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

[captainbryce]

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?

Perhaps because "evidence" is often in they eye of the beholder. I see MANY evidences of God, but that evidence is unlikely to be accepted by an atheist or a skeptic. I have no problem saying that there is no evidence (which you will accept) for God. But to say there is no evidence at all would be dishonest to my own beliefs based on what I do personally accept as evidence. The evidence may not be sufficient for you, but it certainly is to a believer. I have no need to prove God to you or to anyone for that matter. And I think you'll find that most people of faith have no personal need to prove their beliefs to you either. The reason it may seem otherwise to you is because more often than not, it is atheists who spend a lot of time trying to disprove God and ridicule the religious, it tends to drive the faithful to "defend" their beliefs. So at the end of the day, it's really just a matter of perspective.

 

[ignition]

So funny story. I go up to my friend he looks to me and smiles. I ask, "what are you smiling about?' He replies with excitement, " have a new car." I look at him and say "that's great man. You want to show it to me?" He says "yeah of course." So he walks me out into a parking garage."Where is your car?" "Oh it's right there" pointing towards an empty parking space. "I don't see it are you sure you didn't park it somewhere else?" "No it's right there." "Well I don't see" I respond. "How do you know it is?" "Oh you see I believe it is there." "Ah, I respond so why do you believe it is there." "Salesman told me it was when he sold it to me." "Tell you what let's take mine" I tell him. Walking across the garage. I point to a spot with a car in it. "Do you see it?" "Yeah I do but Its not my kind of car so I'll drive in mine."

I've got a story as well about a debate between a Muslim (Abu Hanifah) and an atheist, but I can't be bothered typing it up so I'm copying and pasting from someone's words on a different forum, here goes:

An atheist wanted to debate the Muslims and so Abu Hanifah was chosen for the job. They agreed a time and place, and when the day came, sure enough, the atheist was there in front of a crowd of people who had gathered to hear the debate. Imam Abu Hanifa however, was absent. They waited and waited and time passed until Imam Abu Hanifah finally arrived, very late. The atheist turned to him and said 'How dare you arrive so late?'

Imam Abu Hanifah apologised and said 'I was on my way over here but came across a forest I had never encountered before. I had to go in, but happened across a river that blocked my way. I got off my horse, looking for a way to cross when all of a sudden, a tree fell and began to cut itself of its own accord. Many more trees fell and also began to cut themselves, making planks of wood, which then assembled and formed a boat. I went onto the boat and it rowed itself across the river, after which I disembarked and came on way here, on foot. This is why i was late'.

The atheist looked at him incredulously and said 'You expect me to believe a forest that was never there before somehow appeared out of nowhere, that trees fell and formed a boat and rowed you all the way across all by themselves? Are you crazy?'

Imam Abu Hanifah responded 'You expect me to believe that this universe, this world, our bodies all appeared out of nowhere without a Creator? Are you crazy?'

 

[Trantorfuzz]

The OP's question implies that, as a rule, theists don't admit that there's no evidence for God's existence.

In the real world, many theists do admit that there's no evidence for God's existence. Look up fideism, the belief that we come to trust in God's existence by faith alone. Look up Karl Barth (pronounced "Bart"), often called the greatest Protestant theologian of the 20th century and one of the greatest Protestant theologians of all time. He dismissed Christian Apologetics (the effort to prove Christianity true by using rational arguments alone) as a Roman Catholic heresy! And see if you can find any theists on the net who think that any God whose existence could be proven by rational means would be unworthy of the name "God." You will find them.

Other theists don't "admit" that there's no evidence for God's existence because they think that there is such evidence. A lot of people believe in the shopworn and long-refuted "proofs" of God's existence.

Still others have a hunch that a consciousness lies behind the setting of their life stories and the universe at large, and consider this hunch to be evidence enough.

Still others consider ecstatic religious experiences to be evidence enough.

But the OP is partly right. There are theists who doubt that any evidence supports God's existence, but don't speak up.

One reason is that speaking up would mean that loss of the social support that their churches provide.

I'm sure that there are other reasons too.

 

[Crazyflight]

I've got a story as well about a debate between a Muslim (Abu Hanifah) and an atheist, but I can't be bothered typing it up so I'm copying and pasting from someone's words on a different forum, here goes:

An atheist wanted to debate the Muslims and so Abu Hanifah was chosen for the job. They agreed a time and place, and when the day came, sure enough, the atheist was there in front of a crowd of people who had gathered to hear the debate. Imam Abu Hanifa however, was absent. They waited and waited and time passed until Imam Abu Hanifah finally arrived, very late. The atheist turned to him and said 'How dare you arrive so late?'

Imam Abu Hanifah apologised and said 'I was on my way over here but came across a forest I had never encountered before. I had to go in, but happened across a river that blocked my way. I got off my horse, looking for a way to cross when all of a sudden, a tree fell and began to cut itself of its own accord. Many more trees fell and also began to cut themselves, making planks of wood, which then assembled and formed a boat. I went onto the boat and it rowed itself across the river, after which I disembarked and came on way here, on foot. This is why i was late'.

The atheist looked at him incredulously and said 'You expect me to believe a forest that was never there before somehow appeared out of nowhere, that trees fell and formed a boat and rowed you all the way across all by themselves? Are you crazy?'

Imam Abu Hanifah responded 'You expect me to believe that this universe, this world, our bodies all appeared out of nowhere without a Creator? Are you crazy?'

What? Is this trying to prove something? Because really, this sounds horrible. "Appeared out of nowhere" is not what anyone believes (I don't think). His story was clearly fabricated, and the response seems so scripted that I'm fairy confident that this exchange never happened.

I don't believe that the Universe was "created," per se. It just is.

 

[Philomath]

Perhaps because "evidence" is often in they eye of the beholder. I see MANY evidences of God, but that evidence is unlikely to be accepted by an atheist or a skeptic. I have no problem saying that there is no evidence (which you will accept) for God. But to say there is no evidence at all would be dishonest to my own beliefs based on what I do personally accept as evidence. The evidence may not be sufficient for you, but it certainly is to a believer. I have no need to prove God to you or to anyone for that matter. And I think you'll find that most people of faith have no personal need to prove their beliefs to you either. The reason it may seem otherwise to you is because more often than not, it is atheists who spend a lot of time trying to disprove God and ridicule the religious, it tends to drive the faithful to "defend" their beliefs. So at the end of the day, it's really just a matter of perspective.

The thing is I do believe in God but I recognize the lack of evidence for God. I also understand the feeling to defend your beliefs.

 

[ignition]

What? Is this trying to prove something? Because really, this sounds horrible. "Appeared out of nowhere" is not what anyone believes (I don't think). His story was clearly fabricated, and the response seems so scripted that I'm fairy confident that this exchange never happened

Even I have to admit, the english rendering of the story is slightly exaggerated and doesn't reflect the way it was actually said in the arabic, but it is a well-reported story which is most likely authentic.

 

[Eljah702]

There are lots and lots of evidence of Gods existence.

1. The universe had most probably a beginning.
This is supported through scientific, and philosophical reasons. Therefore it had a cause. Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, that cause must be timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, and incredibly powerful. Why does it need to have these characteristics ? This cause cannot exist in the time/space/material universe because then it would exist within the very universe it created. That is impossible.
Whatever caused the universe, existed beyond the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.The cause must be personal because an impersonal force would be deterministic and mechanistic, not possessing free will. A mechanistic being only operates according to the programming it received from something else. But if the cause of the universe received programming from something else, then we have again not provided the answer to the cause of the universe. We have just found a middle-man. The cause had to make a choice to create and only beings who are personal can make choices.That description fits best to the God of the bible.


2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet.
Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

3. Life. Abiogenesis has not been able to explain the existence of life on earth.
Science cannot explain it. There are strong reasons to believe, a natural origin is not probable, and a bad explanation. First of all, why whould dead rocks need to evolve, to create life ? Secondly, just one living cell is more complex than the most complex machine created by man. A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer.DNA molecules carry information . Information is always created by a mind. There i no natural mechanism known to man, to create information. Information is by essence spiritual, and not physical. There is no bridge to cross the gulf from material to spiritual. Even through millions of years of evolution. Its not possible.



On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.


A small part of the evolutionists' problem is that hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves (on their own recognizance) into abstract ideas.

4. The moral argument, and value of life.
Life has no value. Everthing is permissible. There is no such thing as right and wrong because there is no all knowing and all powerful Creator to define what is good and what is bad. It becomes society who tries to define it. What does that matter though if the people making laws define right from wrong. They are just as human as any other person in the world. The only thing that truly exists is personal preference. What Hitler, Stalin, or any other mass murderer did was not wrong at all. They simply had a different personal preference than you do. The point is, you shouldn't tell anyone that they are wrong or even right because they aren't either of those things. You can believe that its wrong, but you have no place to ground it. People can do anything they want to do without getting punished for their actions if the world lived consistently with the belief that God doesn't exist. How do you explain where guilt comes from? How do you explain why all people in the world have this feeling called a conscience that seems to tell them that something is wrong, such as murder. How come people feel a heavy weight on their emotions called guilt when they do something wrong, such as lie and steal, and the best thing to do to take the weight off themselves is to tell the truth and/or ask for forgiveness. If God doesn't exist, then how could you rationally explain all that?


5. Without God, life has no reason to be, there is no ultimate goal
There is no purpose to life. Life has no ultimate goal. There is no reason for living. Sacrifice for someone else's life would be stupid. This argument shows that an atheist lives inconsistently with their own belief. If a murderer who believed murder to be ok, came into your house to brutally murder you and your family, would you think that HE is wrong to do that? If you said no, that he isn't doing any thing wrong, then you would be living consistantly with your beliefs. But if you said yes, then you would live as if there were objective morals. But if there is no god to define objective morality then there is only subjective morality. So by saying it is wrong makes it only your opinion, but not the murderers opinion. You would be "pushing your<br style="position: static !important; ">morality on him" which is the opposite of what you believe. You probably believe that "it is wrong to push your morality on another person." Even that statement right there is another objective moral statement. In other words you express your opinions, but don't always live by them.



6. Religious experiences and miracles
What ever culture you go into, people are incurably religious. In every culture you see three things. 1) Everyone, except the atheist, worships a being higher than themselves. 2) Everyone has a morality they cannot keep. 3) Everyone is psychologically unsatisfied. People feel an emptiness in themselves that they want to fill. If the material world was the only thing that existed and if all your material needs were met, you should be satesfied right? But how come people who have the most wealth are usually the most unhappy. They constantly want more and more. And how can you explain the millions of people in the world who say they have felt the closeness of God in their lives? I personally am included with them. I have felt God's presence in my life on a consistent basis. Now how can you rationally explain that without God's existence? There are many people in the world who report seeing miracles. In other words there are people who say that they saw a situation occur where there is no naturalistic explanation for it. I personally know people who have had miraculous situations occur, such as immediate healings. You might argue that science will someday explain those things, but right now you can't explain them. The best explaination is God, because if God created the world then it wouldn't be hard to believe that he can intervene supernaturally in this world.

 

[George-ananda]

Philomath,

The OP says: Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

Sorry, this is constant irritant for me. (maybe I just need to eat). Do you distinguish between the words 'evidence' and 'proof'?

 

[yoda89]

I've got a story as well about a debate between a Muslim (Abu Hanifah) and an atheist, but I can't be bothered typing it up so I'm copying and pasting from someone's words on a different forum, here goes:

If you can't be bothered to be original. Why should I meet you for a debate. Your views would most likely be more of another's and of men who died long ago.

An atheist wanted to debate the Muslims and so Abu Hanifah was chosen for the job. They agreed a time and place, and when the day came, sure enough, the atheist was there in front of a crowd of people who had gathered to hear the debate. Imam Abu Hanifa however, was absent. They waited and waited and time passed until Imam Abu Hanifah finally arrived, very late. The atheist turned to him and said 'How dare you arrive so late?'

If an atheist were to have a debate with you I doubt the majority would say how dare you. I wouldn't I might leave. Text you and try to meet you at another time. Never have I said I dare you maybe when I was little. But I do have things to do and I do enjoy lunch specials.

Hanifah apologised and said 'I was on my way over here but came across a forest I had never encountered before. I had to go in, but happened across a river that blocked my way. I got off my horse, looking for a way to cross when all of a sudden, a tree fell and began to cut itself of its own accord. Many more trees fell and also began to cut themselves, making planks of wood, which then assembled and formed a boat. I went onto the boat and it rowed itself across the river, after which I disembarked and came on way here, on foot. This is why i was late'.

I would accuse and joke that he was on LSD or some other substance. Why are you riding a horse? Then you leave your horse is that very responsible? If that s* happened to me I would most likely stop also.

eist looked at him incredulously and said 'You expect me to believe a forest that1was never there before somehow appeared out of nowhere, that trees fell and formed a boat and rowed you all the way across all by themselves? Are you crazy?'

Yes I would do this as it is highly unlikely. There are so many things unexplainable about that. I would question you sanity and point you to a hospital as you most likely hit your head on a magical tree branch.

Imam Abu Hanifah responded 'You expect me to believe that this universe, this world, our bodies all appeared out of nowhere without a Creator? Are you crazy?'

I kind of like people who I talk to be open-minded and have a little common sense. I would also explain to Hanifah that it is impossible to appear out of nowhere. Hanifah was most likely born and realized it. He also most likely be descendants of others. That matter cannot be destroyed nor created. That laws have been established of such things and had been proven time and time again. Ask questions as whether he came up with idea himself or was told by another. Which is mostly likely the latter. Does he know who created the creator. Does he have any other evidences besides outdated scripture or personal evidence of magically tress that form magical objects. It would be a barrage of logical wand reasonable questions that come from common sense. His response would be most likely be answered from his ancient scripture and his personal experiences. That if we are not perfect and a reflection of Allah would his God not be imperfect or else that would be a contradiction. The list goes on and on. His responses would be I don't know and cant show you....therefore God. I would also begin to quote my TMNT diary explaining my imaginary friend from when I was younger and see how they basically it holds up just as much as his scriptures. When he resorted back to his diary of men who dead long ago and has not really formed opinions of his own. Should I go on?

 

[Riverwolf]

How do you think a rock is a rock? And not dust, or something other than a rock? It's very deliberately a rock, isn't it? Why? Science can give you a detailed answer.. But, rocks have certain properties that hold them together, as rocks, and those same properties interact with other things, according to the very deliberate calculations between them.

How much force will it take to crush the rock? The rock knows, because it will submit to that force and be crushed.

It doesn't know anything, because there's no central processor of information. A rock just is.

 

[Sleeppy]

It doesn't know anything, because there's no central processor of information. A rock just is.

Just is, huh? No information to tell itself that its a rock. Or what and how to do, as it 'just is'? No information, and yet it maintains and interacts? Doesn't sound quite right.

 

[Riverwolf]

Just is, huh? No information to tell itself that its a rock. Or what and how to do, as it 'just is'? No information, and yet it maintains and interacts? Doesn't sound quite right.

I didn't say that there was no information. But there's nothing to process that information. It's just "there." It's a harddrive without a CPU or power source.

'Sides, pretty much nothing "sounds right" when looked at in certain ways.

 

[Sleeppy]

I didn't say that there was no information. But there's nothing to process that information. It's just "there." It's a harddrive without a CPU or power source.

'Sides, pretty much nothing "sounds right" when looked at in certain ways.

Information that doesn't get processed?

 

[Riverwolf]

Information that doesn't get processed?

Exactly.

A bunch of values and expressions but no calculations and thus no solutions... at least not on their own.

Of course, like stone, metal comes from the earth... or rather, is the very body of the earth. Metal, too, is like rock, in that it has information but nothing to process it. Silicon is a metal. I'm sure you know what silicon is?

 

[Sleeppy]

Exactly.

A bunch of values and expressions but no calculations and thus no solutions... at least not on their own.

Of course, like stone, metal comes from the earth... or rather, is the very body of the earth. Metal, too, is like rock, in that it has information but nothing to process it. Silicon is a metal. I'm sure you know what silicon is?

You're arguing a pretty blatant lie.. Why? Idk. We both know it's a lie, because now, you're reforming your original statement, adding 'not on their own.' What does that even mean? Everything gathers and expends information. And certain clumps of information do certain things. Everything reacts to the things outside itself and within itself.

Everything, including rocks, silicon and whatever else you can think of, processes information, according to the information it already possesses.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Information that doesn't get processed?

Information theory is currently the mainstream approach within quantum mechanics (I mention that only because the formal definition of information was constructed by Shannon in the 40s and relied on classical physics that had by then moved on from using things like information and entropy only to pick them back up again decades later). However, it was defined mathematically in the late 40s in communications, and the definition doesn't really change whether one is talking QM or neurophysiology.

Information is defined via uncertainty (specifically, the configuration of physical states of some system that has more than one possible configuration state it could exist as). Rocks absolutely can be information and for many a physicist they are (the Greeks used them to vote, which means they used them to convey information).

However, according to that definition of information, no processing is required. Everything is information (I mean that quite literally). But most of this "information" is utterly meaningless, useless, and will convey no meaning to any "processor" ever.

 

[Riverwolf]

You're arguing a pretty blatant lie.. Why? Idk. We both know it's a lie, because now, you're reforming your original statement, adding 'not on their own.' What does that even mean? Everything gathers and expends information. And certain clumps of information do certain things. Everything reacts to the things outside itself and within itself.

Everything, including rocks, silicon and whatever else you can think of, processes information, according to the information it already possesses.

I never said they don't possess information, and I deny your accusation that I "know" I'm arguing a lie.

Nothing alone can process information. It takes everything in tandem.

I brought up silicon specifically because it's basically a wonder material, being a primary component in computers.

 

[Sleeppy]

Information theory is currently the mainstream approach within quantum mechanics (I mention that only because the formal definition of information was constructed by Shannon in the 40s and relied on classical physics that had by then moved on from using things like information and entropy only to pick them back up again decades later). However, it was defined mathematically in the late 40s in communications, and the definition doesn't really change whether one is talking QM or neurophysiology.

Information is defined via uncertainty (specifically, the configuration of physical states of some system that has more than one possible configuration state it could exist as). Rocks absolutely can be information and for many a physicist they are (the Greeks used them to vote, which means they used them to convey information).

However, according to that definition of information, no processing is required. Everything is information (I mean that quite literally). But most of this "information" is utterly meaningless, useless, and will convey no meaning to any "processor" ever.

All that? Come on, now.

Here's the information: Where are rocks in the periodic table? Probably not indestructible? They can be crushed. With how much force? It depends. More information. What happens to the rock?

Everything functions in a unique way. Anything you can name, functions uniquely and fulfills many, many various differentiations in time and space. All of this is, and contributes to, information.

This is basic. And I say that with humility.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Everything, including rocks, silicon and whatever else you can think of, processes information, according to the information it already possesses.

Almost nothing processes information. Everything (according to many current definitions) is information, but still almost all of this information is never and will never be processed by anything. If you don't use the current definition of information within the sciences, but the colloquial definition, then you can no longer validly claim that everything is information. Instead, virtually nothing is.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All that? Come on, now.

I get tired of addressing similar claims over and over again sometimes.

Tell me, do you know how complexity is measured? One way is information...



The problem with the first is that it contrasts randomness with information. The problem with the second is that it says information isn't physical. Both are incorrect. Information theory was formalized by Shannon in 1948 (49? I don't recall). He worked in communications and adapted the concept of entropy from physics to create his formal (mathematical) account of communication, including information.

Information, whether we're talking computers or living systems, is a degree of uncertainty. Computers have binary units of information in that each bit has 2 possible states it could be in. If there was only one, we'd have no information. Whether we're talking bits, smoke signals, the neural code, or genes, information is always defined exactly the same way: uncertainty (a more intuitive concept than entropy).

Those phase diagrams? They represent possible configuration states. A system that can have multiple configuration states can be used as information. And as you refuse to even consider the possibility that simultaneously talking about electrons and Newtonian mechanics might be a bad idea (because there would be no electrons if F=ma, as Coulomb's law shows), you have simply no idea how complex Crystalline lattices structures, including Bravais lattices, can be.

There are other metrics for complexity, but you haven't cited any, explained why the complexity of CHClBrF is greater than any number of other molecules (like methane molecules), or done anything but misrepresent what information, complexity, physics, etc. is, I don't think you're likely to be familiar with these.

When you can explain to me why carbon steel is a many-body problem, then tell me how simple it is. Otherwise we're back to you scoffing at nucleation because you didn't know it was essential to life.

"self-organization, which is also called &#8220;dissipative structure&#8221;, is ordering at far-from-equilibrium, and the scale of the resultant patterns is larger than that of the components.
Crystallization is the spontaneous formation of a microscopic periodic array of atoms, ions, or molecules and may be categorized as self-assembly or self-organization."

from the paper "Self-Organized Formation of Hierarchical Structures" in the volume Biomineralization I: Crystallization and Self-Organization Process

from the abstract: "Hierarchical architectures consisting of small building blocks of inorganic crystals are widely found in biominerals. Crystal growth mimicking biomineralization has been studied using various kinds of organic molecules and molecular assembly. The emergence of complex organization of inorganic crystals was observed through biomimetic approaches in aqueous solution. A wide variety of hierarchical architectures including fractals, dendrites, self-similar and helical structures were achieved in the artificial systems. Self-organized formation, with exquisite control of mass transport and the variation of surface energy with organic molecules, is essential for versatile morphogenesis of inorganic crystals similar to biominerals."
...

"Less easily understood, and more ubiquitous, are self-organized structures that arise from an initially unstructured state without the action of an agent that predetermines the pattern. Such self-organized structures emerge from cooperative interactions among the molecular constituents of the system and often exhibit properties that are distinct from those of their constituent elements. These pattern formation processes are the subject of this book"

from the opening chapter of the monograph Dynamics of Self-Organized and Self-Assembled Structures

I've been over rocks and information already over numerous posts.

It depends. More information.

More configuration states that are uncertain in general and thus fulfill the requirement Shannon made. However, this says nothing about a processor.

Everything functions in a unique way.

Considering that function is a human conception and is applied by humans to systems (not "things" per se) this doesn't mean anything.

Anything you can name

oikos, home, house, haus, heim, maison, domus and many other things I can name refer to similar yet conceptually different things and render any definition of information dependent upon what I can name pretty useless.