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

[Unveiled Artist]

SZ was only clarifying UA.

Fire. I just asked why you quoted me. I thought it was an accident or so have you since you were talking to Trailblazer. Nothing more than that.

 

[PureX]

Is there actually a "cult of scientism"? I am not aware of any such thing existing. Provide details of an actual cult existing and what they stand for.

I am not responsible for what you are not aware of. Look up "scientism". Once you understand it you will be able see just how cult-like can be.

And are you suggesting I'm part of this cult because I use reason?

Do the people who succumb to this kind of cult thinking ever really understand that they have done so? Probably something to consider.

So you're claiming there is also a "cult of scientific atheism" which I've never heard of. Can you provide details of this cult existing as well?

Scientism and atheism (or rather an intense dislike of religion) seem to be part and parcel these days (at least here on RF).

I'd hate to think you are just inventing these imaginary cults as a way to disparage your debate opponents. So provide facts so I can respond to the rest of your post.

I suspect you'd hate the fact that I'm not just "inventing" these characterizations a lot more. I can only hope I'm wrong.

Since science and reason has to deal with facts, how it is a bias when we are looking to understand what is true about reality?

'Scientism' is an absurd misrepresentation of science based on the failed conceptual paradigm of philosophical materialism. No scientist dismisses art, philosophy, and religion as mere intellectual whimsy. Nor does any scientist presume that science is the only 'real' method of obtaining and validating a truth claim. These are common absurdities held by 'scientism' cultists, however.

So is it fair to say you are biased against objectivity, and that is the case because it threatens your subjective beliefs?

I am simply trying to interject some honesty and clarity into the discussion. Which is difficult to do when the 'scientism' cultists feel they have to fight every attempt, tooth and nail, because they sense that it contradicts their absurd philosophical materialist paradigm. "Objective reality" is a conceptual fiction created by the way the human brain functions. There is no "subjective reality" or "objective reality". There is just reality, and then within it there is our elaborate imaginary conceptual paradigm of reality that we call "reality", but that isn't. It's part of reality, of course, but only as a cognitive reflection. And we cannot escape this cognitive reflection to experience reality apart from ourselves. So there is no "objective reality" that any human can ever experience. If it exists, it only exists, to us, as an ideal (a lot like 'God', in fact). I'm not biased against objectivity. I'm simply not going to allow myself (or others) to operate from the belief that the "reality" in their minds is the reality that is just because they cannot acknowledge the difference.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It popped up on my notifications.

Post 563. Me and pegged trailblazer as well.

@Subduction Zone The conversation should have ended here when I explained that I got Fire's notification and he quoted me in 563. In the edit, I told him I found out it was trailblazer and still wondering if it was an accident that he quoted me.

Anything else you're adding to this is totally unnecessary.

Cut it.

 

[firedragon]

Fire. I just asked why you quoted me. I thought it was an accident or so have you since you were talking to Trailblazer. Nothing more than that.

It was my mistake. Apologies.

 

[PureX]

Yes, that has already been acknowledged. It was also acknowledged that you misunderstood that poster's intent. You took his comment out of context. Here is the full sentence: "the logical default for any given claim is that X is false. X has to be demonstrated true, or in debate or law, likely true. This requires physical evidence. If there is no compelling evidence the most rational/logical conclusion is X isn't true or not likely true."

And all of this is false.

1."the logical default for any given claim is that X is false". This statement is false. This is not the logical default position for any claim given. The logical default position is 'undetermined'.
2. "X has to be demonstrated true, or in debate or law, likely true." This is also false. Though it is an incomplete and confused sentence. I presume it is saying that X must be demonstrated true, in debate or law, to be taken as likely true. Which is wrong in about four different directions at once. How does one "demonstrate" a truth? I mean, some could be, I suppose, and some couldn't be. And what the hell does "in debate or law" even mean? In debate I understand: show the course of logical reasoning leading the the presumption of truth. But "in law"? Whatever. And then "to be taken as likely true" ... by whom? By what criteria? And then finally the real absurdity:
3. "This requires physical evidence". There is it: the philosophical materialists paradigm presuming that truth is defined and contained by physicality. And he follows this up with the inalienable bias of requiring "compelling evidence" ...
4. "If there is no compelling evidence the most rational/logical conclusion is X isn't true or not likely true." HE must be compelled to set aside his biased materialist presumptions by his antagonist for the antagonist to be deemed credible, or even possibly credible. Wow, talk about putting oneself in control!

Likewise with logical propositions. Those that can be proven are treated as true. Those that can be disproven are treated as false. And those that can neither be ruled in or out are treated as false. That's what the poster you challenged meant.

And you both wrote that with a strait face???

And I already explained that once. But here we are again having made no progress since the last time I explained that.

That's because what you're trying to claim, here, is INSANE!

 

[PureX]

None of which (regardless of its accuracy) has anything to do with the purely logical problems with your position, such as the burden of proof.

"Burden of proof" is just a turn of phrase. All it means is that when one proposes a concept of the truth of reality, one is obliged (if one wishes the proposal to be considered by others) to offer the logical reasoning upon which one based the proposed truth-claim. "Proof" doesn't actually have anything to do with anything. It's just a term used to refer to the course of reasoning upon which the proposed truth-claim rests.

You seem to be assuming that "burden of proof" means that anyone who proposes any version of truth that disagrees with your current truth paradigm is somehow then responsible for overcoming the innate bias of your current truth paradigm, or else their proposal gets rejected and presumed false. Which is a pretty good active description of how bias keeps one's mind closed up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Philosophical materialism proposes that physicality contains and defines reality (i.e., the truth of what is). That which has no physicality does not exist, and therefor is not real. The failure of this paradigm is that has renders itself non-existent and therefor unreal (untrue), because a conceptual paradigm has no physicality. The materialist then tries to assert that the physical interactions within the brain are the physicality of the paradigm, but if that is to be accepted as a legitimate argument, then EVERY conceptual paradigm, no matter how absurd or contradicting any other aspect of reality must also be accepted as real and true. Which is, of course, absurd.

This materialist philosophical paradigm was rejected pretty much as soon as it was proposed, several hundred years ago, but those who hold onto it, today, have rejected philosophy as a viable method of investigating the truth of reality. Partly because philosophers have rejected their proposition, and partly because their bizarre proposition excludes ideological pursuits as occurring in a kind of unreal fantasy-land apart from physical reality. And as such it's not surprising, then, that they have come to regard science as the only valid means of investigating or establishing the truth of reality: the emerging cult of "scientism".

Materialism is quite alive and well, notwithstanding the theists' bias that the fundamental nature of reality is the mind of god, and that therefore materialism must be wrong, then telling us that materialism is in crisis as the creationists often do regarding the theory of evolution. They believe by faith that it is wrong, and then tell us that the theory is in trouble because they reject it. I believe that is what you are doing here with materialism - declaring it dead, for centuries now no less, and those still considering it a viable option have rejected philosophy.

As you probably know, materialism - a misnomer actually - posits that the physical is the ultimate reality (it should be called physicalism, since matter is just one element of physical reality, the others being things like energy, force, space, and time), and that mind is an epiphenomenon of the physical (mind derives from brain - we can have brains without minds, but not minds without brains). This is the opposite of idealism, which posits that physical existence derives from mind.

For completeness sake, there are two other logical possibilities - neutral monism, which posits that mind and matter are both derivative of a third substance, and dualism, which posits that neither the physical nor mental worlds are derivative of the other or anything else, but are distinct modes of being that only seem to be related.

The plain truth is that at this time, none of these can be ruled in or out, and all remain logically possible.

You would probably call me a materialist, but I don't claim that any of these four is correct. It seems logically necessary that one of them is and the others not (MECE = mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, that is one and only one is correct). If I had to guess, I would choose neutral monism - mind and matter are both manifestations of something capable of generating both. I say that only because I am impressed with the litany of unifications coming from science - electricity and magnetism were shown to each be derivative of electromagnetism, electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force were unified and shown to be manifestations of an electroweak force, which was then unified with the strong nuclear force. Particle and wave were unified (something that is both and neither manifests as particle or wave), space and time (now understood to be different manifestations of 4-dimensional spacetime), and matter and energy (E=mc2). It is this series of unifications which give theoretical physicists the idea that they will be able to unify gravity with the other forces to reveal a superforce that is the origin of them all, and is all of them and none of them. And it's the reason I tend to think that mind and matter will be unified and be shown to be different manifestations of something that is both and neither.

Incidentally, in materialism, a conceptual paradigm, like all thought, is a part of physical reality and derived from it. Brains make minds and the ideas in them, making them all manifestations of the physical.

Regarding scientism and calling respect for science and methodological materialism a cult, that's also a favorite of theists, since science can't help them, and actually keeps showing that gods are not necessary for anything, rendering this deity a god of the ever-narrowing gaps, gaps which have viable naturalistic hypotheses such as abiogenesis and the multiverse hypothesis. So, the theists attack the idea of science being the only path that can generate useful ideas about reality.

Scientism accuses some of placing undue emphasis on science by deeming it the only known path to useful knowledge. Show me a different method that also produces useful knowledge about reality. Show me how we are missing out by not turning to these other methods, and how we are relying too much on science for answers, when we should be using these other methods instead or as well.

You can't, which is why the cry of scientism in the pejorative sense comes off as sour grapes. Never mind that the one making the complaint can't offer any other useful method of inquiry into reality. Like the creationist who can't give any evidence for creationism, and the anti-materialist who can't provide any evidence for idealism, we only see unsupported attacks on what they disapprove of, that which contradicts their faith-based beliefs, all of which are sterile, that is, like astrology, produce no ideas that can be used for anything.

 

[PureX]

Not really into all this to be honest but thanks for it.


So which alternative means or methods do these philosophers propose we should use to investigate the truth of reality? And how do they define reality?

Just trying to figure out what the difference is.

Philosophy investigates the nature of 'reality' through logical conjecturie. It does not assume that reality is contained nor defined by it's physicality.

Science, on the other hand, does not investigate reality as a whole, but only investigates the physical aspects of reality (physicality). And it does that by testing our conjectures for their physical functionality.

They are quite different methods of investigating different aspects of reality.

 

[F1fan]

I am not responsible for what you are not aware of. Look up "scientism". Once you understand it you will be able see just how cult-like can be.

So your hostility to your debate opponents includes not answering their questions to your dubious accusations?

I know what scientism is, there is no known cult, is there? You just made that up, correct? And no one here is advocating or representing scientism, are they? You are just trying to impose this label on them as a subtle ad hominem. It's an attempt to discredit those you disagree with, correct?

Do the people who succumb to this kind of cult thinking ever really understand that they have done so? Probably something to consider.

I haven't noticed any on this forum, so why are you asking me what you believe is happening?

Scientism and atheism (or rather an intense dislike of religion) seem to be part and parcel these days (at least here on RF).

More misrepresentation, and irony to boot.

I suspect you'd hate the fact that I'm not just "inventing" these characterizations a lot more. I can only hope I'm wrong.

I suspect you are aware you are making all this up.

'Scientism' is an absurd misrepresentation of science based on the failed conceptual paradigm of philosophical materialism. No scientist dismisses art, philosophy, and religion as mere intellectual whimsy. Nor does any scientist presume that science is the only 'real' method of obtaining and validating a truth claim. These are common absurdities held by 'scientism' cultists, however.

There are none posting here, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

I am simply trying to interject some honesty and clarity into the discussion. Which is difficult to do when the 'scientism' cultists feel they have to fight every attempt, tooth and nail, because they sense that it contradicts their absurd philosophical materialist paradigm. "Objective reality" is a conceptual fiction created by the way the human brain functions. There is no "subjective reality" or "objective reality". There is just reality, and then within it there is our elaborate imaginary conceptual paradigm of reality that we call "reality", but that isn't. It's part of reality, of course, but only as a cognitive reflection. And we cannot escape this cognitive reflection to experience reality apart from ourselves. So there is no "objective reality" that any human can ever experience. If it exists, it only exists, to us, as an ideal (a lot like 'God', in fact). I'm not biased against objectivity. I'm simply not going to allow myself (or others) to operate from the belief that the "reality" in their minds is the reality that is just because they cannot acknowledge the difference.

It's called a straw man argument. You are inventing a "cult of scientism" and arguing against whoever that is. No one here is holding these views you designed. No one is advocating for scientism.[/quote]

 

[F1fan]

No, YOU reject it as untrue.

When a theist makes a religious claim that not only has no evidence, but is also contrary to what is known of reality, it is rejected by rule and on principle.

A more honest and clear-thinking man simply regards it as an unproven possibility. Which is exactly what it is.

But the question isn't about what is possible, which is a broad and useless list. The question is if the claim is true, or has adequate evidence to at least be plausible and warranted of belief.

Fools and their rules: always blinding themselves to the intent by obsessing over the alliteration. I can't help but notice a similarity with the inerrant Bible cultists, here.

The rules of logic help us use language and thinking to have a more precise and accurate understanding of what is true about the universe. We are aware there are people who are committed to their implausible and often irrational framework of belief, and that is fine. But when they want to introduce their beliefs into open debate those beliefs are fair game for scrutiny and discussion. No one get a free pass.

If and when these beliefs are exposed as not having adequate evidence to be judged true objectively then it's not the problem of those using logic, reason, facts, data to valid conclusions, it's the problem of claimants who can't demonstrate their beliefs/claims true. The rules apply to everyone once they walk onto the field.

Bingo! And therein lies the path to self-deception. The truth no longer becomes relevant, and overcoming our preconceived bias becomes the requirement of any truth claim. But of course, our preconceived biases have no intention of ever being overcome. Especially as our egos defend them, relentlessly, and regardless of their validity.

Rules and objectivity are no a bias. The preconceived beliefs of theists that find facts, reason, logic, objectivity a liability see it as a bias DUE TO the need to protect religious belief from scrutiny.

"Descriptions of reality" are metaphysical. The mechanisms of cognition are physical, but the ideological results are metaphysical.

Science doesn't have ideological results, so this belief of yours is irrelevant and incorrect. Metaphysics does not accurately describe reality. It attempts to frame what we can know with a religious overlay. That taints whatever conclusion metaphysics claims.

Philosophical materialists refuse to acknowledge this. And this is the failure of philosophical materialism: that it cannot recognize its own source.

Materialism just limits what we can verify as true with what we can verify is factual. Thus far is is the only reliable way to understand what is true about reality. Metaphysics is a compromised and dubious approach, and isn't science in any way.

 

[F1fan]

Philosophy investigates the nature of 'reality' through logical conjecturie. It does not assume that reality is contained nor defined by it's physicality.

Philosophy has an "anything goes" allowance so it's very much judged based on the specific content of the thinker.

Science, on the other hand, does not investigate reality as a whole, but only investigates the physical aspects of reality (physicality). And it does that by testing our conjectures for their physical functionality.

This is the contempt for science that is common among a segment of theists who feel it threatens their beliefs.

As noted science is limited to what can be verified as real. It can't examine unicorns, elves, or gods.

They are quite different methods of investigating different aspects of reality.

It's true some people believe in a supernatural. It's not true that any supernatural phenomenon is known to be real. So the supernatural elements of metaphysics means it can't be considered reality.

 

[ratiocinator]

You seem to be assuming that "burden of proof" means that anyone who proposes any version of truth that disagrees with your current truth paradigm is somehow then responsible for overcoming the innate bias of your current truth paradigm, or else their proposal gets rejected and presumed false. Which is a pretty good active description of how bias keeps one's mind closed up.

Nonsense. It applies to any proposition at all. You propose a god, then it's up to you to give people a reason to take your 'god' (however you're defining it today) seriously. Otherwise we have no better reason to accept it than we have for any other unjustified and unfalsifiable proposition.

The problem with some theists is that they seem to think their precious notion of god should be treated differently from any other propositions (leprechauns, alien abductions, vampires, etc.), which is just special pleading.

You don't have (or at least you haven't presented) anything as grand as a "version of truth" or a "truth paradigm", just another unsupported claim about an unseen being.

 

[Nimos]

Philosophy investigates the nature of 'reality' through logical conjecturie. It does not assume that reality is contained nor defined by it's physicality.

Science, on the other hand, does not investigate reality as a whole, but only investigates the physical aspects of reality (physicality). And it does that by testing our conjectures for their physical functionality.

They are quite different methods of investigating different aspects of reality.

What would an example be of a reality that is not defined by its physicality and how have philosophy demonstrated it to be true? Still not a 100% sure what is meant by reality in this regard.

What could a none physical reality be?

 

[PureX]

So your hostility to your debate opponents includes not answering their questions to your dubious accusations?

I'm not hostile, I'm just colorful. And outspoken. Are you defensive? Just asking. Because it kind of looks like it.

I know what scientism is, there is no known cult, is there?

Well, one man's religion is another man's cult. When I find myself confronting a wall of willful ignorance, determined dishonesty, obfuscation, and bias, I feel like I'm dealing with a cult.

And no one here is advocating or representing scientism, are they?

Vehemently! But you have to be willing to recognize and acknowledge it's existence, to see it. And like most cults, or addictions, or whatever ideological aberration we want to call it, the purveyors are oblivious of it.

You are just trying to impose this label on them as a subtle ad hominem. It's an attempt to discredit those you disagree with, correct?

I'm saying what I'm seeing. I have not accused any single person of any single thing. People have to see these things for themselves, or they aren't ever going to see it no matter what I say. So all I can do is present the picture and let others decide for themselves if it resembles them, or not.

I haven't noticed any on this forum, so why are you asking me what you believe is happening?

Yeah, they never notice each other, either. Food for thought, don't you think?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I know what you are trying to say, but you are saying it in terms of something possible in your paradigm. Nevermind that.

How do you propose a pink elephant or what ever seemingly magical being demonstrate the creation of a universe lets in a room, a field or anywhere in this world where you can observe it? This is getting at your epistemology.

That's not for me to figure out, that's for the creator being to figure out. All you did was ask what specific evidence I would consider to be sufficient evidence. Showing me the creation of a universe would certainly do it. And since you refuse to give me any specifics about this creator being then I am free to assume that this creator being somehow can do whatever I imagine it can.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You are not asking for much are you?
Baha'u'llah wrote about what would happen if God showed up and it ain't pretty.
Needless to say, the price you would have to pay for "objective evidence" is pretty steep.
Sure, you would then know that God exists but you would no longer exist.

“Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness. How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72

I'm not 'asking' for anything. I simply responded to the question asked: what specifically would I consider to be sufficient evidence for belief in a creator being that has not been defined in any way. I originally said that I don't know for certain what evidence would convince me, only that it would have to be verifiable. But the person in the post insisted that I provide a specific example, so I eventually did.

 

[PureX]

What would an example be of a reality that is not defined by its physicality and how have philosophy demonstrated it to be true? Still not a 100% sure what is meant by reality in this regard.

What could a none physical reality be?

"Honor" is a bit of reality that cannot be physically demonstrated, and yet the fact that you know what I'm referring to would clearly indicate that it is a 'real' phenomenon. It can be inferred through physical interaction, but the physical interaction does not contain or define the honor. The honor has no physicality. It is a meta-physical phenomenon. The philosophical materialist refuses to acknowledge the existence of metaphysical phenomena. Even though that refusal to acknowledge is, itself, a metaphysical phenomenon.

 

[firedragon]

That's not for me to figure out, that's for the creator being to figure out. All you did was ask what specific evidence I would consider to be sufficient evidence. Showing me the creation of a universe would certainly do it. And since you refuse to give me any specifics about this creator being then I am free to assume that this creator being somehow can do whatever I imagine it can.

I am trying to show you that your example is invalid, and won't work. Its not logical.

You are saying that creating a universe within this universe at some place on earth as a demonstration is up to the creator to decide how, but you are not trying to apply your thinking cap into understanding that its not a logical proposition. Anyway, you won't engage with that because you will never be able to provide your time to think.

Can you tell me what logical axioms do you give value to? Or lets say 'accept'?

 

[Segev Moran]

It is the "Person" of the Messenger who constitutes the evidence for God....

What messenger?
The same goes here.
The messenger is only validated through other messengers.
I have yet to encounter a real messenger of god.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

Hmm.

But of course we have to look at any alleged Messenger and determine if He is really a Messenger of God.

Yep.

I do not assume anything. I only know what God expects if it is revealed in scriptures.[/QUOTE]
Where in the scriptures does it say god expects you to do something?

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you agree that God could, if he wanted, grant me spiritual eyes that would allow me to see him in a similar manner that I can see the moon with my physical eyes? And that doing so would not violate my free will since granting me physical eyes doesn't?

God is omnipotent so God could do that if He wanted to, but I would not hold my breath if I were you, although you could pray for God to open your eyes.