How often do theists believe they have evidence for God's existence?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whether or not you honestly can't see the difference between a rational conclusion of atheism, verses a post hoc rationalisation for atheism is not my problem.

In my professional life, I'm a transportation engineer. One of the things I do is transportation demand modelling.

When estimating transportation demand of a zone (i.e. a small portion of a city), we generally like to base it on the land use in the zone. However, there are times when we have incomplete information (or when conventional assumptions break down) and we have to figure it out another way.

One technique is just to assume an arbitrary demand: for no particular reason at all, we assume that there are 100 trips between every zone pair. We then assign this to the network, estimate the traffic volumes on all the roads in the study area, and compare our estimates to actual count volumes. Where there's error (and initially, there will be tons of error), we adjust the travel demand for the zones that contribute to the traffic volume on that road. We then repeat this process until the error of the estimated traffic demand gets down to acceptable levels.

This way, by starting with a completely arbitrary assumption and testing it, we'll get to a fairly good understanding of reality... one that's often much better thanan understanding based on plausible inferences but that's never tested.

Basically, I don't care too much about the basis for some initial position. The vital thing - whatever the basis for that initial position - is that your position be tested with evidence. Whatever one's reasons for believing in God or not, we can ask ourselves whether what we see is a better fit with the idea that God exists or with the idea that he doesn't.

... and if every observation we make is consistent with both ideas, then God is irrelevant.

I think this approach is rational and reasonable. Do you?

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed. First thing you really need to know, is that the text itself gives the five ways in response to a question concerning whether or not the belief in God can have a rational basis. It's not intended as proof for God in the way a modern reader would think of proof, because that's actually not the context for the five ways.

I see.

If you want that apparently the augments of Duns Scotus (which I am not familiar with) are where you want to go in that he actually sets out to prove God.

Unfortunately, Scotus' attempt was also purely esthetical in nature. It is not altogether very different from Aquinas' ways.

Secondly, what Aquinas means by certain terms such as "motion" can only be properly understood in the light of the Aristotelian thought of the day. In other words, to truly understand what Aquinas is saying requires an understanding of context that the modern reader is simply cannot grasp without solid education or at least extensive research.

I still have much to learn before I can appreciate Aquinas. So when a modern atheist in his conceit thinks he can pull apart the work of one of the foremost thinkers of medieval western history with no research whatsoever, I'm sorry if I find that a little arrogant.

That means that it is now two of us seeing an example of Courtier's Reply here.

I have no problem whatsoever in stating that Aquinas' Five Ways may be freely disregarded by whoever wants to. They are appeals to justify the right to believe out of esthetical considerations, and as such significant only on a strictly personal level, and then only if one decides to accept them as relevant.

Understanding them beyond the level of their nature being purely esthetical is not at all necessary to reject them legitimally. It is their acceptance, not their rejection, that may need justification.

 

[LuisDantas]

True Christians are cool, calm, goodnatured, fearless, confident and unflappable, so Christianity obviously works for them and I dunno why it doesn't work for other people?

Because not all people are compatible with it, apparently. Including many people who regrettably insist on the attempt regardless.

As for why it is not for everyone: it seems clear to me that one of the main reasons is its strongly dogmatic nature. Another, related one is its regretable decision to rely on a particularly unconvincing conception of deity for much of its doctrinary basis.

Were it to shed those two major flaws, Christianity could potentially become that much stronger and commendable, even if its numbers would decreased quite drammatically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point is if your going to attack something you should make a point of at least understanding it first. An example of this is the a famous youtuber called The Amazing Atheist, where he made a video titled "Thomas Aquinas Sucks" Of course, it's quite clear that he is way out of his depth concerning the material, but his sycophants hardly care about that. Thus I used the unfair dismissal of the five ways simply as a example of a reactionary atheist whose claims to rationality are pure pretence. Whatever your particular views on Aquinas, they are irrelevant to the point.

Out of curiosity, have you done this with atheism? There are plenty of written cases for atheism out there from Sam Harris to Bertrand Russell (who called himself an agnostic, not an atheist, I know, but his arguments are relevant). Have you engaged with any of them at the level you're suggesting atheists should engage with Aquinas?

If all you've done so far is watch some guy's video on YouTube, then I'd say your approach to atheism is similar to the approach you're criticizing. Are *you* coming at this issue in good faith, or are you just looking to win arguments?

 

[Thief]

Right here:

Courtier's Reply - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Courtier's Reply - RationalWiki

The Courtier's Reply - Atheism

So I did take a quick look at the reference offered....
and I have listened to R. Dawkins speak from podium....
and I have worked in service of a team leader, deacon turned atheist.....
so forth and so on.....

How about you?
Content to follow the teachers of other nay sayers?......sufficient reasoning to cling to as your own?

I don't believe in God because someone else told me to.
I don't believe in God because of some piece of writing.

I have eyes that see.
Ears that hear.
Skillful little fingers.
And the stars above are more to me than any prophet ever knew.

So what is it really?.....that holds you back?

 

[LuisDantas]

How about you?

Omigosh, Thief. Are you truly still in doubt about me?

Am I that subtle?

Content to follow the teachers of other nay sayers?......sufficient reasoning to cling to as your own?

I don't believe in God because someone else told me to.
I don't believe in God because of some piece of writing.

I have eyes that see.
Ears that hear.
Skillful little fingers.
And the stars above are more to me than any prophet ever knew.

So what is it really?.....that holds you back?

That holds me back from what?

 

[Thief]

Omigosh, Thief. Are you truly still in doubt about me?

Am I that subtle?




That holds me back from what?

If you're going to ask questions to be coy........................................
Note the title.

What keeps you from believing?
Note previous post....again.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you're going to ask questions to be coy........................................

Coming from you, that is really funny.

Note the title.

The thread title? I created it, you know.

What keeps you from believing?

In deities? The fact that I do not. Plain as that.

Note previous post....again.

Nooo! Not again!

 

[Thief]

Coming from you, that is really funny.




The thread title? I created it, you know.




In deities? The fact that I do not. Plain as that.



Nooo! Not again!

So you created a discussion that deals with belief....and you have none......
and you then refuse the question.....

What's holding you back?

 

[LuisDantas]

So you created a discussion that deals with belief....and you have none......

In the existence of deities? That is right, I have none.

and you then refuse the question.....

What question? I answered all the question I could make sense of.

What's holding you back?

That question? It makes no sense.

Was it supposed to make any?

 

[Thief]

In the existence of deities? That is right, I have none.




What question? I answered all the question I could make sense of.



That question? It makes no sense.

Was it supposed to make any?

So you began this thread with only the motivation of retort?
and you are not really interested that you might have to change your mind?

 

[LuisDantas]

So you began this thread with only the motivation of retort?

Surprising as it is, I asked "How often do theists believe they have evidence for God's existence" because I wanted a better insight about how and how often theists believe they have evidence for God's existence.

Yeah. I am like that.

and you are not really interested

Interested in what?

that you might have to change your mind?

That mystery shall remain a mystery, since a reason to change my mind on this respect remains elusive.

 

[Thief]

Surprising as it is, I asked "How often do theists believe they have evidence for God's existence" because I wanted a better insight about how and how often theists believe they have evidence for God's existence.

Yeah. I am like that.




Interested in what?




That mystery shall remain a mystery, since a reason to change my mind on this respect remains elusive.

No problem....you get to see the Answer soon enough.

 

[LuisDantas]

No problem....you get to see the Answer soon enough.

You truly do believe that there is an afterlife (as distinct from other people surviving our own deaths), don't you? And from all appearances, you see it as a Very Significant Thing.

I very much doubt I will ever truly understand that.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't understand how people can look at how the universe, at least in our little part of it, and not find a pattern to suggest a working mind higher than our own. I don't even need to look outside of my window to notice this, it is just the fact that beingness encirculates us all and at some point down without a reason.

You hit the nail on the head: a pattern. Humans are great at noticing patterns. That's a huge evolutionary advantage we have, and how we have been able to get to our current point. The problem is that also means we see patterns where they don't exist and/or assign meanings to patterns that don't actually fit. You say you find a pattern to suggest a working mind higher than our own. That's fine, but I think it's an example of assigning a meaning to a perceived pattern that doesn't actually fit.

People just don't see this pattern, quite a bit of people don't actually. I am convinced that there is evidence of God spread out in the fabric of existence itself, from a philosophical perspective at least, not necessarily scientific.

This isn't really a substantive claim, though. All you're really saying is "you can see God in everything, but you might not be able to find any scientific evidence". In other words, "there's no actual evidence for God, but I like to think God is the explanation for the pattern I perceive in the universe".

But because I can't understand the perspective of atheism, and in contrast they cannot understand the perspective of theism, there will be no argument that'll work as evidence until we have words to put it in.

Except that I do understand the perspective of theism. I was Christian for many years. I only truly stopped believing in God in my mid-twenties when I started coming to this site.

 

[LuisDantas]

Except that I do understand the perspective of theism. I was Christian for many years. I only truly stopped believing in God in my mid-twenties when I started coming to this site.

What do you see in Theism beyond an esthetical preference, Magic Man?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't understand how people can look at how the universe, at least in our little part of it, and not find a pattern to suggest a working mind higher than our own. I don't even need to look outside of my window to notice this, it is just the fact that beingness encirculates us all and at some point down without a reason.

People just don't see this pattern, quite a bit of people don't actually. I am convinced that there is evidence of God spread out in the fabric of existence itself, from a philosophical perspective at least, not necessarily scientific.

But because I can't understand the perspective of atheism, and in contrast they cannot understand the perspective of theism, there will be no argument that'll work as evidence until we have words to put it in.

Here's how I see the perspective you describe: "the universe is so immense, complex, and literally awesome that it must be a person like us."

When you look at it that way, hopefully you understand why I don't use that perspective.

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, one of the most theocentric people I know has a tendency to be certain that everything that happens with any economic or political significance at all was meant to be by some sort of vague cabal.

 

[Thief]

You truly do believe that there is an afterlife (as distinct from other people surviving our own deaths), don't you? And from all appearances, you see it as a Very Significant Thing.

I very much doubt I will ever truly understand that.

ok....and maybe no one really does.

The lack of understanding doesn't stop people from believing.

As for me.....
The likelihood a few of us will survive the last breath is a good bet.
Billions of possible souls and no one continues?

I suspect the lack of understanding is not the problem of 'moving on'.
It's the disbelief.
If you don't believe ...you make no serious prep.
No prep....no inclination....no desire....

fail

 

[LuisDantas]

ok....and maybe no one really does.

The lack of understanding doesn't stop people from believing.

Who knows?

As for me.....
The likelihood a few of us will survive the last breath is a good bet.
Billions of possible souls and no one continues?

That makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well say:

Billions of living people, and not one is Green Lantern?

Trillions of atoms, and not one offering me coffee?

I suspect the lack of understanding is not the problem of 'moving on'.
It's the disbelief.
If you don't believe ...you make no serious prep.
No prep....no inclination....no desire....

fail

Honestly, I have no idea of what you are talking about beyond that it probably relates to belief in God or in an afterlife in some vague way.