What we mean by "there is no evidence for theism"

[TransmutingSoul]

You asked me:

And I told you. Your responding with some text from your alleged messenger is dishonest.

No, it is really total honesty, and your response has been repeated in the past by people who actually lived in the time of Baha’u’llah.

Regards Tony

 

[AlexanderG]

So how do you know, that the universe, you are in, is not a Boltzmann Brain universe? That is epistemology in the end. So you just answer. how you know?

If I were in fact in that sort of universe, then there would still be no evidence that any gods exist. Right?

If I told you that I owned 20 Lamborghinis, but you didn't believe me and asked to see some of them in my garage so you could reasonably believe me, and I replied by asking you how do you even know if the reality you perceive is real, and how do you even justify logic and reason, and therefore why should I even show you the cars....would that help to convince you that the cars were real? Or would it sound like a diversionary tactic to avoid producing the evidence for my claim? I see this tactic a lot, and you're not actually helping your case. Bringing up unfalsifiable speculation and asking me how I could falsify it will not impact my reasonable standards of evidence (any reliable way to show an idea isn't just imaginary), nor the fact that you don't meet these standards.

It comes across as telling me plainly that you have no good evidence, but without using those exact words. It's ok. You can just say it.

 

[ppp]

No, it is really total honesty, and your response has been repeated in the past by people who actually lived in the time of Baha’u’llah.

Regards Tony

It was total dishonesty, because the question was, "What proof would you ask for, other than the proof the Messenger offers?" Claims about there being a messenger of a god carries no weight until first, the god has been produced, and second, that god asserts that that guy is his messenger.

Nobody's word is good enough, except for the god's.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It was total dishonesty, because the question was, "What proof would you ask for, other than the proof the Messenger offers?" Claims about there being a messenger of a god carries no weight until first, the god has been produced, and second, that god asserts that that guy is his messenger.

Nobody's word is good enough, except for the god's.

You are talking past the point made.

You have already been told there is no proof of God available but via the Messenger.

That was the lead to the question asked. Knowing this what proof can be provided?

If you are not understanding this, sorry I can not say it any other way.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I were in fact in that sort of universe, then there would still be no evidence that any gods exist. Right?

If I told you that I owned 20 Lamborghinis, but you didn't believe me and asked to see some of them in my garage so you could reasonably believe me, and I replied by asking you how do you even know if the reality you perceive is real, and how do you even justify logic and reason, and therefore why should I even show you the cars....would that help to convince you that the cars were real? Or would it sound like a diversionary tactic to avoid producing the evidence for my claim? I see this tactic a lot, and you're not actually helping your case. Bringing up unfalsifiable speculation and asking me how I could falsify it will not impact my reasonable standards of evidence (any reliable way to show an idea isn't just imaginary), nor the fact that you don't meet these standards.

It comes across as telling me plainly that you have no good evidence, but without using those exact words. It's ok. You can just say it.

I have no good evidence, that objective reality is either natural or supernatural. And if you have solved that, you are the first one in recorded history.

 

[ppp]

You have already been told there is no proof of God available but via the Messenger.

Then there is no proof.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Then there is no proof.

That is but willing ignorance, which is a choice we can have. I have finished discussing this with you now.

All the best,

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

That is but willing ignorance, which is a choice we can have. I have finished discussing this with you now.

All the best,

Regards Tony

A person speaking is never sufficient evidence of a novel subject. What ever you do, do not respond.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

that really didn't address the question.

Euh... it directly addresses it.

Your posts present 2 opposing viewpoints on a particular phenomenon in the universe and you then ask the question how one tells who is right and who is wrong.
If the answer to that is not "evidence", then I don't know what to tell you.

How do you otherwise tell true claims from false claims, if not with the help of evidence?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No, that’s a nonsense. The reasons for my belief are personal, and experiential. I have no interest in trying to impose them on you or anybody else. On this forum, at least, it seems that only a coterie of atheist fundamentalists are interested in doing that.

I have no belief I am trying to foist on you... except the belief that your beliefs are sitting on completely insubstantial ground. That's all. I don't have some "worldview" I want you to accept. I just want you to admit that you have been eating from a trough full of fecal matter and that that is what you are personally willing to call by the monicker "truth."

So even if these things you base your faith on are "experiential" and "personal" that still means that you must, on some level, realize that they are not worthwhile justifications to share with others - even if you have no interest in doing so. Likely you have no interest in doing so because you have witnessed firsthand the sorts of trouble this gets you (and others) into, and also witnessed firsthand your inability to satisfy even the simplest forms of scrutiny. And in that realization, you must necessarily admit that even your own justifications that you have built this "faith" on should not be considered worthwhile in any general sense. I myself hold plenty of beliefs (tepidly, awaiting better evidence, and not allowing them to, in any way, hold sway over my life and livelihood) that I readily admit that I do not have substantial enough support for sharing with others beyond a simple "well, it could be this" - but if pressed, I don't say, "well, it is true for me." That would be ridiculous. I say "yeah, I could be entirely wrong - I don't know for sure. It's just an idea I kick around from time to time that appears to fit the available observations."

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have no belief I am trying to foist on you... except the belief that your beliefs are sitting on completely insubstantial ground. That's all. I don't have some "worldview" I want you to accept. I just want you to admit that you have been eating from a trough full of fecal matter and that that is what you are personally willing to call by the monicker "truth."

So even if these things you base your faith on are "experiential" and "personal" that still means that you must, on some level, realize that they are not worthwhile justifications to share with others - even if you have no interest in doing so. Likely you have no interest in doing so because you have witnessed firsthand the sorts of trouble this gets you (and others) into, and also witnessed firsthand your inability to satisfy even the simplest forms of scrutiny. And in that realization, you must necessarily admit that even your own justifications that you have built this "faith" on should not be considered worthwhile in any general sense. I myself hold plenty of beliefs (tepidly, awaiting better evidence, and not allowing them to, in any way, hold sway over my life and livelihood) that I readily admit that I do not have substantial enough support for sharing with others beyond a simple "well, it could be this" - but if pressed, I don't say, "well, it is true for me." That would be ridiculous. I say "yeah, I could be entirely wrong - I don't know for sure. It's just an idea I kick around from time to time that appears to fit the available observations."

You don’t seem very happy or content though, if I may say so. Hardly a great advertisement for your tepid belief system. How is your life and livelihood working out for you, free from the sway of conviction or faith?

 

[Windwalker]

I have no belief I am trying to foist on you... except the belief that your beliefs are sitting on completely insubstantial ground. That's all.

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to comment. Can't anyone understanding this as saying, "All I want to do is prove to you that I'm right and you're wrong"? Isn't that what she said about "imposing" your views upon others?

Also, I note you say that her beliefs, or theistic beliefs in general we can assume, are "sitting on completely insubstantial ground". If someone claims personal experience, how is that insubstantial? I'd say that is a lot more substantial than just beliefs, wouldn't you? Experience always trumps mere ideas and speculations, and it also trumps faith itself.

I don't have some "worldview" I want you to accept.

A non-theistic worldview, apparently? Else why feel the need to tell someone that their theistic views are "sitting on completely insubstantial ground"?

I just want you to admit that you have been eating from a trough full of fecal matter and that that is what you are personally willing to call by the monicker "truth."

Not only is this trying to foist your views on her, you insult her views, and those of all theists by extension, and position your own as the right, correct superior views.

From my perspective, atheism, theism, pantheism, panentheism, non-theism, agnosticism, are all equally valid and respectable points of view. Do you hear her calling your atheism "eating from a trough full of fecal matter"? No.

I'd like to point something out here. While you appear to identify with atheism (I may be wrong here), I'd like to point out that that really isn't atheism. It's anti-theism. Anti-theism is more than just a lack of belief in God or the Divine. It specifically attacks theism as inferior, stupid, evil, wrongheaded, and all manner of negative points of view about it.

Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and "New Atheists" aren't new, aren't even atheists

So even if these things you base your faith on are "experiential" and "personal" that still means that you must, on some level, realize that they are not worthwhile justifications to share with others - even if you have no interest in doing so.

Love is a personal experience, and when someone experiences it, it tends to be something that they want to share with everyone. "I'm in love!" is joy, and joy is something humans naturally wish to share. Only sourpusses want to throw wet blankets on that. "Love, there is no such thing as love. I've never felt it. It doesn't exist! You're just delusional. "

Likely you have no interest in doing so because you have witnessed firsthand the sorts of trouble this gets you (and others) into, and also witnessed firsthand your inability to satisfy even the simplest forms of scrutiny.

A lot of religious people of faith don't share their views about God with Christian fundamentalists for the exact same reason they don't want to with atheist fundamentalists (anti-theists). Both of are simply needing to have the view of others be wrong so that they can defend their own to themselves. That's not actually a discussion of perspectives. That's just a black and white, I'm right and you're wrong, type of thinking.

And in that realization, you must necessarily admit that even your own justifications that you have built this "faith" on should not be considered worthwhile in any general sense.

Faith can be defended on rational basis quite easily. But in my experience, that doesn't matter to those who are adamant they have found the real truth, and all others are wrong. There's a saying I find absolutely true in this regard. "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still". That explains fundamentalists, either theistic and or atheist, quite well.

Fundamentalism is not what you believe, but how you believe.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You don’t seem very happy or content though, if I may say so. Hardly a great advertisement for your tepid belief system. How is your life and livelihood working out for you, free from the sway of conviction or faith?

Making more assumptions based on poor evidence I see. Typical.

When have we discussed my personal life or level of contentedness/happiness? What about my dislike for religion indicates anything about my disposition in other parts of my life, do you think? I also have a distinct distaste for people who over-indulge in alcohol and tend to give people a pretty hard time when their drunken antics spill over into my life. I also don't think people who smoke are very responsible with their own health, and have been known to criticize them with this very information, or pointedly make myself scarce when they light up a cigarette. Does the fact that I don't put up with behaviors I don't like, and criticize people for such make me an "unhappy person," do you think? What is it about the target of criticism being religion that makes you feel justified in believing that a person must be "unhappy" to be going after religion in such a manner? Seriously... what rational justification can you POSSIBLY have? I don't believe you can have any... but will obviously await your presentation of evidence that you do have adequate justification for believing so.

As it happens... I feel very strongly that the sorts of realizations I have come to by not just eschewing, but actively criticizing religion are some of the things that have helped me remain the most content. No joke, and no exaggeration. And it is to the point that I literally enjoy shaking the foundations of people's faith - making them think about things differently, and confront the FACT that there are people who think very differently than they do. Nearly always there is a squirming directly into exactly what you are doing now... denouncing my behavior and claiming that I must be "very unhappy" to be going about the business of criticizing them or their ideas. What hogwash.

I can tell you one thing... people around me complain and cavil all the time about the general comings and goings of life, and do you know what my mind works over while they are speaking - I simply don't relate. Things that are simply the parameters within which we exist do not serve as evidence that someone is out to get you. It is very, very odd listening to people relay how fed up with life they are, and how this or that just "shouldn't be." And for what? A moment's reprieve as the person next to you nods in agreement and you have some fleeting feeling of being understood? Preposterous. Those who complain, and are unhappy, and can't be content don't even understand a lick of what this all is anyway in my opinion, and I feel it is their perspective on things in many cases that continues to allow them to feel these "grievances." And even if I am completely wrong in those opinions, and it has nothing to do with anything in reality, then I am still content and happy with myself nearly all of the time. My perspective affords me this, and I find myself with nothing to complain about extremely often. You're so "barking up the wrong tree" with this "you must be unhappy" garbage its pathetic. I shouldn't even have responded. The idea wasn't worth this much time. You're just wrong, and have no idea how wrong, and it isn't like I can prove any of this to you in some meaningful way. But again... none of that matters. I am still what I am, and happy with what I am, and I don't need your approval to continue doing exactly what it is that I do to keep myself content or happy.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to comment. Can't anyone understanding this as saying, "All I want to do is prove to you that I'm right and you're wrong"? Isn't that what she said about "imposing" your views upon others?

And what would I end up being "right" about, do you think? The only thing I could possibly be right about is that the beliefs in things like God or an afterlife or "the supernatural" have very poor validating bases. That's all that I could possibly be "right" about because that is all I am proposing. I don't have some other idea to offer to replace any of your crappy ones. I'm not trying to get anyone to side with me on a particular idea. If anything, the only thing I advocate is that people don't get wrapped up in claiming the truth of ideas without substantial evidential warrant and comport with reality. And especially do not do so at the behest of someone else who, from the start, also has poor validating basis for their ideas. Don't accept what someone is telling you at face value unless the idea is such a miniscule thing that it literally doesn't matter whether or not you accept it (like someone telling you they have a pet dog).

Also, I note you say that her beliefs, or theistic beliefs in general we can assume, are "sitting on completely insubstantial ground". If someone claims personal experience, how is that insubstantial? I'd say that is a lot more substantial than just beliefs, wouldn't you? Experience always trumps mere ideas and speculations, and it also trumps faith itself.

Personal experience is great... but personal experience that CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED TO ANYONE ELSE to be valid is trash - IF you are in the business of trying to convince anyone of the rectitude of your experience's description of some portion of reality. My sister once tried to convince me that her dreams were so real that she was traumatized by them. This is the kind of pitfall you face when you allow "personal experience" alone to trump "personal experience plus an ability to share the results with others." If she were to simply accept that, because she can't share her dreams with others, it means that they have no actual sway on the reality we inhabit, then her perspective on what happened in those dreams might be very different. Tempered in a way that wouldn't let them hold such massive sway over her psyche. When you hold in grand esteem those "personal experiences" that have no outward facing reality then you are just fooling yourself. It isn't admirable, it isn't "spiritual." It's goofiness paraded around as some kind of profound "journey." It's a joke.

Not only is this trying to foist your views on her, you insult her views, and those of all theists by extension, and position your own as the right, correct superior views.

Again... what view is it that I am pushing? Besides a negation of the idea that the actual view in question carries substantial enough weight to be warranted? What positive aspect or "view" am I pushing? Please tell me.

Just think of it this way - if someone draws a shape, and tells you that it is a circle, but from what you can see, while you may not be sure what the shape is called or what it ultimately is, you are pretty sure that it doesn't fit the REALITY of what something should be when it is deemed "circular" then is it pushing your views on that person to inform them that you think their ideas about that shape they drew being a circle are unfounded and that they should probably re-assess and take better stock of the evidence they are using to determine that the shape was a circle? Is it pushing your views on someone to inform them that you think they aren't using the best methods of knowledge, evidence and rational thinking to have come to their chosen conclusion? Am I informing them that: "No, that shape is a blibfargle."? No. I'm not doing that. I am simply informing them that I believe that their foundations for calling the thing a circle need some work.

From my perspective, atheism, theism, pantheism, panentheism, non-theism, agnosticism, are all equally valid and respectable points of view. Do you hear her calling your atheism "eating from a trough full of fecal matter"? No.

And as an atheist, what, exactly (As in PRECISELY described) would I be "eating?" Who is it that you feel is informing me what to believe? Who came up with the story that atheism follows? What "truth" value does atheism hold? There are not these things in atheism. You apparently have very little idea what you are talking about.

I'd like to point something out here. While you appear to identify with atheism (I may be wrong here), I'd like to point out that that really isn't atheism. It's anti-theism. Anti-theism is more than just a lack of belief in God or the Divine. It specifically attacks theism as inferior, stupid, evil, wrongheaded, and all manner of negative points of view about it.

I am both atheist and anti-theist. I dislike theism, and I am not ashamed to admit it. And I dislike it precisely for its propensity to assert truths based on nothing but articles like "personal experience" (you guessed it - the kind that cannot be effectively shared or re-distributed to anyone else).

Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and "New Atheists" aren't new, aren't even atheists

Don't care about your links... don't care what anyone else has to say about "atheism" or what it is or isn't. You want to distill this down? I simply won't believe in anything being "god" without extremely good evidence that said "thing" can be described by such a loaded moniker. On top of this, anyone who pretends that things are "god" without having such extremely good evidence and wants to pass this idea around and get others on board is going to meet hardline resistance in myself, who will be there to ask the questions that will poke holes all through their ideas and make sure that either they have the extremely good evidence and an air-tight story, or they don't get to simply parade their ideas around as "truth" without opposition. That's me. Like it or not... criticize or shame me or not. I don't care. I will be there... 24/7 with bells on.

Love is a personal experience, and when someone experiences it, it tends to be something that they want to share with everyone. "I'm in love!" is joy, and joy is something humans naturally wish to share. Only sourpusses want to throw wet blankets on that. "Love, there is no such thing as love. I've never felt it. It doesn't exist! You're just delusional. "

Someone claiming they are "in love" has zero effect on my life and livelihood - neither explicitly or implicitly. Zero. Someone claiming that something is an all-powerful being, or holds sway over my life, or scripts the very fabric of existence, or literally IS the very fabric of existence? Well now that's omething different entirely. Again... someone can tell me "I own a dog." and I won't bat an eye. Maybe I say "Good for you, man." or "So... what?" Someone tells me, instead, "Hey, God loves you, and I just want you to know that whatever His plans are for your life, He's in control and it will all turn out as He planned it in the end." then we have a problem. I can't just say "Good for you, man." They've now just made this pronouncement personal, and made the claim that I am not in control of my life, or that I should (by implication) be reciprocating this "love" being sent my way from some abstract "thing" that I can't detect or understand the source of. We've now just crossed into the territory where A LOT of questions need to be answered.

A lot of religious people of faith don't share their views about God with Christian fundamentalists for the exact same reason they don't want to with atheist fundamentalists (anti-theists).

Good. There is absolutely NO REASON to go around sharing them anyway... unless there IS good reason. And by "good reason" I mean that you have the evidence that demonstrates how all of your stories are applicable and helpful to every human being on the planet.

That's just a black and white, I'm right and you're wrong, type of thinking.

Again, what would I, personally, end up being "right" about? I've already got the "foundations are poor because they cannot be shared/evidence with the rest of humanity" bit on my side. What more do I need to be "right" about the idea that the foundations are poor? And remember... if you claim that "personal experience" ALONE is "good enough," then you are agreeing with my sister that she should genuinely have been traumatized by her dreams. That it should be completely acceptable to take the "personal experience" of dreams and claim that it was real enough to claim that those things that happened in the dream actually DID happen to you.

Faith can be defended on rational basis quite easily. But in my experience, that doesn't matter to those who are adamant they have found the real truth, and all others are wrong.

If you reply to nothing else from this reply post of mine - please answer what it is EXACTLY that is the "truth" that I have supposedly found in your estimation. What "truth" is it? Please. I'm dying to hear what you have as answer to this.

 

[Windwalker]

And what would I end up being "right" about, do you think? The only thing I could possibly be right about is that the beliefs in things like God or an afterlife or "the supernatural" have very poor validating bases.

That's what you believe you are right about, and that others are wrong about. You see that they are wrong in their beliefs, and you are right about that. You believe that experience is not a valid basis for belief, and they are wrong to believe that it is. Hence, "I am right, and you are wrong".

That's all that I could possibly be "right" about because that is all I am proposing. I don't have some other idea to offer to replace any of your crappy ones.

I don't have crappy ideas. You assume they must be crappy, because you believe that God cannot possibly be valid, and you believe firmly that you are right about that, to the exclusion of others' points of view, even outright calling the crappy even though you don't actually know what I believe. That's a very religious approach, IMHO.

I'm not trying to get anyone to side with me on a particular idea.

Other than to agree with you that their ideas are crap, you mean?

If anything, the only thing I advocate is that people don't get wrapped up in claiming the truth of ideas without substantial evidential warrant and comport with reality.

But when they say they have evidence to support their views, you dismiss it and call it crap. Hence, they aren't just believing for no reason whatsoever, which is what you wish for them, but when you don't like their conclusions, you attack them.

Personal experience is great... but personal experience that CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED TO ANYONE ELSE to be valid is trash

Can I demonstrate the experience of swimming in a lake, for example? Yes. You can see my wet clothes and hair. That's a demonstration of the wetness of the lake, for instance. But I cannot prove to you the experience itself. For that, you have to go jump in a lake yourself.

Can you demonstrate the taste of an orange? Perhaps yes you can by the smile on your face. But for the other person to understand what it is you mean by the taste of an orange, they have to have the experience themselves firsthand. Nothing terribly mysterious or invalid here in the claims that someone says they experience the divine. If you don't know what that is, you have to actually experience it yourself. In the meantime, all they can do is attempt to describe it to you. But that's not proof, of course. Proof is direct experience.

My sister once tried to convince me that her dreams were so real that she was traumatized by them.

Why wouldn't that be valid? Haven't you ever awakened from a nightmare and felt disturbed by it? Nothing terribly odd about this. If someone dreamt of being repeatedly stabbed by someone, I'm pretty sure that would leave an imprint on one's psyche, and depending on the person, that could be traumatic.

Why would you dismiss that out of hand? Because you wouldn't be? Do you judge all truth and reality for others from a position of you at the true center of reality? "If it's not true for me, it can't be for anyone else either, because I'm not like that!" That appears rather delusional, don't you think?

When you hold in grand esteem those "personal experiences" that have no outward facing reality then you are just fooling yourself. It isn't admirable, it isn't "spiritual." It's goofiness paraded around as some kind of profound "journey." It's a joke.

Would you call a transformed life a joke? I think personal experience of the divine, is life transforming for those who have that experience. Is there outward facing reality to those? Absolutely! A changed life is evidence of the validity of the experience itself. It is a manifestation that something profound has actually happened. Alcoholics who give up drink for the rest of their lives, people who come out of lifelong depression, and so forth. These sorts of 'transcendent' experiences are not just in the head. They move out from inside to the outside and affect the whole person.

Why would you call that a joke? Because you want to be a wet blanket? "There is no such thing as love! I've never experienced that, so it doesn't exist. It's not real! You only think it's real. It's all in your head."

Again... what view is it that I am pushing?

Anti-theism.

Besides a negation of the idea that the actual view in question carries substantial enough weight to be warranted? What positive aspect or "view" am I pushing? Please tell me.

You're not pushing a positive view. Only a negative one. That's the issue.

I am both atheist and anti-theist. I dislike theism, and I am not ashamed to admit it. And I dislike it precisely for its propensity to assert truths based on nothing but articles like "personal experience" (you guessed it - the kind that cannot be effectively shared or re-distributed to anyone else).

So you can't allow others to hold a belief based upon their experiences, because that's not good enough reason for you? You therefore need to evangelize them to your beliefs? Push your views upon them by belittling them and mocking their beliefs? Did you do this a staunch believing Christian talking to atheists back in your day as a True Believer, perchance? Just wondering.

Don't care about your links... don't care what anyone else has to say about "atheism" or what it is or isn't.

So you aren't actually interested in other points of view, regardless of how well considered they are. You're only interested in things that support what you believe. And you criticize theists? That's rich.

You want to distill this down? I simply won't believe in anything being "god" without extremely good evidence that said "thing" can be described by such a loaded moniker.

You won't believe anything anyone says that won't meet your ideas of the ways things should be, in other words. You don't listen when people explain their points of view. You just disregard them. This isn't actual atheism, nor rationality. It's just religious cynicism.

I think I've heard enough here.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You believe that experience is not a valid basis for belief, and they are wrong to believe that it is. Hence, "I am right, and you are wrong".

What I claim is that the "wrong" is in putting the thing forward, or adhering to it as "truth" when the foundations are in the state they must necessarily be in for an item like this. And guess what? If the state of the foundations are not in a poor state, then whatever it is that make the foundation "so strong" should be able to be demonstrated and shared with others! This is how nearly everything else of import that you accept when you are told by others must work before you accepted it. And yet you give this arena of thought ("god") the most ridiculous and merciful of hold-outs.

Example: say you own a dog and I come and tell you your dog is actually a shape-shifting monster - part of an army of such creatures that has been bent on taking the world over and subjugating humanity. I tell you this and do you believe me? I have effectively explained exactly why your dog looks like a dog even though it is actually a shape-changing monster. I can even retro-fit any part of my story to answer any of your questions - just like the theist does for excusing "god" from any and all scrutiny. For example, you ask "well then why does my dog have a dog's internal physiology?" - which is something we might be able to verify in our shared reality. And I can tell you - "Because the creatures have learned how to shape-shift their insides as well, to mirror the physiology of any other creature they are emulating." In other words - "magic" explains it, and this should be good enough for you, because I guarantee you have let explanations like that work for people telling you things about "god" in the past.

But you are going to need HUGE amounts of evidence to be convinced of this proposition I have put forth to you, because it doesn't match to the reality you feel you are experiencing. This is the exact, same boat myself, and people like me are in with claims of god. And you have just about the same ability to produce evidence for your god ideas as I would for my shape-shifter story.

Other than to agree with you that their ideas are crap, you mean?

Exactly. Yes. You seem to think this some kind of "gotcha" - but I have admitted as much. I am trying to get people to see their ideas through the eyes of a skeptic, and to understand that their ideas SHOULD NOT be accepted (keep in mind the "shape-shifter" story) until such time as they have produced evidence that can be shared and distributed among the rest of us.

But when they say they have evidence to support their views, you dismiss it and call it crap.

Evidence for this stuff comes in one of a few categories, and I have (probably to the point of it being a detriment to my ability to remain objective about it, I admit) come to a point of being nearly 100% confident that no one has anything better than these to offer, because this is all that is ever paraded around as "evidence":

• "This book (or person) says so" - and on top of this: "look at all the other things that this book (or person) says that are correct"
• "A personal experience" - we've gone around and around on this one already - it just isn't any good. If I had a "personal experience" involving something calling itself "god" but had absolutely no way to share it with or evidence it to anyone or have them experience it also, then I would, quite honestly, begin to question my reliability as a witness on this particular topic. Had I eaten something funny? What state was my mind in? The ability to SHARE THE RESULTS is CRUCIAL.
• "N,000,000,000 people just can't all be wrong!" Nothing to say on this one - typing it already took too long.
• "This long-winded mess of words sounds profound and logically constructed to me... therefore God." - these ones are the worst, because they attempt to take advantage of people's inability (or even lack of desire) to have to put the brain-power in to understand them fully in order to refute... and so some people are apt to just go directly to "Wow! That's amazing!"
• "Look at the world around you - how could this have happened by accident?" - obviously you can't just claim to know how it all just happened. You wouldn't stand for that from me if I had some wild tale or even sciency-sounding explanation, so WHY IN THE WORLD would I stand for this from you?
• "I just have feelings." - how thrilling... for you.

Hence, they aren't just believing for no reason whatsoever, which is what you wish for them

No... I do not think they are "believing for no reason whatsoever" - I have many, many times already stated that the reasons are insufficient or poor. WHY would I say that if I thought there were NO REASONS AT ALL?

Can I demonstrate the experience of swimming in a lake, for example? Yes. You can see my wet clothes and hair. That's a demonstration of the wetness of the lake, for instance. But I cannot prove to you the experience itself. For that, you have to go jump in a lake yourself.

EXACTLY!!!!! Thank you! And there you have it... in that particular instance I can LITERALLY jump into the lake and verify that your descriptions of your experience match to some of what I may feel. So, where's God so that I can jump into Him? Eh? Don't you see that we suddenly have a HUGE problem on our hands with respect to the idea that you might like to share such a thing with me? This is EXACTLY what I have been getting at.

Can you demonstrate the taste of an orange?

Yep. I can... by having someone else taste an orange after I describe it to them. And then, when I meet someone who literally can't taste the orange, do you know what could be done? A physical examination and testing of their array of senses to see what might be prohibiting them from tasting the orange. And, if I meet someone who just had "miracle fruit" and the orange tastes far sweeter than my description for them, do you know what we can do? We can ask them if they've had anything unusual to eat lately, perform another physical examination, or have them wait 24 hours and try another orange to see if their experience matches up to mine any better. Again... there are ACTUAL things we can do, and pointed steps we can take to see if our ability or inability to share the same experience is being hindered or fostered by any of a number of factors. Nothing like investigation into "god" claims. You have nowhere to turn, you have nothing to point to except other insufficient and biased sources of information.

Proof is direct experience.

This isn't accurate. Do you believe, truly, that you can trust yourself and your senses in all endeavors to be giving you the best information about the "truth" of the world around you? Do you? Because I do not. And I will OBVIOUSLY have even less trust in the senses of others. That's just a given for anyone. And so what are we left with? We're left with needing to lean on each other for verification of our ideas as pertains to reality! Minus this you may as well be making things up for all you have to corroborate that what you are experiencing is, indeed, some form of greater reality.

Why wouldn't that be valid? Haven't you ever awakened from a nightmare and felt disturbed by it?

But the problem is not in the feelings the dream evoked, but in the resistance to the realization that it didn't actually happen. To state that you are going to allow an experience you didn't even have to shape your feelings about reality. In my opinion, this is the same sort of resistance that theists pull to the fore to defend their personal experiences that lead them to believe in God.

Do you judge all truth and reality for others from a position of you at the true center of reality?

What did I just say about needing to rely on one another for validation of our ideas as they comport with reality? Would I be saying such things if I felt I were the center of "truth?" You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. It is purposeful, I understand, in order to try and be capable of knocking me down more easily. But you are just making things up and hoping that I don't refute you at this point.

Would you call a transformed life a joke?

The transformation, no. The foundations for the transformation - YES. Your problem here would be providing evidence that such a transformation literally required the item being served as the source of the transformation, and then beyond that, if the item is something of questionable reality (like "god") then you also have that to provide evidence for as well. Can people be moved and swayed by fictions? Of course! People read a book that really resonates with them, or they feel teaches them something important that they apply to their lives.This happens all the time. Does that make the fiction of the story they read "TRUE" and mean that what happened in the book happened in reality? No!

Why would you call that a joke? "There is no such thing as love! I've never experienced that, so it doesn't exist. It's not real! You only think it's real. It's all in your head."

Unfortunately for your little tirade here, you really can't get around the idea that love is, literally, all in someone's head. That's where the brain sits, and it is the governor of the decisions made and processor of input gathered. This would include processing of any and all evidence that someone piqued your interest, was attractive to you, reciprocated your feelings, was deemed worthy of your lasting love, etc. I don't discount that someone wants to make those types of determinations and decisions for themselves - again, the vast majority of people's choices of who to love does not affect my life or livelihood. Meaning I literally do not care enough to challenge them and go about the business of trying to somehow "prove" that they do or don't love anyone - I just take them at their word. And I don't expect that who I decide to love, or would like love reciprocated from should have any bearing on anyone else's assessments of what is important to them. And I am sure even you understand that if a person is close to you (let's say a sister or brother) and you see evidence that you believe displays that that person's spouse DOES NOT love them - then don't you have feelings about that? Might you not even try to say something, or warn your loved one of what to watch out for? Don't you then go on to try and observe more evidence (or lack thereof) to try and get a better sense of what is really going on there? Isn't that only natural? And again, in this instance... the real-world, observable evidence for something like "love" is infinitely more present than any evidence for "god" has ever been.

So you can't allow others to hold a belief based upon their experiences, because that's not good enough reason for you?

More because I believe that it shouldn't be good enough reason for anyone - including themselves. And I have already relayed plenty of the evidence I have backing up my beliefs of this.

You won't believe anything anyone says that won't meet your ideas of the ways things should be, in other words.

As soon as they admit that they can't actually share the knowledge or evidence of the reality of their claims with me in any meaningful way, but instead rely on statements like "You have to experience it for yourself" without ANY detailed or worthwhile instruction on how to achieve this thing... yeah... I am going to stop listening. And as it stands, you haven't even attempted to provide your own justifications. Why is that?

I think I've heard enough here.

Very, very obviously... you haven't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can I demonstrate the experience of swimming in a lake, for example? Yes. You can see my wet clothes and hair. That's a demonstration of the wetness of the lake, for instance. But I cannot prove to you the experience itself. For that, you have to go jump in a lake yourself.

But if your clothes and hair were completely dry, I wouldn't need to have jumped in a lake myself to say that you didn't just jump in the lake.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At its core, this topic boils down what is meant by "evidence."

I define evidence as "Anything that lets us reliably differentiate between ideas that are merely imaginary, and ideas that accurately describe reality."

So, if you propose some method, framework, or argument as evidence, but that same framework can equally support a contradictory conclusion by replacing some nouns in your argument, then this wouldn't count as evidence. For example, you can propose an eternal necessary god as the ultimate foundation of reality, but I can propose with no more or less evidence an eternal necessary aspect of nature instead, with brute-fact mindless properties that cause it to create the world exactly as we see it.

The best framework for creating reliable evidence that humans have identified is the scientific method. In particular, novel testable predictions that are tested and confirmed. If you think a different method also works, just demonstrate that and it will become part of science.

The scientific method outputs evidence that can support one predictive model while excluding that model's explanatory competitors. A "model" is a conceptual framework about how some aspect of reality works. Evidence is provided when a new prediction made by a model, that no one has tested before, is subsequently tested and confirmed to be accurate. A supported model is more likely to be objectively true than the unsupported models, but note that there is no "proof" or "truth" or metaphysical certainty. It simply has demonstrated that it reflects a deeper understanding of some part of reality.

In science, a very very supported model, which has made many new and accurate predictions, becomes a "theory." While every model is imperfect and has explanatory boundaries, the fact that they can predict things we don't know yet about reality is the hallmark of science and the method guiding its discoveries about the facts of reality. This is why we have airplanes, computers, and medicine today.

So far, theism as a model, as a conceptual framework about reality, has no evidence to support its accurate correspondence to reality. It also has no supporting evidence produced by the scientific method, and so it can't be meaningfully distinguished from the infinite array of other false imaginary models that don't accurately describe or correspond to reality. It could still be true, just like any of the other imaginary models have a tiny chance to be true, but that is a useless possibility because it is functionally zero. Theism in general isn't even a predictive model, just a post hoc sufficient explanation of the things we already knew; its various forms don't typically rise to the level of a testable hypothesis.

From everything I've ever seen, forms of evidence that theists propose are unreliable and/or fallacious. A fallacy is a way of reasoning, identified by logicians, that reliably leads to false conclusions. Another way to say this is that the arguments are not valid in logical structure, or the premises are not sound because they cannot be demonstrated. Here are some common argument forms proposed as evidence by theists, which are in fact not evidence:

1. "I believe that the book is true because the book says it contains perfect truth, and says it cannot be wrong." This is circular reasoning, a fallacy. It is not evidence because any other contradictory book making similar claims is equally supported.

2. "I define morality as coming from a god. We have morality. Therefore god exists," or "I define god as existing necessarily, therefore god exists." Definitions are not evidence. They describe our thoughts about abstract ideas in our heads. This is imagination. Nothing tethers it to the actual facts of reality.

3. "We don't have an explanation for X. I can imagine a thing G that, if it existed, would sufficiently explain X. Therefore this is evidence for G." This is not evidence, but a fallacy called the Argument from Ignorance. For any phenomenon, there are an infinite number of explanations we could propose that would sufficiently explain the phenomenon. The proposal by itself, of any one of these infinite explanations, is not evidence.

4. "I just can't imagine how life could arise without a guiding intelligence. A supernatural creator feels like the most probable explanation." This is an Argument from Incredulity, a fallacy. Your failure of imagination is not evidence, nor is your imagination evidence for reality. If you have an idea for an explanation, you need to show that it corresponds to reality with specific supporting evidence.

5. "I intuitively feel that god exists," or "I don't know how I would get out bed each morning if I didn't believe in god," or "I'm afraid of dying and god gives me hope for eternal life." Emotional appeal is not evidence that something is true. Subjective feelings are not evidence. Different people have wildly different and often contradictory emotional needs, intuitions, and hopes, depending on their culture and personality.

6. "Look at how influential religion X has been throughout history," or "look at how many people believe religion X." This is called a bandwagon fallacy. Different popular beliefs hold sway at different times, many of which are contradictory or have been proven factually wrong.

7. "I had an emotional experience at summer camp that one year, that I can't explain, and I know it was god filling me with love." Again, this is an argument from ignorance. Religious indoctrination primes people to interpret emotional feelings a certain way, but this is not evidence because nothing specifically supports this explanation over any other.

8. "We prayed and someone's cancer disappeared" or "I converted and my drug addiction went away." Anecdotes are not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data. There is a known rate of spontaneous remission for cancer, which occurs regardless of praying or not praying, or the religion of the patient. It occurs at similar rates in animals that have cancer. Likewise, people overcome drug addition through hobbies, marriage, divorce, and many other routes. There is no data that shows religiosity affects these ailments at a higher rather than anything else.

9. "I found a published paper that says light cures cancer, or consciousness is immaterial, or the earth is flat." Every group of experts includes a fringe minority with ideas that are not accepted by the majority consensus of experts in their field. A fringe view is not evidence. Publication of a finding does not make it evidence by itself; rather, the ability of the published finding to persuade the majority consensus of experts in the field is what transforms this finding into scientific evidence. This distinction, and this appeal to the scientific consensus, is often falsely labeled as a fallacious appeal to authority. However, this is only a fallacy when the proposed authority is not an actual authority (e.g. 90% of dentists agree that the Vikings are the best football team).

10. "I just have faith." Any idea can be believed on faith, therefore faith is not a reliable tool to distinguish false ideas from true ideas. Faith in the face of good evidence to the contrary is irrational.

Ok, that's enough for now! Sorry for the long post, but I hope this can be helpful for people. There are a lot of common arguments I didn't include, but they are also fallacious, unreliable methods for distinguishing imagination from reality.

I went down a rabbit hole recently on the Raven Paradox:

Raven paradox - Wikipedia

... and recently I realized that - depending on our view of what constitutes evidence - provides an unfathomably large body of evidence against the existence of gods.

Consider this statement: "all gods are non-existent."

This statement is logically equivalent to "if something is existent, it is not a god."

Evidence for that statement includes anything that we can observe a) existing and b) not being a god.

This means that when I see, say, toasters or trees that exist and are not gods, they're evidence for that second statement... and therefore also evidence for the claim that all gods are non-existent.

... depending on what our view of "evidence" is.

 

[ppp]

I went down a rabbit hole recently on the Raven Paradox:

Raven paradox - Wikipedia

... and recently I realized that - depending on our view of what constitutes evidence - provides an unfathomably large body of evidence against the existence of gods.

Consider this statement: "all gods are non-existent."

This statement is logically equivalent to "if something is existent, it is not a god."

Evidence for that statement includes anything that we can observe a) existing and b) not being a god.

This means that when I see, say, toasters or trees that exist and are not gods, they're evidence for that second statement... and therefore also evidence for the claim that all gods are non-existent.

... depending on what our view of "evidence" is.

I'll go and read the paradox later, but it really sounds like a black swan fallacy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll go and read the paradox later, but it really sounds like a black swan fallacy.

It's not; it's just counter-intuitive, and it raises questions about how we should treat evidence that accords with the claim we're evaluating but doesn't seem especially relevant.