Prove that humans aren't blind to God's existence

[tomspug]

I have a great respect for people who demand evidence for belief. I think that it is an important class of people in religion, a safeguard against fraud. But I think that it is also important to consider, as a skeptic, EVERY possibility, and not just the ones that we are comfortable accepting.

For example, it is very easy for a skeptic to be skeptical of the existence of God. But a REAL skeptic should be just as unbiased towards the idea that God doesn't exist. That is not to say that it is wrong to choose one over the other to be more likely, but I don't think that it is honest to be 100% confident in one or the other (from a skeptical mindset).

Skepticism isn't about not believing ANYTHING until it is justified by evidence. It's about always accepting the possibility that there are things unknown, not made clear, about what is known, to challenge what is accepted, to not accept anything 100%.

With that in mind, I bring up this question: how can we be sure that God isn't completely evident? Why is the assumption made that OUR perspective, the skeptic, is unbiased and clear? I don't think you can really be 100% sure, one way or the other, that it is God that is unseen or that it is humans who fail to see what is visible. Every day, there are new discoveries, new aspects of science and nature that we must come to understand, things we were never aware of. Should we not hold then that there may always be more and more that becomes visible that was at one time apparently non-existent? Do new discoveries REALLY shrink God? Or does it diminish only our previous understanding of the greatness of God? I think it depends on what kind of God it was you believed in in the first place. To me, the more I learn about nature and science, the more I marvel at its complexity and intricacy, the more I begin to comprehend the unfathomable infiniteness to everything that is. To me, this INCREASES my God instead of shrinking him.

 

[Imagist]

But a REAL skeptic should be just as unbiased towards the idea that God doesn't exist.

This is where you're wrong. In questions of existence, non-existence is the default assumption. Just as in the American legal system, a person is "innocent until proven guilty", a thing which might or might not exist is "non-existent until proven existent". For other examples of this concept, see leprechauns, faeries, and dragons, which the vast majority of people assume don't exist because there is no solid proof that they exist.

I guess you could say that technically this means that God could exist, but with only as much probability as leprechauns, faeries, and dragons. Frankly, that probability is so small as to not be worth considering.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't think a god is impossible, just improbable. Even if there was a god, all of the religions are so far off base that they're not worth considering.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

This is where you're wrong. In questions of existence, non-existence is the default assumption. Just as in the American legal system, a person is "innocent until proven guilty", a thing which might or might not exist is "non-existent until proven existent". For other examples of this concept, see leprechauns, faeries, and dragons, which the vast majority of people assume don't exist because there is no solid proof that they exist.

I guess you could say that technically this means that God could exist, but with only as much probability as leprechauns, faeries, and dragons. Frankly, that probability is so small as to not be worth considering.

Here's another brilliant example of in-depth thinking from an atheist. :sarcastic

 

[Imagist]

Here's another brilliant example of in-depth thinking from an atheist. :sarcastic

I'm assuming that a disproof is forthcoming, then.

 

[Riverwolf]

This is where you're wrong. In questions of existence, non-existence is the default assumption. Just as in the American legal system, a person is "innocent until proven guilty", a thing which might or might not exist is "non-existent until proven existent". For other examples of this concept, see leprechauns, faeries, and dragons, which the vast majority of people assume don't exist because there is no solid proof that they exist.

I guess you could say that technically this means that God could exist, but with only as much probability as leprechauns, faeries, and dragons. Frankly, that probability is so small as to not be worth considering.

Many fantasy creatures can be explained scientifically. (that doesn't mean they exist)

Dragons: one of the initial reactions to Dinosaur fossils, in addition to giants, etc. (and there was a documentary about how dragons could possibly exist; Dragon's World; only one part I disagree on)
Leprechauns: Irish midgets
Faeries: Fireflies
Unicorns: I actually wouldn't be surprised if they did exist at one point, as horses are distantly related to other animals that have horns, such as goats, bison, etc.
Mermaids: long, slender fish with long fins that vaguely resemble human hands


My point is, comparing God to them is a bit inappropriate. God has no physical manifestation, in the likeness of anything we know about. (in my opinion, giving him, or any god, an image is idolatrous) As to existence, well, it's already pretty clear that what we perceive is far, far less that .00000000000000000000... 1% of what's actually there.

And comparing American politics with scientific skepticism isn't very appropriate either. With politics, it can only be one thing or the other; there's neither room nor time for a middle-ground. With science, there's more than enough room and time for a middle-ground, and making a claims like "God doesn't exist because there's no proof of it" is the same thing as saying "Flight is a scientific impossibility" or "there is no separate continent between Europe and Asia" or one of my favorites, "you'll die if you go seventy miles per hour".

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm assuming that a disproof is forthcoming, then.

Nope. Atheism always seems to elicit a knee jerk reaction out of him.

 

[Imagist]

Many fantasy creatures can be explained scientifically. (that doesn't mean they exist)

Dragons: one of the initial reactions to Dinosaur fossils, in addition to giants, etc. (and there was a documentary about how dragons could possibly exist; Dragon's World; only one part I disagree on)
Leprechauns: Irish midgets
Faeries: Fireflies
Unicorns: I actually wouldn't be surprised if they did exist at one point, as horses are distantly related to other animals that have horns, such as goats, bison, etc.
Mermaids: long, slender fish with long fins that vaguely resemble human hands

Well, if we loosely define dragons to include things that don't spout fire, leprechauns to include things that don't have magical pots of gold which they hide behind giant multicolored arcs (not the best place to hide), and faeries to include things that don't sprinkle dust on things to make them fly, then sure. But then we could also loosely define god to include the wonder that I felt when I looked at a massive glacier slowly tearing apart the mountains in its last melting throes. But I don't think that's the kind of god tomspug is talking about.

My point is, comparing God to them is a bit inappropriate. God has no physical manifestation, in the likeness of anything we know about. (in my opinion, giving him, or any god, an image is idolatrous)

Making god entirely impossible to perceive doesn't make him any more likely. If we attribute a 50/50 chance of existence to god just based on that, then we have to attribute a 50/50 chance of existence to a completely invisible formless beast that's standing outside your door waiting to eat you in the morning. And we have to attribute the same 50/50 chance of existence to every other completely arbitrary invisible, intangible thing that I invent.

Is there a single other thing in your life that you give any consideration or time to despite complete lack of evidence for its existence?

As to existence, well, it's already pretty clear that what we perceive is far, far less that .00000000000000000000... 1% of what's actually there.

That's not clear at all. Where do you get this statistic containing an unspecified number of zeroes? Even if it were true, that wouldn't mean that we could just invent arbitrary things to inhabit the other 99.99999...% of stuff we couldn't perceive.

And comparing American politics with scientific skepticism isn't very appropriate either. With politics, it can only be one thing or the other; there's neither room nor time for a middle-ground. With science, there's more than enough room and time for a middle-ground, and making a claims like "God doesn't exist because there's no proof of it" is the same thing as saying "Flight is a scientific impossibility" or "there is no separate continent between Europe and Asia" or one of my favorites, "you'll die if you go seventy miles per hour".

The difference between American politics and science is irrelevant, the comparison was only for explanation, not to provide evidence.

The difference between your example claims and mine is that I provided my claim with validating arguments, whereas those claims were provided with bad or nonexistent validation.

 

[Willamena]

I have a great respect for people who demand evidence for belief. I think that it is an important class of people in religion, a safeguard against fraud. But I think that it is also important to consider, as a skeptic, EVERY possibility, and not just the ones that we are comfortable accepting.

For example, it is very easy for a skeptic to be skeptical of the existence of God. But a REAL skeptic should be just as unbiased towards the idea that God doesn't exist. That is not to say that it is wrong to choose one over the other to be more likely, but I don't think that it is honest to be 100% confident in one or the other (from a skeptical mindset).

Skepticism isn't about not believing ANYTHING until it is justified by evidence. It's about always accepting the possibility that there are things unknown, not made clear, about what is known, to challenge what is accepted, to not accept anything 100%.

Agreed.

With that in mind, I bring up this question: how can we be sure that God isn't completely evident? Why is the assumption made that OUR perspective, the skeptic, is unbiased and clear? I don't think you can really be 100% sure, one way or the other, that it is God that is unseen or that it is humans who fail to see what is visible. Every day, there are new discoveries, new aspects of science and nature that we must come to understand, things we were never aware of. Should we not hold then that there may always be more and more that becomes visible that was at one time apparently non-existent? Do new discoveries REALLY shrink God? Or does it diminish only our previous understanding of the greatness of God? I think it depends on what kind of God it was you believed in in the first place. To me, the more I learn about nature and science, the more I marvel at its complexity and intricacy, the more I begin to comprehend the unfathomable infiniteness to everything that is. To me, this INCREASES my God instead of shrinking him.

Okay, I feel compelled to pick this apart. First, "being visible" would be being what is seen. The assumption is made that our perspective is good because we really have it --we really do see things. Of what we see, "clear" is what we see, although "biased" is also what we see, biased in favour of our ability. No one sees unbiased --this is part of skepticism. New aspects of science --things previously unseen that we are now made aware of --have become seen. The skeptic does hold that there will always be new things to "become seen" --this too is part of what lends skepticism to the things currently seen. The idea that new discoveries "shrink" G-d is not the skeptics idea, but one posed in his stead. I do agree with your conclusion, that it is only a particiular image of "God" that is damaged by new discoveries/greater knowledge. That would, in my opinion, not be the agnostic theist's G-d.

 

[emiliano]

Humans are endowed with the capacity to perceive immaterial things, ideas and thought, a capacity to discern, to recall emotional thoughts, I ask myself often why is it that Atheist think of God so often? Could it be that they are seeking Him? For the believers the search is ended and they can enjoy, they find peace and rest that is the pursuit of all, what becomes of the Atheist? Does their search ever ends?

 

[Dunemeister]

This is where you're wrong. In questions of existence, non-existence is the default assumption. Just as in the American legal system, a person is "innocent until proven guilty", a thing which might or might not exist is "non-existent until proven existent". For other examples of this concept, see leprechauns, faeries, and dragons, which the vast majority of people assume don't exist because there is no solid proof that they exist.

I guess you could say that technically this means that God could exist, but with only as much probability as leprechauns, faeries, and dragons. Frankly, that probability is so small as to not be worth considering.

Well, I've argued elsewhere that this assumption, that atheism ought to be the default position, is wrong. The outline of my argument is this. For beliefs that are highly unusual, we would expect more suspicion. For example, belief in actual leprechauns, faeries, and dragons is comparatively rare, even in societies that hold to a belief in the supernatural. (There's evidence that for the druidic cultures who once controlled Gaul and Britannia, belief in faeries was frequently taken as mere superstition and not very seriously. Of course, many of them took such beliefs quite seriously. My point is that there is always a range of belief about such things.) It's perfectly appropriate to be skeptical of such beliefs.

However, as it turns out, 95% or more of the world believe that materialism is wrong and that some sort of theism is right. They believe that there is another dimension to the world, although there is of course wide disagreement about the details. About 2/3 of the world is monotheistic, and about the remaining third is pantheistic or panentheistic. Of the residual 5%, we can include such beliefs as outright paganism, polytheism, and others, all of which stand as a contradiction to atheism. In short, atheism, taken globally and historically, is profoundly weird, amounting to less than 5% of the entire world's population at the moment (let alone all of history). So if anything, we should be skeptical of atheism as our default position.

Notice, this is NOT an argument of X is popular and therefore true. Nor is it an argument that you should believe X because it's popular. It's an argument about where default skepticism should lie. If "everybody knows" something, the contrarians hold a preponderance of burden to show that everybody is wrong. In our case, everybody knows that atheism is wrong. So the atheist bears a preponderance of the burden to show that the reverse is the case.

Perhaps a bit more substantially, these facts might indicate that the atheist is blind to what is obvious to everyone else. Namely, that the world is comprised of more than just physical stuff (indeed, some -- a larger proportion of the world than that claimed by atheists -- argue that the universe of matter is actually illusory!). There's something deeply spiritual about it. It's either spirit itself or is incompletely described by appeal to physics and chemistry and their derivatives, as useful as those descriptions have proved to be.

So yes, I argue that atheists are blind to certain aspects of reality.

 

[Magic Man]

Prove that humans aren't blind to God's existence

Why? Can you prove that we are blind to God's existence? The main idea is that it doesn't matter whether or not God exists. Even if such a being exists, the major religions are not right about it, and I don't feel the need to live my life as if it does exist. I don't need to prove it doesn't exist any more than I feel you need to prove it does exist.

 

[logician]

I have a great respect for people who demand evidence for belief. I think that it is an important class of people in religion, a safeguard against fraud. But I think that it is also important to consider, as a skeptic, EVERY possibility, and not just the ones that we are comfortable accepting.

For example, it is very easy for a skeptic to be skeptical of the existence of God. But a REAL skeptic should be just as unbiased towards the idea that God doesn't exist. That is not to say that it is wrong to choose one over the other to be more likely, but I don't think that it is honest to be 100% confident in one or the other (from a skeptical mindset).

Skepticism isn't about not believing ANYTHING until it is justified by evidence. It's about always accepting the possibility that there are things unknown, not made clear, about what is known, to challenge what is accepted, to not accept anything 100%.

With that in mind, I bring up this question: how can we be sure that God isn't completely evident? Why is the assumption made that OUR perspective, the skeptic, is unbiased and clear? I don't think you can really be 100% sure, one way or the other, that it is God that is unseen or that it is humans who fail to see what is visible. Every day, there are new discoveries, new aspects of science and nature that we must come to understand, things we were never aware of. Should we not hold then that there may always be more and more that becomes visible that was at one time apparently non-existent? Do new discoveries REALLY shrink God? Or does it diminish only our previous understanding of the greatness of God? I think it depends on what kind of God it was you believed in in the first place. To me, the more I learn about nature and science, the more I marvel at its complexity and intricacy, the more I begin to comprehend the unfathomable infiniteness to everything that is. To me, this INCREASES my God instead of shrinking him.

I think all you're trying to say here is that atheism is not an acceptable stance, of which I am very skeptical.

 

[Gunfingers]

@Dunemeister: The problem is that default position is completely subjective to the individual. To some people the default is God, others no God, still others Zeus, and to some it's the default that JFK was killed by the CIA. It's not really all that relevant anyway because...

Skepticism should be universal

I started at the default of "there is a God" and ended up an atheist. Seems to be a common motif with catholics. *shrug*.

On the one hand, it seems remarkably improbable existence could be at all without being brought into being somehow. There's still no explanation for how that happened as the furthest we can go back is the beginning of the universe. How the critical mass that caused the big bang got there is a complete mystery.

By contrast, it also seems remarkable improbable that someone would create existence, then sit on his hands for 10 billion years waiting for one particular planet to appear and another four for it to spawn life, evolve it into "his image" and then tell one particular tribe of desert people how to live.

Pretty much anyone reading this will look at one of these and think it's not improbable at all, and which one it is will reflect where there skepticism lead them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

By contrast, it also seems remarkable improbable that someone would create existence, then sit on his hands for 10 billion years waiting for one particular planet to appear and another four for it to spawn life, evolve it into "his image" and then tell one particular tribe of desert people how to live.

Not if time doesn't matter.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

" If through His infinite mercy, you have had a personal experience already of the matters herein written, your heart will be filled with thanksgiving and praise as you read. If not, you will find many things strange, and it would not be surprising if you should be ready to pronounce some untrue. But beware of being wise in your own conceit! The Spirit of God, that searcheth the deep things of God, alone can decide."

"Do not distrust the reports of these spies whom God has sent before you into the promised land. It is a land flowing with milk and honey; true, the children of Anak are there, in whose sight we are but as grasshoppers, but they are bread for us. The Lord God, He it is that shall fight for us, and He will surely bring us into that exceeding good land."

"The natural man receiveth not the things of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. If, then, you have not experienced the things that you find here written, think it not strange that they should seem foolish and false; in God's own time they shall be perceived, if you follow on in Him."

"If you will be advised by one who knows nothing, and who is least in the household of faith, you will deny nothing — reject nothing — despise nothing, lest haply you be found fighting against God; you will receive nothing but what is accompanied by the Amen of the Spirit of God in your heart; all else shall be as the idle wind. Reading thus, in absolute dependence, not upon man's wisdom or teaching, but upon the utterances of the blessed Spirit within, you shall infallibly be guided into all Truth. Such is the promise of Him who cannot lie. "

"And may His blessing rest upon you!" James W. Metcalf — 1853

 

[Halcyon]

I have a great respect for people who demand evidence for belief. I think that it is an important class of people in religion, a safeguard against fraud. But I think that it is also important to consider, as a skeptic, EVERY possibility, and not just the ones that we are comfortable accepting.

For example, it is very easy for a skeptic to be skeptical of the existence of God. But a REAL skeptic should be just as unbiased towards the idea that God doesn't exist. That is not to say that it is wrong to choose one over the other to be more likely, but I don't think that it is honest to be 100% confident in one or the other (from a skeptical mindset).

Skepticism isn't about not believing ANYTHING until it is justified by evidence. It's about always accepting the possibility that there are things unknown, not made clear, about what is known, to challenge what is accepted, to not accept anything 100%.

I agree.

With that in mind, I bring up this question: how can we be sure that God isn't completely evident? Why is the assumption made that OUR perspective, the skeptic, is unbiased and clear? I don't think you can really be 100% sure, one way or the other, that it is God that is unseen or that it is humans who fail to see what is visible.

You mean how can anyone be an atheist?

Well, you don't need to be 100% sure that a God doesn't exist not to believe in one. I'm not 100% sure that there isn't a man living in my attic space, I can't actually get up there to check but from all the evidence that is at my disposal I don't have any that could lead me to the conclusion that there is a guy up there.
The same goes for God - could there be a deity looking down on me that I am unaware of? Of course there could. Do I see any evidence for one, or is there any basis in my day-to-day life to draw the conclusion that there is? No.

Therefore I don't actively believe in a deity because I lack any reason too, not because I believe there isn't one.

This is where you're wrong. In questions of existence, non-existence is the default assumption. Just as in the American legal system, a person is "innocent until proven guilty", a thing which might or might not exist is "non-existent until proven existent". For other examples of this concept, see leprechauns, faeries, and dragons, which the vast majority of people assume don't exist because there is no solid proof that they exist.

I think this is flawed logic - the default should be no assumption until an investigation is undertaken and evidence for or against its existence analysed. So it wouldn't be "non-existent until proven existent" it would be "unverified until investigated."

 

[tomspug]

Many fantasy creatures can be explained scientifically. (that doesn't mean they exist)

Dragons: one of the initial reactions to Dinosaur fossils, in addition to giants, etc. (and there was a documentary about how dragons could possibly exist; Dragon's World; only one part I disagree on)
Leprechauns: Irish midgets
Faeries: Fireflies
Unicorns: I actually wouldn't be surprised if they did exist at one point, as horses are distantly related to other animals that have horns, such as goats, bison, etc.
Mermaids: long, slender fish with long fins that vaguely resemble human hands


My point is, comparing God to them is a bit inappropriate. God has no physical manifestation, in the likeness of anything we know about. (in my opinion, giving him, or any god, an image is idolatrous) As to existence, well, it's already pretty clear that what we perceive is far, far less that .00000000000000000000... 1% of what's actually there.

And comparing American politics with scientific skepticism isn't very appropriate either. With politics, it can only be one thing or the other; there's neither room nor time for a middle-ground. With science, there's more than enough room and time for a middle-ground, and making a claims like "God doesn't exist because there's no proof of it" is the same thing as saying "Flight is a scientific impossibility" or "there is no separate continent between Europe and Asia" or one of my favorites, "you'll die if you go seventy miles per hour".

Actually, what's interesting about this post is how you determine that mythology is not based on non-existence but upon elaboration. In other words, if you look at the concept of God from a mythological standpoint, you get something much closer to what Father Heathen is saying. Even if religious beliefs are mythological, they are probably based off of SOMETHING similar. For example, one could argue that Jesus did not perform miracles, but it is more than likely that the stories about him are AT LEAST consistent in that he was KNOWN for performing miracles, whether or not they were real or for show.

 

[tomspug]

Agreed.


Okay, I feel compelled to pick this apart. First, "being visible" would be being what is seen. The assumption is made that our perspective is good because we really have it --we really do see things. Of what we see, "clear" is what we see, although "biased" is also what we see, biased in favour of our ability. No one sees unbiased --this is part of skepticism. New aspects of science --things previously unseen that we are now made aware of --have become seen. The skeptic does hold that there will always be new things to "become seen" --this too is part of what lends skepticism to the things currently seen. The idea that new discoveries "shrink" G-d is not the skeptics idea, but one posed in his stead. I do agree with your conclusion, that it is only a particiular image of "God" that is damaged by new discoveries/greater knowledge. That would, in my opinion, not be the agnostic theist's G-d.

See, here's the thing, though. I see God all around me. I see Him in my life, in nature, and in the lives of others. Now, an atheist would automatically write me off as being wrong. But a SKEPTIC would take both MY perspective and an atheists with a grain of salt. How can you REALLY tell who is an authority on seeing God? My belief is not justified by my belief and neither is his.

 

[tomspug]

Why? Can you prove that we are blind to God's existence?

Exactly. Although I would have appreciated it if you'd actually responded to the post.