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

[Philomath]

God is not a proof claim. It is a faith claim. Faith claims only carry the burdens of not-contradicting historical fact and being logically supported from the evidence available. This is a fact and one by design in my opinion. God (for whatever reason demands and values faith), faith precludes proof. Short of proof the Bible is by far the most historically supported revelation known to exist. It exceeds it's actual burden many times over.

I've debated these points with you several times, I don't feel feel like beating a dead horse.

 

[1robin]

I've debated these points with you several times, I don't feel feel like beating a dead horse.

Regardless of what animal you are beating to death my claims are a matter fact. Faith claims never have nor ever will have the burden of proof. They are not treated that way in professional dialogue or scholarship. Even secular historical (non-faith) claims are never a certainty but are evaluated based on probability. You can beat any animal you wish into a grease stain on the grass but this will still be true.

 

[psychoslice]

Why doesn't a child admite there is no Santa or Easter bunny?.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Faith claims never have nor ever will have the burden of proof.

Which is why they are not credible or justifiable. "Faith claims" may have a different criteria of justification than other sorts of claims- but this lowered standard also makes them less rationally warranted and intellectually responsible.

 

[1robin]

Which is why they are not credible or justifiable. "Faith claims" may have a different criteria of justification than other sorts of claims- but this lowered standard also makes them less rationally warranted and intellectually responsible.

It makes them less certain, that's it. Most of what is taken as true is based on faith and much of what is called science requires more faith. However only we will admit it. Who is more responsible again?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It makes them less certain, that's it.

Less certain, less probable, less justified, and less warranted.

Most of what is taken as true is based on faith and much of what is called science requires more faith.

A bare assertion, and a false one at that. This is an oft-refuted canard.

Who is more responsible again?

I don't know, Margaret Thatcher? I don't understand the sense of the question.

 

[1robin]

Less certain, less probable, less justified, and less warranted.

Less is relative. Relative to what? I want a comprehensive list.

A bare assertion, and a false one at that. This is an oft-refuted canard.

Is "that is believed wrong by many" demonstrable or relevant even if you can do so. I do not think "that is so wrong" is valid outside high school. Your of your mark today IMO.

I don't know, Margaret Thatcher? I don't understand the sense of the question.

You do not understand the connection between honesty and responsibility?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Less is relative. Relative to what? I want a comprehensive list.

Relative to virtually every other sort of claim there is. Claims regarding immediate sense experience, clearly. The claims of established science. The claims of mathematics and logic... Is that enough?

Is "that is believed wrong by many" demonstrable or relevant even if you can do so. I do not think "that is so wrong" is valid outside high school. Your of your mark today IMO.

Um, what? Are you sure you're responding to the portion you've quoted? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with it. You merely asserted that much science is "faith-based", without giving any reason to think this is the case, and the opposite appears to be true; indeed, one could likely distinguish faith-based claims simply by contrasting them with the claims of science.

You do not understand the connection between honesty and responsibility?

No, I don't understand in what sense you're asking "who is more responsible". What on earth are you talking about here?

 

[psychoslice]

I think that those who try hard to prove their god, and the very one's who doupt their god, keeping the belief strong in the mind gives one security, like a security blanket that a child clings to. Try to take that blanket away from the child and see the reaction, well you know the rest lol.

 

[D Wavy]

Personally, I think there is proof of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is enough proof of God.
A sound argument is a valid argument whose conclusion follows from its premise(s), and the premise(s) of the argument are true.

The argument basically goes like this:
1) what ever begins to exist has a cause
2) the universe began to exist
3) therefore it must have a cause

We know that the cause of the universe is God through conceptual analysis.

 

[philbo]

Personally, I think there is proof of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is enough proof of God.
A sound argument is a valid argument whose conclusion follows from its premise(s), and the premise(s) of the argument are true.

The argument basically goes like this:
1) what ever begins to exist has a cause
2) the universe began to exist
3) therefore it must have a cause

We know that the cause of the universe is God through conceptual analysis.

But that gives you an utterly meaningless definition of "God" - it certainly doesn't lead to the sort of interested & intercessory god as described in the Bible, Koran etc.

 

[Silver Wolf]

I have faith in God, and feel there is plenty of evidence for God. Just look up at the blazing sun (ouch.) the ocean, the divergent species produced by evolution, etc.

 

[1robin]

But that gives you an utterly meaningless definition of "God" - it certainly doesn't lead to the sort of interested & intercessory god as described in the Bible, Koran etc.

A line of evidence meant to suggest God exists was not intended to define him.

 

[philbo]

A line of evidence meant to suggest God exists was not intended to define him.

But it does mean that it doesn't count as evidence of any particular definition of god. It is an utterly meaningless concept - I mean that literally: a concept with no meaning whatsoever. If you want to call that "god", that's up to you, but I don't know why you'd want to.

For example, you've already ascribed more meaning than exists in that statement by using the pronoun "him".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I think there is proof of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is enough proof of God.
A sound argument is a valid argument whose conclusion follows from its premise(s), and the premise(s) of the argument are true.

The argument basically goes like this:
1) what ever begins to exist has a cause
2) the universe began to exist
3) therefore it must have a cause

We know that the cause of the universe is God through conceptual analysis.

By "conceptual analysis", do you mean "question-begging"?

I would be interested to see your demonstration of 1. As far as I know, observations at the quantum level suggest that it's actually false.

And as for 2, if spacetime is a property of the universe, can 2 be considered true? What does "began" even mean in a context without time? I have no idea... but you need to be able to answer these questions in order to rely on premise 2.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Personally, I think there is proof of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is enough proof of God.
A sound argument is a valid argument whose conclusion follows from its premise(s), and the premise(s) of the argument are true.

Unfortunately, the KA is neither valid nor sound. This is old hat. If you'd like to see why the KA fails, view my posts on this thread RE the Kalam argument. To summarize, though, that the universe began to exist has not and seemingly can not be reasonably established, because neither contemporary cosmology nor logic can show that an infinite regression of causes is impossible. Also, the conclusion that there is one unique cause of the universe, or that this cause is necessarily identical to God, does not follow from the premises of the argument- thus, it is invalid, and its premises are questionable.

To wit, its simply a poor argument, and cannot be proof of anything.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I would be interested to see your demonstration of 1. As far as I know, observations at the quantum level suggest that it's actually false.

No, not necessarily- only on an indeterministic interpretation of QM (e.g. Copenhagen) ; on a deterministic interpretation, this would not be the case.

And regardless, we don't need to take exception to premise 1 to defeat the KA; premise 2 is far more questionable, as it either relies on a fallacy of composition or an extremely weak a posteriori argument which can, at best, only render this claim slightly probable. Moreoever, even if we grant the premises, that there is one and only one cause of the universe does not follow, nor does it follow that the cause of the universe is God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

on a deterministic interpretation, this would not be the case.

For example...?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

For example...?

Seriously? What's the point of asking questions you already know the answer to? (and, as I'm guessing you well know, both the many-worlds and de Broglie–Bohm are deterministic interpretations) Good grief...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Seriously? What's the point of asking questions you already know the answer to?

Let me rephrase: given that even without QM, the statement "1) what ever begins to exist has a cause" is inaccurate and complex systems remain a challenge to classical notions of causality

Spoiler: Source

"Already early in the twentieth century, the deterministic conception of mechanics
was brought into question not only in the realm of quantum theory​

but also in relation to the mechanics of classical systems" p. 56
Jaeger, G. (2009). Entanglement, information, and the interpretation of quantum mechanics (The Frontiers Collection). Springer

, and given that deterministic formulations of QM are mostly deterministic in that they essentially throw causality out the window entirely, I was wondering which interpretations you were referring to. I was not asking which interpretations are deterministic.

both the many-worlds and de Broglie–Bohm are deterministic interpretations) Good grief...

Bohmian mechanics is replete with causal paradoxes. For conceptual simplicity, it's almost the opposite of many-worlds/multiverse interpretations: instead of infinitely many uncaused realities such that our own emerges as (constantly and again infinitely many) states of physical systems relative to infinitely many others that are all uncaused, we have only particles all governed according to a wave equation. The former is a "non-collapse" theory, in that everything remains in a superposition state but that this state is sort of "spread out" over infinitely many world-branches or universes. In Bohmian mechanics, we have a fundamentally different kind of "no collapse". We have point-particles that are governed by a wave equation, creating configurations which
1) are inherently, fundamentally, and inexplicably nonlocal
2) consist of point-like particles that are waves
3) explain the point-like observations we get by positing there is really only 1 configuration state (the "implicate order"): our universe.

You have to remember that, among many other publications, Bohm wrote Causality and Chance in Modern Physics (1957), arguing that both were essential to physics. In his section "Reasons for Inadequacy of Laplacian Determinism" he writes "We see, then, that the behaviour of the world is not perfectly determined by any possible purely mechanical or purely quantitative line of causal connection." The determinism of Bohmian mechanics is due to it's ontological status: it accounts for physical reality by positing that there is no "fundamental level" from which reality emerges or can be said to emerge (i.e., some set of first principles and notions of matter, energy, forces, etc., that could in principle explain all physical reality). The entirety of reality is uncaused. The main difference between these two "deterministic" views is that one gets determinism by positing infinitely many uncaused "outer" worlds/universes (even in many-worlds interpretations that involve splitting branches somehow "internal" to one universe, as they are not internal to one spacetime they are "outer"), and the other has the 1 uncaused state: our universe.

I don't see how either of these would get you the postulate you were defending.