torah.

I guess that once a person is willing to believe in god(s), it's not hard to convince them of all kinds of loopy beliefs. Having had 1500 hundred years more practice than the proddies, the Catholic church remains the master in Christendom.