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

[sandandfoam]

Most of those questions only matter in context. "Meaning" is what we say it is. "Value" is what we say it is. "God" is what we think it is. The "truth" is what is. Regardless of us. We are mostly blind and ignorant and we do the best we can within those limitations. There is no way to step out of this human condition, and look back at it, to see the "truth" of it. This is what we must accept. And once we do accept it, we are free to value as we please, and label as we please, and judge as we please. Though to what end, I have no idea. Perhaps simply to define ourselves as ourselves while we're here.

I agree. I was reading an old article about why things float from 'School science review'. In it the author (Nicholas Selley) argues that there is no absolute truth because all the evidence can never be available. What is important is for a student to find the model that is best for their present requirements. I think there is a lot of truth in that. I think as adults we are both our own students and our own teachers. I'll quote from the full piece below. I thought it was quite profound.
"..Right or wrong in science means agreement or disagreement between the hypothesis and the available evidence. It can never be the case that all the evidence is available, even to the experts (in fact I think the very idea is nonsense) - so there can be no absolute truth. There can, however, be provisional truth - and we should encourage respect for it.....
...Science teachers know of many similar instances where it is inappropriate to start to teach the orthodox theoretical model, even in simplified form. Electricity first enters the child's imagination as a surge of fluid along a wire (not necessarily even a circular flow), and the transfer of electrons from one orbital to another would be a distinctly unhelpful idea. Light is first thought of as a state of illumination, then as a kind of spray (like aerosol paint), and only much later as a wave motion with photon properties (or whatever). Models which are best for beginners may not even qualify as 'half-truths': e.g. Newtonian mechanics, such as the force of gravity, is immensely valuable, but is certainly not 'half-way' towards relativistic space time. All models have their strengths and weaknesses. It is up to the teacher to use his/her knowledge, skill and judgement to help his/her students to find the one which is best for them, and for their present requirements."

 

[Autodidact]

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 gather that you're an agnostic then?

 

[Autodidact]

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?

What search? I'm not searching for anything but the truth. And no, that search never ends.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

O.K., I'm completely open to the possibility that God may exist and just hasn't left any evidence of that yet. So might Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster. Meanwhile, in the interest of efficiency and enjoying my Sunday morning drinking coffee over the paper, I'll continue to operate on the assumption that He doesn't.

 

[tomspug]

I gather that you're an agnostic then?

If I was a skeptic by nature, I probably would be. But belief is pretty important to me.

 

[tomspug]

O.K., I'm completely open to the possibility that God may exist and just hasn't left any evidence of that yet. So might Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster. Meanwhile, in the interest of efficiency and enjoying my Sunday morning drinking coffee over the paper, I'll continue to operate on the assumption that He doesn't.

Has he not left evidence? Exactly what drew you to that conclusion?

 

[tomspug]

counter-question...if he was completely evident would you even have to ask that question? Doesn't the very idea that you have to question how evident God is or isn't suggest he/she/it is something less than completely, 100 % evident?

counter-counter-question: If there is a flaw with humanity, myself included, wouldn't the question be COMPLETELY necessary?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Has he not left evidence? Exactly what drew you to that conclusion?

At the risk of speaking for Auto, I'd say the complete lack of evidence of any kind ...

 

[Storm]

At the risk of speaking for Auto, I'd say the complete lack of evidence of any kind ...

Ah, but the "complete lack of evidence of any kind" is a matter of perspective. Which, at the risk of speaking for Tom , I believe was his point.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Ah, but the "complete lack of evidence of any kind" is a matter of perspective. Which, at the risk of speaking for Tom , I believe was his point.

Exactly. Except that Tom seems a little unwilling to grant the perspective of the non-believer.


PS - I did that at the risk of speaking for myself.

 

[Autodidact]

If I was a skeptic by nature, I probably would be. But belief is pretty important to me.

Oh, I see. We should be skeptical of God's non-existence, but you should not be skeptical of His existence?

 

[Autodidact]

Has he not left evidence? Exactly what drew you to that conclusion?

Not that I've noticed. Unless you're referring to the existence of the universe itself? If so, how on earth could you even begin to guess what that might be evidence of? Way outside the scope of our tiny abilities to guess at that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not that I've noticed. Unless you're referring to the existence of the universe itself? If so, how on earth could you even begin to guess what that might be evidence of? Way outside the scope of our tiny abilities to guess at that.

I disagree. There's plenty of evidence for theism.

The visions of the Oracle at Delphi were evidence for theism, as is the "Bible Code" that's been discussed at length elsewhere here. The many personal accounts of religious experiences are evidence for theism. An image of Jesus that appears on the side of a fridge in Olkahoma is evidence for theism.

Now... personally, I place very little weight on any of these pieces of evidence, and I think they're outweighed by other pieces of evidence against theism, but I do acknowledge that they exist.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I disagree. There's plenty of evidence for theism.

The visions of the Oracle at Delphi were evidence for theism, as is the "Bible Code" that's been discussed at length elsewhere here. The many personal accounts of religious experiences are evidence for theism. An image of Jesus that appears on the side of a fridge in Olkahoma is evidence for theism.

Now... personally, I place very little weight on any of these pieces of evidence, and I think they're outweighed by other pieces of evidence against theism, but I do acknowledge that they exist.

I see them not as evidence of God, but rather, a need to believe in His existence.

 

[PureX]

O.K., I'm completely open to the possibility that God may exist and just hasn't left any evidence of that yet. So might Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster. Meanwhile, in the interest of efficiency and enjoying my Sunday morning drinking coffee over the paper, I'll continue to operate on the assumption that He doesn't.

In the case of "God" however, it is also just as likely that EVERYTHING is evidence of God's existence. Which is why we can't recognize it as such. We have nothing to recognize it against, or in opposition to.

 

[PureX]

I agree. I was reading an old article about why things float from 'School science review'. In it the author (Nicholas Selley) argues that there is no absolute truth because all the evidence can never be available. What is important is for a student to find the model that is best for their present requirements. I think there is a lot of truth in that. I think as adults we are both our own students and our own teachers. I'll quote from the full piece below. I thought it was quite profound.
"..Right or wrong in science means agreement or disagreement between the hypothesis and the available evidence. It can never be the case that all the evidence is available, even to the experts (in fact I think the very idea is nonsense) - so there can be no absolute truth. There can, however, be provisional truth - and we should encourage respect for it.....
...Science teachers know of many similar instances where it is inappropriate to start to teach the orthodox theoretical model, even in simplified form. Electricity first enters the child's imagination as a surge of fluid along a wire (not necessarily even a circular flow), and the transfer of electrons from one orbital to another would be a distinctly unhelpful idea. Light is first thought of as a state of illumination, then as a kind of spray (like aerosol paint), and only much later as a wave motion with photon properties (or whatever). Models which are best for beginners may not even qualify as 'half-truths': e.g. Newtonian mechanics, such as the force of gravity, is immensely valuable, but is certainly not 'half-way' towards relativistic space time. All models have their strengths and weaknesses. It is up to the teacher to use his/her knowledge, skill and judgement to help his/her students to find the one which is best for them, and for their present requirements."

I truly wish more people understood this more clearly. There would be a whole lot less fighting, as no one would get to be more "right" than anyone else. In fact, it wouldn't be about righteousness, anymore. It'd be about function and purpose. Which is really what it's about, now, only we aren't recognizing it very well. *smile*

 

[Storm]

I see them not as evidence of God, but rather, a need to believe in His existence.

You illustrate my point that the evidence is determined by one's preexisting worldview, or perspective. How do you know your interpretation is the correct one?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You illustrate my point that the evidence is determined by one's preexisting worldview, or perspective. How do you know your interpretation is the correct one?

Odd that you ask that. As an agnostic, I hold the view that one cannot truly know if God exists.

Your question would be better posed to an atheist.

 

[Storm]

Odd that you ask that. As an agnostic, I hold the view that one cannot truly know if God exists.

Your question would be better posed to an atheist.

I thought of that as soon as I posted it.

 

[tomspug]

Oh, I see. We should be skeptical of God's non-existence, but you should not be skeptical of His existence?

OK, not everyone posts about themselves. This thread is about skeptic bias. Aligning skepticism with atheism is bias. I ALREADY SAID that a true skeptic would be skeptical of God's existence, but he would be skeptical of his non-existence WITH EQUAL MEASURE. Is that really so hard to understand?

Edit: Like I said, I'M not a skeptic. This was a post about skepticism. If I was a skeptic, would I be a Christian? Probably not. I'm a believer.