Bad Chihuahua! (An Inability To Separate God From Religion)

[PureX]

That may be indeed a source of our misunderstanding. "Evidence" has multiple meanings, depending on the field where it is used. You seem to be in favour of using the judicial definition. (You also mentioned "court".)
So, let's assume we are in court and god is accused of existing. Is that OK with you? If it is, you are allowed to use testimony and arguments - which you are not if we assume that you want to test a scientific god hypothesis.

The proposition that God exists is a philosophical proposition, not a legal one, or a scientific one, not even a religious one. Religions come later.

So the criteria for evidence is anything that either supports, negates, or re-defines (with increased clarity) that proposition.

If you are demanding scientific evidence, as nearly every atheist around here does, your demands are irrelevant because it's not a scientific proposition, or a scientific theory. And so if those demands are not fulfilled as they are likely not to be, it is a meaningless circumstance. (The scientism crowd will not be able to grasp this because they are anti-philosophical materialists.)

If you demand religious evidence, again your demands are not relevant to the proposition being put to you and so if or when this demand is not met to your satisfaction, it means nothing. I realize that religious adherents will often propose their religious beliefs about God as if they were presenting the philosophical theism proposition. But they aren't. They are proposing their own theological/religious response to the theism proposition.

The point of a philosophical proposition and debate is not to establish a "correct belief". It's to determine the logical viability of the proposal. Theism is just the proposal being offered for examination. It is not a truth claim. It's not unlike science in that way (again, the scientism crowd will not understand this). Those come later, if they come at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

The proposition that God exists is a philosophical proposition.....not even a religious one.

 

[PureX]

If an atheist (forum member or otherwise) approached you asking for help with a drinking problem, and expressed apprehension about the religious aspects of Alcoholics Anonymous, would you accuse them of being an illogical and irrational mirror image of a religious zealot or let them know that a "higher power" can mean anything?

I would ask them if they were dying of terminal cancer, and the only cure happened to be handed out during a religious service in some church, would they let their "apprehension" stop them from going in and getting it?

 

[PureX]

You sound upset though... But I digress.



I have already addressed this: I had already dismissed all other forms of theism back when I was a theist. Me becoming an atheist merely entailed dismissing one form of theism.



This doesn't address the part of the post you quoted.



My bad, I meant strong evidence.

You meant "Koldo approved" evidence.

 

[McBell]

You meant "Koldo approved" evidence.

Yes, they did.
Just like you mean PureX approved..
And each other person means {insert name here} approved evidence.

That your standard of evidence is so much lower than an atheists is on you, not the atheist.
That you constantly whine and complain, stomp your foot, etc. because others refuse to lower the bar to your set level is also a you problem.
But then, I have already pointed out that your problems with atheism are in fact you problems.

 

[PureX]

Yes, they did.
Just like you mean PureX approved..
And each other person means {insert name here} approved evidence.

Ah, the old false equivalence thing.

 

[McBell]

Ah, the old false equivalence thing.

You gonna have to to better than that.

Why are atheists required (according to you) to lower their standards for evidence down to the level you say it is to be at?

You are constantly whining about "kangaroo courts" and here you are, the biggest offender...

 

[Heyo]

The proposition that God exists is a philosophical proposition, not a legal one, or a scientific one, not even a religious one. Religions come later.

So the criteria for evidence is anything that either supports, negates, or re-defines (with increased clarity) that proposition.

If you are demanding scientific evidence, as nearly every atheist around here does, your demands are irrelevant because it's not a scientific proposition, or a scientific theory. And so if those demands are not fulfilled as they are likely not to be, it is a meaningless circumstance. (The scientism crowd will not be able to grasp this because they are anti-philosophical materialists.)

If you demand religious evidence, again your demands are not relevant to the proposition being put to you and so if or when this demand is not met to your satisfaction, it means nothing. I realize that religious adherents will often propose their religious beliefs about God as if they were presenting the philosophical theism proposition. But they aren't. They are proposing their own theological/religious response to the theism proposition.

The point of a philosophical proposition and debate is not to establish a "correct belief". It's to determine the logical viability of the proposal. Theism is just the proposal being offered for examination. It is not a truth claim. It's not unlike science in that way (again, the scientism crowd will not understand this). Those come later, if they come at all.

I'm not "with the scientism crowd", I'm a "the right tool for the task" guy. That's why I asked about the field we are in.

In philosophy, I accept arguments as evidence, and I grant that there have been arguments made that seem to indicate that theism is a rational position. I guess we both know them, and also the rebuttals from the atheists.

I want to address the irrationality of theism as a philosophical idea - even so it seems rational at first glance.
1. As we discuss a philosophical ideal, we don't have an example specimen from which we can get its properties by examination.
2. No agreed upon definition of "god" exists.
3. No property of god can be rationally derived from any agreed upon axioms.
4. Any axiom we proclaim will be arbitrary.
C: God (i.e. a description of an entity with a set of properties) can not be logically derived, therefore it is irrational to assume its existence.

 

[Koldo]

You meant "Koldo approved" evidence.

Are all kinds of evidence, no matter how fragile they are, sufficient to convince you of anything?

 

[PureX]

I'm not "with the scientism crowd", I'm a "the right tool for the task" guy. That's why I asked about the field we are in.

In philosophy, I accept arguments as evidence, and I grant that there have been arguments made that seem to indicate that theism is a rational position. I guess we both know them, and also the rebuttals from the atheists.

I want to address the irrationality of theism as a philosophical idea - even so it seems rational at first glance.
1. As we discuss a philosophical ideal, we don't have an example specimen from which we can get its properties by examination.
2. No agreed upon definition of "god" exists.
3. No property of god can be rationally derived from any agreed upon axioms.
4. Any axiom we proclaim will be arbitrary.
C: God (i.e. a description of an entity with a set of properties) can not be logically derived, therefore it is irrational to assume its existence.

So ... the basic complaint here is that "God" is a mystery. I agree. But this is not an argument for or against God's existence. It's only an argument against our knowing of it. But our knowing of it was not the proposal. The proposal was simply that God exists (presumably whether we know of it or not).

So this ends up being a bit of an example of demanding evidence for an assertion that was not posed. So instead, and if we stick to the proposition, itself, what is the evidence that supports it? And what is the evidence that negates it? And is there any other evidence that would further clarify it? Without going into a whole dissertation, the evidence that supports it is the mystery itself. The existential questions of source and purpose are being "begged" by our reality, and are NOT being answered by any other logical possibility. So that even though we can't define this source/purpose, we can logically determine it's necessity.

The second bit of evidence comes from the fact that we are asking about it, at all. And not just 'we', but all humanity all across the globe and throughout all human history. That not only enforces the idea of logical necessity as mentioned above, but of something even more interesting I think. And that is that we humans have developed a cognitive nature that MAKES us ask. Such that it's not just ourselves asking, but existential nature, itself, is asking, ... through is. We are designed by nature to NEED these answers. To seek them. Very interesting, that.

And finally, there is the fact that nothing we know of can or has ever negated the possibility that God exists. Even in a universe that negates a great many possibilities, and is even defined to a great extent by what it is as opposed to it not being anything else. Even within this ocean of specificity, "God" is still a possibility. And the ultimate possibility.

 

[PureX]

Are all kinds of evidence, no matter how fragile they are, sufficient to convince you of anything?

Like most atheists, you are confusing evidence with proof. Evidence isn't evidence because it convinces you or anyone of anything. It's evidence because it supports, negates, or clarifies the proposition in question.

 

[Koldo]

Like most atheists, you are confusing evidence with proof. Evidence isn't evidence because it convinces you or anyone of anything. It's evidence because it supports, negates, or clarifies the proposition in question.

Evidence indicates that something is the case. It ranges from weak evidence to strong evidence. The latter being equal to proof in most circumstances.

But, more to the point, why wouldn't it be reasonable to request strong evidence for an extraordinary claim?

 

[PureX]

Evidence indicates that something is the case. It ranges from weak evidence to strong evidence. The latter being equal to proof in most circumstances.

That's an individual human assessment, NOT the definition of a term. Individual human assessments do not define what 'evidence' is. Or any other term.

But, more to the point, why wouldn't it be reasonable to request strong evidence for an extraordinary claim?

Because that's an individual human assessment. Which no other individual can be expected to know or to meet.

 

[Koldo]

That's an individual human assessment, NOT the definition of a term. Individual human assessments do not define what 'evidence' is. Or any other term.

Shall we bring multiple dictionaries into this conversation then?

Because that's an individual human assessment. Which no other individual can be expected to know or to meet.

What, in practice, constitutes strong evidence to me relates to me indeed, and not necessarily to anyone else. But I am asking you if you disagree with the underlying rationale. Is it or is it not reasonable to request strong evidence when an extraordinary claim is made? Am I to believe an extraordinary claim even if I only see weak evidence supporting it?

 

[LadyJane]

I would ask them if they were dying of terminal cancer, and the only cure happened to be handed out during a religious service in some church, would they let their "apprehension" stop them from going in and getting it?

The magic bulletin cure option sort of leaves the field wide open.

If you needed one of my atheist kidneys flown there by an atheist pilot to be transplanted by an atheist surgeon does it really matter what anyone believes? It matters what they know. And if it doesn't matter what people believe why would it matter what people don't believe? Some prefer tangible evidence over an article of faith. It can't be forced. You land where you land. The word belief shows itself to be a bit useless in that regard.

Kidneys, planes, pilots and doctors don't require my belief in them.

 

[siti]

Then, there is describing the whole universe as 'god", which doesn't do anything much beyond existing.

I think you'll find, if you give it a little more thought, that the universe does a hell of a lot more than mere "existing"...it does you for a start!

 

[siti]

"God" is not a moniker for a physical phenomenon. (Well, maybe someone has used "god" to describe a phenomenon - but most people don't agree.)

OK - so why not? And should things be rejected out of hand because most people don't agree - popular opinion used to get people burned at the stake as witches.

So why could God not be a "physical phenomenon"?

 

[siti]

Did an atheist kick your dog?

Good Lord! Now they want to try and prove there's no such thing as a dog?!! Damn those atheists!

 

[Quagmire]

***Thread Moved to Religious Debates***​

 

[McBell]

Like most atheists, you are confusing evidence with proof. Evidence isn't evidence because it convinces you or anyone of anything. It's evidence because it supports, negates, or clarifies the proposition in question.

Perhaps you might actually catch your tail this time?
I mean, if only for the sake of variety?
Pretty please?

It would most entertaining to see you with something other than your feet in your mouth!