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

[Trailblazer]

I think some of the atheists here do have a clue as to how believers formulate their beliefs though. Understanding how people formulate beliefs might tell us something about human nature, and why people believe weird things.

That's true, I am sure the atheists understand that, but that is another subject altogether.

 

[rational experiences]

If you ask the man who teaches falsely science as science.

When you said I will tell a story how I got created. He cannot say the story is a portion thesis.

As a whole man supported by one reactive mass heavens said I theory science not self first.

As he introduces law thesis first to be science a human statement.

If a theist said I tell a human theory how a human type of God invented me...the reasoning is first there was a reaction.

And you would be telling a man theism about just a man's belief. Reaction is removed.

As water by mass existed first.

You cannot live as a Portion of a mass of water.

So as you theory a portion in science about mass the first portion is machine. The second portion is reaction in machine.

Portions. Portions that you said ate what was pre formed in a state you introduced.consuming.

As the law in science.

Now if you weren't being consumed yourself first by natural law what then occurred by you removing waters support of bio existing?

Pretty obvious the bible was a confess of Sion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am an atheist yes.

OK..

If you were on the TV show "who wants to be a millionaire", and you had to "ask the audience" because you didn't know the answer to a question, would you ignore the audience's opinion if 80% expressed one particular opinion about the answer?
Now, that would be argumentum ad populum !

 

[samtonga43]

if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

SO....
a) Betty and Brenda are sisters.
b) Betty and Brenda live in rented apartments.
c) Therefore all sisters live in rented apartments.

a) and b) are true.
Therefore c) is true?
Have you thought this through?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I cannot explain it because I do not have a clue what would be evidence of God’s existence for an atheist, and apparently the atheists don't have a clue either.

I don't blame you for forgetting after 200+ pages, but you got plenty of atheists telling you what they would consider evidence for God's existence right in the first few pages of this thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK..

If you were on the TV show "who wants to be a millionaire", and you had to "ask the audience" because you didn't know the answer to a question, would you ignore the audience's opinion if 80% expressed one particular opinion about the answer?
Now, that would be argumentum ad populum !

Which reminds me

 

[muhammad_isa]

Which reminds me

I know.
It is an argumentum ad populum fallacy that they would always be right..

It is not conclusive.
However, the probability of the audience being right at 80% is very high.

Many atheists imply that 'argumentum ad populum' is a fallacy that shows they must be wrong.
That is wrong, in itself.

Probabilities are very real. One can't just cry 'argumentum ad populum' to everything that involves a number of people, without taking into account the nature of the claim.

That would just be "blind faith" in atheism

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know.
It is an argumentum ad populum fallacy that they would always be right..

It is not conclusive.
However, the probability of the audience being right at 80% is very high.

Completely depends on the subject.

There are plenty of things that a majority of people would get wrong, purely because of how human brains work. This is essentially the kind of stuff that mentalists and magicians and alike exploit all the time.

There are thing that humans, purely due to the human condition, would most commonly get wrong. Just like there are things that humans would most commonly get right.

For example, we know for a fact that humans very much have a tendency to be superstitious; to engage in type 2 cognition errors. Aka "the false positive". Humans are also prone to infuse agency and purpose in what are actually just random events. A result of "counting the hits and ignoring the misses".


Such psychological human weaknesses are exploited all the time, on purpose and by design, by a great many people and organizations. From con-men all the way to facebook software.

So in summary, it really depends on the subject matter.

Many atheists imply that 'argumentum ad populum' is a fallacy that shows they must be wrong.
That is wrong, in itself.

That is indeed wrong and I must say that I have never seen an atheist argue such. This is a misrepresentation.

What actually happens when this fallacy is invoked, is when theists make the claim, or implication, that because most people are religious, there must be such a thing as the supernatural. So they try to use "the majority believes" as evidence in support of the claim.

THAT is what the fallacy is.
And the use of the fallacy doesn't mean that therefor the claims are wrong.
Instead, it means that the argument given (belief = evidence of the claim) is wrong.

Many people believing the claim is NOT evidence for the claim.
That's it. So what we are left with is a claim that is not in evidence.
That doesn't mean the claim is wrong. It just means that there's no evidence - and thus no reason to think it's accurate.

The ad populum fallacy is just about believing the claim IS supported by appealing to majority belief.

For example, if I would say that "E=mc² is accurate because most people believe it", then that would be an ad populum fallacy. Even though E = mc² is accurate.

If I say it is accurate because of majority belief, then that's fallacious.

Off course, there are other reasons, scientific reasons not depending on popular opinion, for why it is accurate.

Probabilities are very real. One can't just cry 'argumentum ad populum' to everything that involves a number of people, without taking into account the nature of the claim.

Probabilities are the result of a calculation with verifiable and demonstrable variables.
Probabilities are not the results of counting "votes".

"x people believe y" is not a matter of probability. It's a matter of popular belief.

That would just be "blind faith" in atheism

Que?
I don't even know how that follows or relates to the sentences you typed before that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Probabilities are the result of a calculation with verifiable and demonstrable variables.
Probabilities are not the results of counting "votes".

"x people believe y" is not a matter of probability. It's a matter of popular belief

I think we both agree that it depends on the context.

My "who wants to be a millionaire" example of asking the audience is valid.
The probability of the audience being right at 80% is very high.
Obviously, the more obscure the knowledge, the greater the chance they are wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My "who wants to be a millionaire" example of asking the audience is valid.
The probability of the audience being right at 80% is very high.

Only because it deals with common trivia.

Obviously, the more obscure the knowledge, the greater the chance they are wrong.

I think you will find that the more obscure the knowledge, the less likely it will be that there's an 80% in there.
As the trivia becomes more obscure, I'ld expect the distribution of votes to be spread more equally.

And, as said, depending on the question and how it was formulated and how the answers are formulated... It can also easily trip up a majority simply due to how human brains can be easily tricked at times. Even the environment in which the question is asked plays a role in that. As in, if you would ask the same person the same question in a different environment, that same person might answer differently.


A funny example of how minds are easily tripped up, is this sketch where they ask people in the street the following:

You are running in a race. You pass by the one in second place. In what place are you now in the race?

You would be amazed at how MANY people get this wrong - simply due to the stress of having a mic and cam pointed at their face. And in way more cases then you would expect, even in a relaxed environment without mic and cam. You can test this yourself. Ask 20 random people that question. People at work, at home, at the local pub, at the market,...

It's such a stupid simple question. And yet so many people who simply say the first thing that comes to mind, get it wrong initially.

 

[Sheldon]

If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Wow, if somethings true it must be true, that's profound.

 

[Sheldon]

My "who wants to be a millionaire" example of asking the audience is valid.

It's not logical, not as you have offered it here, but for a start it is not a bare appeal to numbers since the questions are knowledge based, they're gambling the audience's collective knowledge will reflect a correct answer to a known fact.

If 80% of the audience believe the battle of Hastings was in 1166, is that helpful? Beliefs can reflect facts, and they can contradict facts, they can also be held with little or no evidence. The number of people who hold a belief (ON ITS OWN ) tells us nothing about the validity of that belief. This is not hard, and you either are happy to make irrational claim or you are not, it is a choice, but you can't insist a claim or belief is ringfenced from the principles of logic, while claiming to be rational. The two things are mutually exclusive. Ironically it would also be a special pleading fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

The probability of the audience being right at 80% is very high.

Really? Without hearing a question or knowing anything about the education of the audience? That is a very edifying claim, but it is irrational. Statistics can often be counterintuitive, that's why people created the method of logic, to help reason rationally.

A person who smokes is statically less likely to develop lung cancer than not. Is that statement correct?

 

[Sheldon]

Obviously, the more obscure the knowledge, the greater the chance they are wrong.

Thus the percentage that believe something tells us nothing about the validity if the belief. That is why the fallacy cites a bare appeal to numbers.

 

[Sheldon]

Only because it deals with common trivia.



I think you will find that the more obscure the knowledge, the less likely it will be that there's an 80% in there.
As the trivia becomes more obscure, I'ld expect the distribution of votes to be spread more equally.

And, as said, depending on the question and how it was formulated and how the answers are formulated... It can also easily trip up a majority simply due to how human brains can be easily tricked at times. Even the environment in which the question is asked plays a role in that. As in, if you would ask the same person the same question in a different environment, that same person might answer differently.


A funny example of how minds are easily tripped up, is this sketch where they ask people in the street the following:

You are running in a race. You pass by the one in second place. In what place are you now in the race?

You would be amazed at how MANY people get this wrong - simply due to the stress of having a mic and cam pointed at their face. And in way more cases then you would expect, even in a relaxed environment without mic and cam. You can test this yourself. Ask 20 random people that question. People at work, at home, at the local pub, at the market,...

It's such a stupid simple question. And yet so many people who simply say the first thing that comes to mind, get it wrong initially.

Exactly, the point he seems not be grasping is that it is not a bare appeal to numbers, when you know things like how commonly understood a fact the correct answer is, the fact there is a correct answer based on sufficient objective evidence, how well educated the audience is etc etc.

A bare appeal to numbers is just that. This is why it is a fallacy. Another fact often overlooked in religious apologetics of course, is that even though there are billions of theists, they do not share a common belief, since they believe in a wide variety of deities and religions.

 

[Sheldon]

OK..

If you were on the TV show "who wants to be a millionaire", and you had to "ask the audience" because you didn't know the answer to a question, would you ignore the audience's opinion if 80% expressed one particular opinion about the answer?
Now, that would be argumentum ad populum !

That's called a false equivalence fallacy. You see an argumentum ad populum fallacy is a bare appeal to numbers, Now we know there is a factual answer to the question, we are also faced with multiple choice of 4, one of which is the correct answer, the contestant is taking a gamble, but not a blind one, they have the question and the answer, and are gambling how commonly know that answer is, and may consider that the audience might be collectively more likely to know that answer.

Of course the gamble may be wrong, but it is not a bare appeal to numbers, so you have created a false equivalence fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

SO....
a) Betty and Brenda are sisters.
b) Betty and Brenda live in rented apartments.
c) Therefore all sisters live in rented apartments.

a) and b) are true.
Therefore c) is true?
Have you thought this through?

No offence but yesterday she asserted a belief cannot be an assumption, or there wouldn't be two different words. Even after synonyms have been explained, a rationale that would mean an apple could not also be a fruit, if it were sound.

If one cannot see that the claim "the bible is evidence for a deity, because it was inspired by a deity" is a circular reasoning fallacy, it's hard to know what to say. Especially if they think a post ad hoc qualifier to insert the word if in the sentence, makes it rational, rather than a rationalisation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Only because it deals with common trivia.

Isn't belief in G-d "common trivia" according to you?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..The number of people who hold a belief tells us nothing about the validity of that belief..

That is correct.
However, it very much depends on the context.
We can't say that it makes no difference. We need more data to decide, and that's all.

This is not hard, and you either are happy to make irrational claim or you are not..

Ah, but this shows how biased you are. You assume that anybody who holds a religious belief is being irrational.
Therefore you hold a large number of people holding the same belief to ALSO be irrational.

My point in question being "there are many witnesses to the life of Jesus" ..
..and you immediately come up with "argumentum ad populum"
You are rather like a parrot

 

[muhammad_isa]

Exactly, the point he seems not be grasping is that it is not a bare appeal to numbers, when you know things like how commonly understood a fact the correct answer is,.

That's rather amusing. A person has no need of asking the audience if they already know the answer.