Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[Spirit of Light]

Here is a short version. We can go deeper if you like.
Most people would agree that for example gravity applies to all humans. We all share the effect of gravity. But we don't share the meaning of life. That one is where the fun starts.

When it comes to the physical world I tend to disagree a lot with science about what is possible or not

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you COULD have chosen blue, then the foreknowledge wouldn't have been perfect. Then it could have been wrong.

What is that supposed to prove?

It is a given that G-d knows what you will choose.
You say "if perfect foreknowledge is possible and if that perfect foreknowledge says that you will take the red pill" ..
..then it is YOU that is limiting the choice with your suggestion.

..but you are implying that there is some other reason. There isn't.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nobody said he does.
The point is that the chose would have to be predetermined IF it could be known beforehand in infallible ways.
How that predetermination works exactly and who/what is responsible for it, is irrelevant.

No, God's knowledge does not determine anything that happens to us.
Only if God had predestined something to happen would it have been predetermined.

If it is known beforehand what choice you'll make in infallible ways, then that "choice" is an illusion.

No, God's knowledge does not determine anything that happens to us. We choose what will happen to us and God knows what we will choose because God is all-knowing.

About the future. Meaning that the future is set in stone and known before it occurs.
That is only possible if reality is fully deterministic.

But the future is not set in stone because that would mean humans are not free to choose between different options and that is not the case.

Knowing something will happen is not what causes it to happen:

Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?

Answer.—The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God.......

Therefore, the knowledge of God in the realm of contingency does not produce the forms of the things. On the contrary, it is purified from the past, present and future. It is identical with the reality of the things; it is not the cause of their occurrence........

The mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur. Surely this discovery does not cause the eclipse to take place. This is, of course, only an analogy and not an exact image.”
Some Answered Questions, pp. 138-139

Nobody is saying this god causes people to do things.
We are saying that the choices aren't actually choices, if the outcome is known beforehand.
It has to be deterministic for it to be possible to be known beforehand. Deterministic by whatever means.
One doesn't need to be the cause of the determination to know about it.

The outcome is known by God beforehand simply because God is all-knowing but God's foreknowledge is not the cause of things. Please refer to my previous post: #3359 Trailblazer

You are saying that God determines the choices we will make because God knows that choices we will make so they are not really our choices. This is illogical. They are our choices and God knows we will make these choices simply because God is all-knowing.

It does not have to be deterministic for it to be possible to be known beforehand. There are two possibilities:

1. It is known beforehand, but it has not been determined until we make a choice.
2. It is known and determined beforehand because it was predestined (fated) by God.

We can calculate the exact path of a space rock because gravity is deterministic.
So we know before hand where the space rock will be at what time.
But that doesn't mean that we cause it to be there at that time.
It just means that we understand the deterministic force that causes it to be there at that time and can use that knowledge to know the future of said space rock.

Gravity is not that same as human free will choices. Natural forces such as gravity are predictable whereas human choices are not predictable.

 

[Sheldon]

What is the epistemological status of the bold?

Sorry but I don't understand what you're asking?

 

[Sheldon]

Most people would agree that for example gravity applies to all humans.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim that most people think this?

We all share the effect of gravity.

Please demonstrate objective evidence for that claim? Since you keep asserting no objective evidence exists? Either way you are wrong...

But we don't share the meaning of life. That one is where the fun starts.

If you think the unevidenced assumptions that life has an overarching meaning is fun, but I don't see how that assumption is any different to guessing how many scales a mermaid has.

 

[Sheldon]

It is a given that G-d knows what you will choose.

I don't believe this obviously, why would I. However were it true, then it is also a given that we would have no other choices to make.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Either way you are wrong...

Are you sure?
Maybe it is you, who are brainwashing yourself

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't believe this obviously, why would I.

Because it was suggested that ""if perfect foreknowledge is possible and if that perfect foreknowledge says that you will take the red pill"..

..then it is a given.
i.e. the statement says so .. it is the condition for the statement to be true.

 

[Sheldon]

Are you sure?
Maybe it is you, who are brainwashing yourself

Not according to the English language, but either way the claims are all yours, I merely refuted a hypothetical claim you made. It is irrational to assume that the person challenging an unevidenced claim carries any burden of proof.

That said it is also irrational to assume, that my ultimate choices are known beforehand, yet I can still choose "differently"???

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry but I don't understand what you're asking?

How do you know that you are glad?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim that most people think this?



Please demonstrate objective evidence for that claim? Since you keep asserting no objective evidence exists? Either way you are wrong...



If you think the unevidenced assumptions that life has an overarching meaning is fun, but I don't see how that assumption is any different to guessing how many scales a mermaid has.

You are learning.
So here is the joke about the world.
It is neither objective nor subjective. It is both at different time and places,

 

[muhammad_isa]

..it is also irrational to assume, that my ultimate choices are known beforehand, yet I can still choose "differently"???

You're a laugh, aren't you..
Differently to what?

It is quite obvious that you can't choose differently to what you choose

I have said this before..
People have no problem in seeing how the past is fixed, and that it is fixed by our choices.
..but when they consider a fixed future, somehow they perceive it as totally different.
..when in fact, it is not. They are both blocks of time.

One is known, and one is unknown.
As soon as one considers it to be known [ by a deity ], they seem to think that changes everything. It doesn't. It is purely our perception.

It is true that we have to choose what G-d knows, but that does not limit our choice. "What God knows" is simply what we will choose. It can be anything.
If you say "if G-d knows I will choose red", then that is why you will choose red .. not because you couldn't have chosen blue.

If you deem that it is impossible for G-d to know the future, and that the future cannot be known, then that is your opinion.
However, Einsteinian physics suggests otherwise.

 

[Sheldon]

How do you know that you are glad?

In what sense?

 

[Sheldon]

You are learning.
So here is the joke about the world.
It is neither objective nor subjective. It is both at different time and places,

So you're saying the claim that "the world is not flat" is not an objective fact?

I think you're wrong.

 

[Sheldon]

Differently to what?

The ultimate choice you're insisting a deity knew I would make all along of course, it's not rocket science.

It is quite obvious that you can't choose differently to what you choose

Another ludicrous ad vapid tautology, and no it is not obvious, you're claiming without any pretence of evidence here, as usual. However we are discussing a hypothetical consequence of your unevidenced claim.

I have said this before..People have no problem in seeing how the past is fixed, and that it is fixed by our choices...but when they consider a fixed future, somehow they perceive it as totally different...when in fact, it is not. They are both blocks of time. One is known, and one is unknown.As soon as one considers it to be known [ by a deity ], they seem to think that changes everything. It doesn't. It is purely our perception.

Your perception, not mine as you can't evidence any deity, and if your hypothetical was true, we would be left with no choice, just as we have no choice over the past.

It is true that we have to choose what G-d knows, but that does not limit our choice.

That's a contradiction.

"What God knows" is simply what we will choose. It can be anything.

Sophistry, as you have already said in your hypothetical a deity knows what we will choose before we choose it, ipso facto any other choice would be unavailable to us.

If you say "if G-d knows I will choose red", then that is why you will choose red .. not because you couldn't have chosen blue.

Semantics, it is axiomatic that if god knows beforehand which I choose, then the other choice was an illusion.

If you deem that it is impossible for G-d to know the future, and that the future cannot be known, then that is your opinion.

Straw man fallacy, again, please quote me making any such claim. You are still struggling with epistemological limits. You are the one making unevidenced claims based on archaic superstition, all I am doing is disbelieving your claims as they are unsupported by any objective evidence.

However, Einsteinian physics suggests otherwise.

Nothing in Einstein's scientific work has validated or evidences any deity, again this is axiomatic. You might want to read what he had to say about the Abrahamic religions, he was pretty scathing, so I'm going to assume Einstein knew better than you what his work evidenced, and since he clearly didn't think the Abrahamic deity was anything but a "childish myth", your claim is pretty hilarious. How theists love to try and convert famous scientists after they've died. Or are you suggesting that you understand how Einstein's work remotely evidences anything in your religion, but he missed it?

Do you need the ad hominem and the smiley faces you keep using on me, or can we take it as read that I'm pointing and laughing at the claim?

 

[Sheldon]

So you're saying the claim that "the world is not flat" is not an objective fact?

I think you're wrong.

Objective and subjective claims are not a binary state, rather there is a scale from bare unevidenced opinion to facts supported by a weight of objective evidence that makes denial an absurdity. However feel free to ignore your doctor when he gives you a diagnosis, since you seem to think his opinion can have no objective basis.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In what sense?

You claimed you are just glad. How do you know that? Or don't you know it and it is just a subjective feeling without objective evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you're saying the claim that "the world is not flat" is not an objective fact?

I think you're wrong.

No, not all of the world is objective. Some parts are, but not all.

 

[Sheldon]

You claimed you are just glad. How do you know that? Or don't you know it and it is just a subjective feeling without objective evidence?

You've lost me sorry, and this has zero relevance to my post.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The ultimate choice you're insisting a deity knew I would make all along of course,.

It doesn't matter whether a diety is involved or not !
If the future is a fixed block as is the past, we have the same scenario.

The fact that you are choosing what is in the fixed block does not mean that you haven't made the choice of your own free-will.
Do you consider that any decisions that you made in the past were illusionary?
If not, why not? It is a fixed block.

You will probably say "ah, well that is different, as it's already happened".
Explain to me HOW it is different.
Einstein showed that time is relative to your frame of reference.
That effectively means that "the present" is a perception that only applies TO OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE.

It is just a perception.

Nothing in Einstein's scientific work has validated or evidences any deity, again this is axiomatic..

What you seem to not understand, is that whether a diety exists or not, is irrelevant.
It is all about the concept of a block universe.