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

[Renji]

As an agnostic theist I always notice other theist's attempting to prove God in one way or another. These arguments are never sufficient or conclusive enough to prove God. I recognize that my position is irrational and that there is no evidence for God. If you already have faith in God, what is the need to attempt to prove him?

It's just that there are things that we, the theists consider as an "evidence" of God's existence but non-theist don't consider as one. Most of the time, non-theists only considers the physical aspect, the things that can be seen by the naked eye (eg: a giant man standing on the sky, telling people to worship him because he is God). Theists don't think that way.

 

[Philomath]

Did you perchance note whence some of the origins for such "proofs" come? For example, the "first cause" argument, still invoked to day, was (so far as we know) first formulated by a polytheist named Aristotle. While Plato too offered potential fruit for the scholastics, those like Anselm and Aquinas seem to have cared little for Plato and concentrated on adapting Aristotle's proofs.

Also note that "proof" is not used by scientists for the most part but within closed discourse worlds: mathematical spaces with agreed upon axioms and operators, formal languages with agreed upon axioms and/or justifications (modus ponendo ponens, non tertium datur, etc.). Nor is it something we find as any sort of universal but (like writing systems) seems to have a fairly singular history from the Greeks to the Muslims to the scholastics (yes, other cultures developed counting systems and sometimes even some pretty sophisticated algorithms, but like science, mathematics isn't simply the development of some tool but a system).

Basically, these proofs are following not only a tradition that isn't theistic in origin but a systematic and formal thought process which was later transformed into various notational systems and innumerable fields of mathematics. The most famous were around before Jesus, had nothing to do with either Judaism or early Christianity, and didn't get very far until algebra was stolen by the early modern West. And even then, we aren't done. Because not only were the founders of modern science interested in understanding God's works to understand God, they were developing the formal languages necessary to do so (like Liebniz' notation relative to Newton's), and eventually the hope was that the entirety of mathematical science (as it was generally considered to be a science at that time) would be axiomized into a single formal logic. Frege thought he had done this, and was preparing to publish his second work when Bertrand Russell kindly informed him of an error that made the entire system inadequate. Russell, however, received the same (and after far more work; trust me when I say that the three volumes he and Whitehead wrote are densely packed with few explanatory remarks).
Kurt Gödel didn't just show that Russell and Whitehead failed. He proved that the entire hope for an axiomatic mathematics was fruitless. Perhaps the greatest logician of all time, I mention him and this tradition because not only did Gödel offer his own proof of God, but believed that the very thing he had proved to be logically impossible existed for God.

The university system was begun to educate priests, and even in the US most of the older universities (including tiny little places like Harvard) were Christian universities. The connection between universities and religious offices remained for a very long time, and the focus on religious studies remained well beyond the period in which physics and mathematics was mostly about understanding God's works. Is it any wonder that a nearly 2,400 year old tradition that our entire educational system was built upon hasn't quite shed itself of this tendency?

I've read through this multiple times and I'm still not seeing it's relevancy to the quote of mine that you posted. Could you get to the crux of what your saying because I'm not seeing it so far.

Why do we have a fiddler on the roof?

I don't know what you mean by that.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I've read through this multiple times and I'm still not seeing it's relevancy to the quote of mine that you posted. Could you get to the crux of what your saying because I'm not seeing it so far.



I don't know what you mean by that.

I'm being obtuse. The fact is that, as Willamena, there is evidence for god. If there were none, then nobody would believe in god. The evidence may not be sound, it may even be a product of self-delusion, but you raised the issue of faith. Those who have faith in god do not have faith in anything and everything, but in particular things (as we all do) and one of them is god. Perhaps they see god's work in this godforsaken prison, or perhaps they feel the hand of god in what they do, or perhaps they hear voices, or perhaps they were brought up to believe something is true and accept it as true by authority. Evidence, alas, can be rather relative.

Moreover, the reason people are continually trying to prove god is largely due to the same reason there's a fiddler on the roof: it's tradition. It's a 2,400 year tradition that begat our modern system of higher education and for some time existed almost solely for such things, and for a much longer time existed in part for such things, so we have no only a lengthy Western tradition but one that is bound up within the development of proof, epistemology, and logic itself.

 

[Me Myself]

There is no scientific evidence.

I am a theist.

 

[Sha'irullah]

And of course the classic "I don't know what that is, therefore ALIENS!!!"

 

[Sha'irullah]

There is no physical proof of god but merely the likelihood of god. To say the believe in god is irrational is to say the odds of a god existing is low on any probability scale.

 

[Philomath]

There is no physical proof of god but merely the likelihood of god. To say the believe in god is irrational is to say the odds of a god existing is low on any probability scale.

I say it's irrational because I believe in something that there is no evidence for. That makes the rationality of my believe low.

 

[Philomath]

I'm being obtuse. The fact is that, as Willamena, there is evidence for god. If there were none, then nobody would believe in god. The evidence may not be sound, it may even be a product of self-delusion, but you raised the issue of faith. Those who have faith in god do not have faith in anything and everything, but in particular things (as we all do) and one of them is god. Perhaps they see god's work in this godforsaken prison, or perhaps they feel the hand of god in what they do, or perhaps they hear voices, or perhaps they were brought up to believe something is true and accept it as true by authority. Evidence, alas, can be rather relative.

Ok I see what your saying. Maybe I should have been clearer in my original post about what proof I was talking about. I was talking about objective proof that can be tested.

Moreover, the reason people are continually trying to prove god is largely due to the same reason there's a fiddler on the roof: it's tradition. It's a 2,400 year tradition that begat our modern system of higher education and for some time existed almost solely for such things, and for a much longer time existed in part for such things, so we have no only a lengthy Western tradition but one that is bound up within the development of proof, epistemology, and logic itself.

Oh...ok. That cleared it up for me. I understand what you mean now.

 

[Philomath]

It's just that there are things that we, the theists consider as an "evidence" of God's existence but non-theist don't consider as one. Most of the time, non-theists only considers the physical aspect, the things that can be seen by the naked eye (eg: a giant man standing on the sky, telling people to worship him because he is God). Theists don't think that way.

The things I've encountered from Theist's are often things that cannot be proved. If it can't be proved how can that be considered evidence?

 

[McBell]

There are countless examples but obviously I would be biased in favour of Islam. If you looked at other religions I'm sure there's something to investigate.

Countless?
And you are still unable to present even one?

Actually all those forms of evidence is generally accepted, except when it comes to God. That's where the more militant Atheists harden their position because of their unwillingness to accept God's existence. They have no problem accepting the multiverse theory, the idea that aliens perhaps began life on earth etc. etc.but God? Oh no.

Interesting how you seem to think you know how every atheist thinks.
Fact is, I have not seen nor heard any "evidence" that convinces me that a deity exists.

Now if it makes you feel better about yourself and or your beliefs to spew bull **** about me, feel free.
It shows much more about you and your character than your bull **** shows about me.

 

[Me Myself]

The things I've encountered from Theist's are often things that cannot be proved. If it can't be proved how can that be considered evidence?

Ita called circumstancial evidence. In case of theism, the concept is stretched even further

 

[McBell]

The things I've encountered from Theist's are often things that cannot be proved. If it can't be proved how can that be considered evidence?

Because evidence is anything that causes some one to believe something.
When people use the word "evidence" with out any conditional modifiers (I.E. empirical, objective, circumstantial) it can be taken to mean any of the definitions.
personally, I stick with the first one unless there are conditional modifiers to indicate which one the user of the word means.

"WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"
evidence
n 1: your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to
base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer
is very compelling" [syn: evidence, grounds]
2: an indication that makes something evident; "his trembling
was evidence of his fear"
3: (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose
truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or
disproved
v 1: provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one's
behavior, attitude, or external attributes; "His high fever
attested to his illness"; "The buildings in Rome manifest a
high level of architectural sophistication"; "This decision
demonstrates his sense of fairness" [syn: attest,
certify, manifest, demonstrate, evidence]
2: provide evidence for; "The blood test showed that he was the
father"; "Her behavior testified to her incompetence" [syn:
testify, bear witness, prove, evidence, show]
3: give evidence; "he was telling on all his former colleague"
[syn: tell, evidence]
​

 

[Sleeppy]

What evidence is there? Would you like to provide some?

I consider everything evidence. I call God, existence. I call God, the first Creator. And I call God, God.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I consider everything evidence. I call God, existence. I call God, the first Creator. And I call God, God.

Calling everything evidence is essentially the same thing as having no evidence... You can't say "I know you stole my wallet because everything"...

 

[Philomath]

Ita called circumstancial evidence. In case of theism, the concept is stretched even further

It's stretched to places I've never seen before

 

[Philomath]

Because evidence is anything that causes some one to believe something.
When people use the word "evidence" with out any conditional modifiers (I.E. empirical, objective, circumstantial) it can be taken to mean any of the definitions.
personally, I stick with the first one unless there are conditional modifiers to indicate which one the user of the word means.

Then can't anything and everything be considered as evidence?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Calling everything evidence is essentially the same thing as having no evidence... You can't say "I know you stole my wallet because everything"...

You can type it. That much you proved. Now it's just a matter of moving air through your mouth while changing both the position of contacts between tongue and mouth (labial, dental, palatal) or ensuring a lack of contact, and the right stops. You don't even have to worry about glottal stops!

The great thing about people who are prepared to say nothing can be proven and go from there to asserting nothing can be said with such assurance it is for all intents and purposes proven is that they are either lying or dying. Because when one does not believe that one is hungry or thirsty just because one's nervous and gastrointestinal systems "supposedly" indicate this, or one does not trust the signals sent as one's eyes are bombarded by photons resulting in action potentials transmitted to one's occipital lobe indicating a car is speeding down the road, or any number of situations in which empirical observations would seem to indicate that imminent death awaits the radical skeptic, either the individual will show that they rely on empirical evidence when it stops being philosophical, or they won't be around much longer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Forms of evidence?

--> Empirical (aka, physical "stuff")
--> Experiential (aka, personal experiences, testimonies, and anecdotes)
--> Logical (aka, formalized argumentation, deduction, inference)
--> Intuitive (aka, gnosis, enlightenment, revelation)

I might be missing something. Our society is so fixated on the empirical form we tend to forget about and/or ignore all the other ones. Or flat out deny that they're valid forms of evidence, especially the last one.

And I think they have a point. For instance, exactly what is "revelation" besides hearsay from a purported god?

But I think I didn't express myself clearly: can you give an actual example of some specific piece of non-empirical evidence that you found compelling? Even better, can you give an example of a specific piece of non-empirical evidence that I (or skeptics generally) don't find compelling but should?

Edit: BTW - I accept logic, but I wouldn't consider it "evidence" itself. IMO, it's more like the processes we use to derive valid inferences from evidence.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You can type it. That much you proved. Now it's just a matter of moving air through your mouth while changing both the position of contacts between tongue and mouth (labial, dental, palatal) or ensuring a lack of contact, and the right stops. You don't even have to worry about glottal stops!

The great thing about people who are prepared to say nothing can be proven and go from there to asserting nothing can be said with such assurance it is for all intents and purposes proven is that they are either lying or dying. Because when one does not believe that one is hungry or thirsty just because one's nervous and gastrointestinal systems "supposedly" indicate this, or one does not trust the signals sent as one's eyes are bombarded by photons resulting in action potentials transmitted to one's occipital lobe indicating a car is speeding down the road, or any number of situations in which empirical observations would seem to indicate that imminent death awaits the radical skeptic, either the individual will show that they rely on empirical evidence when it stops being philosophical, or they won't be around much longer.

Now what does this have to do with "everything" being evidence for the existence of God?

 

[Sleeppy]

Calling everything evidence is essentially the same thing as having no evidence... You can't say "I know you stole my wallet because everything"...

Unless stealing my wallet proceeds 'everything'. God, as I define Him, proceeds everything. And not only that. He encompasses and controls everything.

Science will tell you that before our universe existed, there was the information and power necessary, for it to do as it does and will do. This information and power is God of the universe. Correct?