Evidence against?

[Spock]

In another thread the following remark was made:

Because God gives us just enough evidence to believe, but also just enough evidence to doubt. Without room for doubt there is no such thing as Faith, …

That is an interesting point. Let me ask you - mostly the believers, but whoever wishes to chip in - what do you consider as enough evidence to doubt? I have seen zillions of examples that believers consider evidence for belief. There is no need to go there. This time I would like to see the other side of the coin.

 

[tonyrey]

If the majority of living beings were deformed, diseased and disabled it would show that the amount of evil in the world is excessive and that life is ultimately ruled by Chance…

 

[Spock]

If the majority of living beings were deformed, diseased and disabled it would show that the amount of evil in the world is excessive and that life is ultimately ruled by Chance…

Well, at least **technically **that is not an evidence for doubt, at least not according to your usage of the words (if… then… type of construct). The way you present it (implicitly): “since the majority of the living beings are NOT diseased, etc…” this points to some lack of chance - so you present an affirmative stance (expressed in a negative form). I am more interested in actual evidence that does lend credible credence to doubt - of course according to your opinion. Do you have any?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Isn’t this a bit like going onto an Atheist site and asking for credible evidence of God?

 

[Spock]

Isn’t this a bit like going onto an Atheist site and asking for credible evidence of God?

So what? If an atheist would assert that there is enough evidence for God, then I certainly would ask, what does he (the atheist) consider such evidence. I started this thread with an assertion of a believer, who explicitly said that there is enough evidence to doubt. If you don’t see such evidence, then just say so. No need to be a smartypants and say something that is completely irrelevant.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You are hardly one to be accusing some else of being a “smartypants”.

That “assertion of a believer”, to any intelligent person, was providing for the many who struggle with doubt. He is obviously aware that people have such doubts at times. But it would take intelligence from you for you to see what he meant and intended.

In the mean time, you propose to be on a religious site and ask for them to state “reasons a person should doubt”.

It just seems like kind of a rude and dumb thing to ask.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, at least **technically **that is not an evidence for doubt, at least not according to your usage of the words (if… then… type of construct). The way you present it (implicitly): “since the majority of the living beings are NOT diseased, etc…” this points to some lack of chance - so you present an affirmative stance (expressed in a negative form). I am more interested in actual evidence that does lend credible credence to doubt - of course according to your opinion. Do you have any?

Of course not. Any believer who thinks there is actual evidence that does lend “credible credence to doubt” should be an agnostic.
There are many people who reject, or have doubts about, the existence of God because they think the evil in the world is excessive. It is certainly prima facie evidence for doubt…

 

[Spock]

Of course not. Any believer who thinks there is actual evidence that does lend “credible credence to doubt” should be an agnostic.
There are many people who reject, or have doubts about, the existence of God because they think the evil in the world is excessive. It is certainly prima facie evidence for doubt…

So do you disagree with the quoted post, in essence? You agree that there may be some doubt based upon the amount of “evil”, but the evidence is minor, and should be considered insufficient? Just want to make sure I understand your position correctly.

 

[Spock]

That “assertion of a believer”, to any intelligent person, was providing for the many who struggle with doubt. He is obviously aware that people have such doubts at times. But it would take intelligence from you for you to see what he meant and intended.

Don’t speak for others. Let the poster state his positon. Besides, last time I checked, ad hominem assertions were not allowed, so your condescending remark about my intelligence might not be looked upon kindly by the moderators. I certainly hope so.

In the mean time, you propose to be on a religious site and ask for them to state “reasons a person should doubt”.

It just seems like kind of a rude and dumb thing to ask.

To ask for elaboration of a stated opinion is hardly “rude” or “dumb”.

 

[tonyrey]

So do you disagree with the quoted post, in essence? You agree that there may be some doubt based upon the amount of “evil”, but the evidence is minor, and should be considered insufficient? Just want to make sure I understand your position correctly.

I agree that the amount of evil is a difficulty for many people but I consider
it to be insufficient evidence because it is outweighed by the opportunities and advantages of existence.

 

[Spock]

I agree that the amount of evil is a difficulty for many people but I consider it to be insufficient evidence because it is outweighed by the opportunities and advantages of existence.

OK, I understand. Now, is this the only “glitch” you see? Apart from the amount of observable evil, there is nothing that can be reasonably doubted?

 

[liquidpele]

In another thread the following remark was made:

That is an interesting point. Let me ask you - mostly the believers, but whoever wishes to chip in - what do you consider as enough evidence to doubt? I have seen zillions of examples that believers consider evidence for belief. There is no need to go there. This time I would like to see the other side of the coin.

There is not a set point where people start to doubt, it just depends on the mind. For many, that point will never come due to Cognitive Dissonance or one of the many biases fending off alternate explanations. On the other hand, some people will never doubt because there is simply no need to. We don’t all grow up to be scientists. I doubt a stay at home mom who teaches piano in her spare time really goes around looking for evidence against her beliefs. As with most things, it’s a mixed bag.

 

[wanstronian]

I guess an analogy might be that someone can believe his wife is faithful, but have doubts when she looks so happy after a session with her handsome tennis coach (or whatever).

Either way, the comment illustrates one thing that is painfully obvious. That there is no ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ type evidence for God. There are phenomena that some people may choose to see as a sign of God’s existence, and there’s a book that some people may choose to take at face value, but there’s nothing approaching conclusive.

To answer the question specifically, maybe the overwhelming weight of evidence in favour of evolution is enough to doubt the existence of God, depending on your specific beliefs. Or maybe the explanation by science of things previously ascribed to gods.

 

[Spock]

There is not a set point where people start to doubt, it just depends on the mind. For many, that point will never come due to Cognitive Dissonance or one of the many biases fending off alternate explanations. On the other hand, some people will never doubt because there is simply no need to. We don’t all grow up to be scientists. I doubt a stay at home mom who teaches piano in her spare time really goes around looking for evidence against her beliefs. As with most things, it’s a mixed bag.

Very true. The breaking point for everyone is subjective. What is considered to be “sufficient evidence” for one, is wildly preposterous for another. I am simply curious what people consider a valid ground for doubting God’s existence. So far the only argument was the amount of evil. I agree that it is good point - and much more serious than it is stated. I am simply curious if there is anything else?

 

[tonyrey]

OK, I understand. Now, is this the only “glitch” you see? Apart from the amount of observable evil, there is nothing that can be reasonably doubted? /quote]
“God” is a word that is interpreted in many different ways. Hume pointed out that most disagreements are about the nature rather than the existence of God. I question the belief that God is an impassible Judge because it seems like a defect rather than a perfection!

 

[Spock]

“God” is a word that is interpreted in many different ways.

Very true.

Hume pointed out that most disagreements are about the nature rather than the existence of God. I question the belief that God is an impassible Judge because it seems like a defect rather than a perfection!

Interesting observation. It shows just how impossible it is to define “perfection” - so that everyone would agree.

 

[tonyrey]

I question the belief that God is an impassible Judge because it seems like a defect rather than a perfection!

It shows just how impossible it is to define “perfection” - so that everyone would agree.

How can a person without feelings be a normal person, let alone a perfect one?

 

[tonyrey]

How can a person without feelings be a normal person, let alone a perfect one?

By “a normal person” I mean a person who is conscious, rational, autonomous, moral and purposeful together with a capacity for emotion and love.

 

[Fran65]

Spock,

You are asking Catholics to tell you why they shouldn’t believe in God?

Or are you asking for a discussion of those things that challenge their faith? In which case it would be a redundant thread as there are many, many other threads discussing just those things.

Try typing the problem of suffering into the search engine for example.

God Bless

 

[liquidpele]

Spock,

You are asking Catholics to tell you why they shouldn’t believe in God?

Or are you asking for a discussion of those things that challenge their faith? In which case it would be a redundant thread as there are many, many other threads discussing just those things.

Try typing the problem of suffering into the search engine for example.

God Bless

I think he’s asking the personal question of what exactly would a Catholic see as evidence of no God existing? I’m a bit curious myself. Is there nothing possible that would convince any Catholic to reject their beliefs?