Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[Enai de a lukal]

So sorry, but YOU'RE clearly guilty of assertion without evidence here!

Perhaps if you were to explain, . . .

You had said-

The existence and non-existence of God are both equally unproveable in any objectcive fashion!

Which is simply mistaken. A much stronger argument can be given for the non-existence of any god, but especially the Christian one, than can be given for the existence of any god. There are the contradictory properties ascribed to God, for one thing. Then there is the failure of ANY god that I'm aware of to UNIQUELY ACCOUNT for any changes in the world. While not constituting a mathematical proof, these are decisive and sufficient reasons to reject the existence of any god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not everyone holds religion to be about an ontological model.

From what I've seen, more often its about a relation.

... which itself assumes an ontological model. A relationship with something that doesn't exist is delusional. AFAIK, most religious people hold the position that their beliefs are not delusional.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not everyone holds religion to be about an ontological model.

From what I've seen, more often its about a relation.

... which itself assumes an ontological model. A relationship with something that doesn't exist is delusional. AFAIK, most religious people hold the position that their beliefs are not delusional.

While I have no idea what "its about a relation" is supposed to mean, it is true that not all religions entail any ontological commitments; for instance, one can be a Buddhist without being committed to the existence (i.e. an ontological model or commitment) of any particular thing (gods, angels, whatever).

However, it is certainly true that the overwhelming majority of religions do entail ontological commitments- seeing as most religions posit the existence of a god or gods.

 

[Willamena]

... which itself assumes an ontological model. A relationship with something that doesn't exist is delusional. AFAIK, most religious people hold the position that their beliefs are not delusional.

Nevertheless, having a relation as the subject rather than a model is the distinction I made.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nevertheless, having a relation as the subject rather than the model is the distinction I made.

Yes, you said what you said. And then I pointed out that basing a religion on "relationship" presupposes the existence of the thing being related to, so the question of whether the thing exists is still relevant to a "relationship" religion.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, you said what you said. And then I pointed out that basing a religion on "relationship" presupposes the existence of the thing being related to, so the question of whether the thing exists is still relevant to a "relationship" religion.

Your point is noted, but not particularly relevant to what I said.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

While I have no idea what "its about a relation" is supposed to mean, it is true that not all religions entail any ontological commitments; for instance, one can be a Buddhist without being committed to the existence (i.e. an ontological model or commitment) of any particular thing (gods, angels, whatever).

However, it is certainly true that the overwhelming majority of religions do entail ontological commitments- seeing as most religions posit the existence of a god or gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your point is noted, but not particularly relevant to what I said.

My point is relevant to the discussion at hand. If it wasn't relevant to your post, it's because your post was a red herring.

While I have no idea what "its about a relation" is supposed to mean, it is true that not all religions entail any ontological commitments; for instance, one can be a Buddhist without being committed to the existence (i.e. an ontological model or commitment) of any particular thing (gods, angels, whatever).

However, it is certainly true that the overwhelming majority of religions do entail ontological commitments- seeing as most religions posit the existence of a god or gods.

Yes... and this thread is about theism, not about religion in general.

 

[ignition]

Religion is a personal decision about objective factual matters. It's not a subjective judgement like aesthetics: something could be beautiful for me but not for you, but the idea that a god created the universe and appointed prophets is either true or false, and is the sort of thing for which objective evidence would be expected, IMO.

I agree with that. But life is also built on 'patterns' so to speak, there are an astronomical number of things that you believe that are either false or true, but you believe they are true, without any "objective" evidence.

 

[Willamena]

My point is relevant to the discussion at hand. If it wasn't relevant to your post, it's because your post was a red herring.

Well, that explains a lot.

 

[McBell]

I agree with that. But life is also built on 'patterns' so to speak, there are an astronomical number of things that you believe that are either false or true, but you believe they are true, without any "objective" evidence.

And how many of those things does he not only present as an absolute truth, but also claims that if you disagree you will spend eternity in hell?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes... and this thread is about theism, not about religion in general.

That may be, but the claim in question at least appeared to have a wider scope than simply theism, i.e.

Religion is a personal decision about objective factual matters...

Not everyone holds religion to be about an ontological model.

From what I've seen, more often its about a relation.

In any case, what about Christian atheism? Sure, it may well be that theism, by definition, is committed to the existence of some god (so Christian atheism sort of paradoxically turns out to be a form of non-theism), but then again, Christian atheists and even sophisticated (or sophistry?) forms of protestantism are often formulated as commitment to a particular narrative (i.e. one in which this character, "God", figures prominently), without commiting one to any particular ontology or other...

 

[Sleeppy]

Ah, so then it is completely unfair for humans to punish each other for doing wrong because the one doing the wrong had absolutely no choice in the matter, right?

Children are sent to everything from prison to hell, because of what they do, and what society does to them. You tell me. I've sent no one to any hateful judgement.

 

[Sleeppy]

You aren't. You made an ontological claim:

The


part of your claim is refuted by your own statement. You cannot have either contained or obtained the ontological properties of knowledge itself. That entails infinite regress. You are making a claim about all knowledge that requires knowledge, and thus your statement is a member of the set it defines (this is where Frege failed as Russell demonstrated). You cannot make a claim about the properties of knowledge itself without the use of knowledge, and therefore you are using knowledge itself to define what properties of knowledge itself. If you don't like Russell's answer to this, just google the barber's paradox.



The great thing about logic is that even were I not paying attention, logical fallacies often need no context.

You know why I asked you to pay attention? Because the ontological statement you're attributing to me, was Riverwolf's. And I refuted it in logical manner as did Russell. Russell says obtaining knowledge requires knowledge, and so did I.

 

[Sleeppy]

Well, I don't know much about the brain, being in neuroscience and all, but I'm pretty sure consciousness remains an unsolved problem and that the over 2 years I spent (thinking it would be easy at first) focusing on quantum physics rather than neuroscience to show quantum theories of mind (like those of Stapp or Penrose), not to mention "quantum-like" consciousness, were wrong remain unfulfilled. Mostly, this is because quantum physics is mathematically precise and an ontological mess, and neuroscience isn't much better (at least when it comes to consciousness).


1) There are both multiple definitions of randomness and multiple proofs it exists
2) Every cosmology theory in the sciences (e.g., in astrophysics, cosmology, quantum field theory, etc.) holds that existence can originate from nonexistence. The big bang theory requires it, multiverse theories just require more of it, and basic modern physics itself seems to require it.

Show me. Show me the support to these claims. Rather, pick the ones you deem strongest and support them.

 

[savagewind]

I think there is no evidence for God. There is a world full of evidence of God. There is love, imagination, creativity, endurance, friendships, self sacrifice, justice, mercy, recreation, birth, power, harmony, art, music, beauty, color, taste....... then there is the sky, the stars, gravity, mass, largeness and smallness, VERY large and VERY small.

What about the people who fly jet planes. How did evolution prepare them for that I wonder?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I think there is no evidence for God. There is a world full of evidence of God.

Can you explain this distinction a little more fully- what constitutes evidence OF as opposed to evidence FOR- because it looks like a pseudo-distinction to me...

 

[savagewind]

Evidence for God evokes interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way.
Evidence of God requires faith to believe all this wonderful life has a source.

Faith is not a possession of all humankind. 2 Thessalonians 3:2

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with that. But life is also built on 'patterns' so to speak, there are an astronomical number of things that you believe that are either false or true, but you believe they are true, without any "objective" evidence.

Kinda sorta.

If I understand you correctly, you're getting at something I've thought about quite a bit (and have discussed here before - for example: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3024473-post4.html).

We use mental models to figure out how the world works. We make inferences about how the world behaves, incorporate these into our mental model, then use that model to make predictions. When the predictions don't line up with reality, we take this as a sign that our model is flawed and adjust it. When the predictions do line up with reality, we take this as support for the correctness of the model.

I recognize that lots of people have mental models that incorporate some kind of god, and these models apparently do a good job of predicting how the world works: for the most part, physical laws, social norms, and everything else works the way a theist expects them to, so the theist thinks his worldview (including the "God" part) is accurate.

But here's the problem I see: I don't think that the "God" part of the theistic worldview actually gets tested that often. For many (most?) people, I don't think it ever really gets tested. Despite this, theists take the general agreement of their mental model with their experiences to be support for their entire model, including the untested "God" part.

Edit: but getting back to your point, there are ways we can measure the quality of a model using objective evidence.

 

[ignition]

Kinda sorta.

If I understand you correctly, you're getting at something I've thought about quite a bit (and have discussed here before - for example: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3024473-post4.html).

We use mental models to figure out how the world works. We make inferences about how the world behaves, incorporate these into our mental model, then use that model to make predictions. When the predictions don't line up with reality, we take this as a sign that our model is flawed and adjust it. When the predictions do line up with reality, we take this as support for the correctness of the model.

I recognize that lots of people have mental models that incorporate some kind of god, and these models apparently do a good job of predicting how the world works: for the most part, physical laws, social norms, and everything else works the way a theist expects them to, so the theist thinks his worldview (including the "God" part) is accurate.

But here's the problem I see: I don't think that the "God" part of the theistic worldview actually gets tested that often. For many (most?) people, I don't think it ever really gets tested. Despite this, theists take the general agreement of their mental model with their experiences to be support for their entire model, including the untested "God" part.

Edit: but getting back to your point, there are ways we can measure the quality of a model using objective evidence.

That was a nice read and it's an interesting idea, that wasn't what I was thinking about at all though haha I was just questioning the idea that we need "objective" evidence in order to substantiate our belief that something is either true or false. Most of the time we don't do this at all.

I'll give you some examples, say you go into work late, and your boss asks you why you're an hour late, and you tell him that you were sick in the morning but you felt better so you came in. Your boss has a choice of either believing that your words are true, or that they aren't true. If you're a good employee who rarely comes in late, the evidence suggests that perhaps you really are telling the truth. So based on previous experience, your boss believes that it is true, even when there is no objective evidence. Relationships are built without objectivity. In fact, husbands and wives divorce based upon circumstantial evidence sometimes (e.g the wife thinks that the husband is cheating on her because he comes home late every night).

So basically, our entire lives and relationships are built without objectivity basically. You believe something is true because somebody else said it is true or you suspect it is true, rationally or irrationally.