Evidence for theism and atheism

[MindOverMatter]

How is it weakened? Atheism is purely the disbelief in God due to lack of evidence.

That depends on what you mean by evidence. There is plenty of good logical reasons to believe in God. The problem with you is not the evidence. The real problem is that logic points to God to such an extent that todays atheists are forced into relativism because they’re scared that what was once the guardian of their so called disbelief is now their greatest enemy. They are quite prepared to delve into logical contradictions just so they can escape responsibility for their existence. They rebuke the logical arguments simply because it points to God. When they are concerned with other aspects of life they are quite happy to use the same logic that supports Gods existence, so long as they don’t have too consider God as the inevitable expression of reasonable discussion.

 

[wanstronian]

“Science is sufficient for explaining all aspects of our experience” “thus those experiences or logical inferences which point to God cannot be relied upon as evidence.”

Thats one example of a baseless superstition that permeates the minds of the modern materialist.

Where are your quotes from? The first one is as obviously untrue as the second is true.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I think I would replace, “doesn’t make sense” in your statement with “we don’t yet, and may never, understand.” It removes the unnecessary implication that the scientific method will never be able to provide an explanation, and shows that your conclusion is premature.

The scientific method in principle cannot give account of existence. Anybody that truly understands science, will understand that science is confined to that which is measurable and is changing. The second fallacy is the idea that science is the only reasonable method for knowing something, and yet you believe that its reasonable to think that there are other intelligences outside of your mind. Thus there is obviously other grounds for believing something outside of empirical verification.

Please don’t respond with the same old rubbish about science being able to verify that other minds exist, because you are just going to make me sick, and the arguments have been shown to you plenty of times before. There is no excuse for your ignorance of these basic facts. One can have a reasonable belief outside of empirical verification.

 

[wanstronian]

That depends on what you mean by evidence. There is plenty of good logical reasons to believe in God. The problem with you is not the evidence. The real problem is that logic points to God to such an extent that todays atheists are forced into relativism because they’re scared that what was once the guardian of their so called disbelief is now their greatest enemy. They are quite prepared to delve into logical contradictions just so they can escape responsibility for their existence. They rebuke the logical arguments simply because it points to God. When they are concerned with other aspects of life they are quite happy to use the same logic that supports Gods existence, so long as they don’t have too consider God as the inevitable expression of reasonable discussion.

I’m not convinced you actually believe any of this. It sounds like what is (to me) a new theist argument - “The argument from presumed atheist insecurity.”

Logic most certainly does not point to God. Logic points towards an inconclusive resolution. There’s no evidence for God, there’s no evidence against him. However, rationality dictates that we should not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

I’d like to see an example of your stated, “logical contradictions” as apparently perpetrated by atheists during discussions regarding God’s existence.

Your final statement is interesting - it’s probably true, but I don’t need to tell you that flawed reasoning by an atheist is not evidence of the existence of God. It’s just evidence of inconsistent reasoning. But again, I’d like an example of these double standards to which you allude. I have no doubt they exist, but it would be interesting to discuss a real-life example.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Where are your quotes from? The first one is as obviously untrue as the second is true.

Where are your arguments? You obviously have none thats why you keep repeating the same old unsupportable assertions.

 

[wanstronian]

The scientific method in principle cannot give account of existence. Anybody that truly understands science, will understand that science is confined to that which is measurable and is changing. The second fallacy is the idea that science is the only reasonable method for knowing something, and yet you believe that its reasonable to think that there are other intelligences outside of your mind. Thus there is obviously other grounds for believing something outside of empirical verification.

Please don’t respond with the same old rubbish about science being able to verify that other minds exist, because you are just going to make me sick, and the arguments have been shown to you plenty of times before. There is no excuse for your ignorance of these basic facts. One can have a reasonable belief outside of empirical verification.

I don’t particularly care if the truth makes you sick! Yes, the arguments have been shown to me many times, and on each occasion I have pointed out exactly how they are flawed, and thus inconclusive. Yes, one can have a *reasonable *belief outside of empirical verification (I don’t doubt that you have a reason for your belief), but not a rational belief.

 

[wanstronian]

Where are your arguments? You obviously have none thats why you keep repeating the same old unsupportable assertions.

Do you have sources, or are you just avoiding?

Anyway, it’s nearly 1am here so I’m going to bed. 'Night.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’m not convinced you actually believe any of this.

If i wanted to remain an atheist, i wouldn’t want to be convinced either.

Logic most certainly does not point to God.

You are making a positive assertion here, so its your responsibility to prove that there are no logical arguments that point to Gods existence. Demonstrate to us why you are correct.

Logic points towards an inconclusive resolution.

One more assertion is not going to help your case. Prove it.

There’s no evidence for God.

One more assertion is not going to help your case. Prove it.

I’d like to see an example of your stated, “logical contradictions” as apparently perpetrated by atheists during discussions regarding God’s existence.

There has been plenty of examples throughout the history of this forum. Feel free to look through them. Perhaps you might want to look at the thread “8 steps to the Existence of God”.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=359235

Your final statement is interesting - it’s probably true, but I don’t need to tell you that flawed reasoning by an atheist is not evidence of the existence of God.

There are plenty of threads including ones that are started by my self, warpspeedpetey, and J Daniel, that show why it is reasonable to believe in God. Feel free to look around you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think I would replace, “doesn’t make sense” in your statement with “we don’t yet, and may never, understand.” It removes the unnecessary implication that the scientific method will never be able to provide an explanation, and shows that your conclusion is premature.

there are a couple good reasons for the inability of science to provide an explanation for the existence of the universe.

1. physical things are incapable of self creation, to our senses only physical things are observable and testable. in other words you can only practice the scientific method on things you can sense.
2. nothing pre-BB is observable, in fact as there was no time at the point where a singularity is assumed to exist, then even if something so strange as time travel were invented, you couldnt go back far enough to observe anything.

so it seems that the scientific method, as useful as it is, in this regard it can offer no explanation.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don’t particularly care if the truth makes you sick!

First demonstrate that its the truth. You have no arguments as usual; just more assertions. Pitty.

Yes, the arguments have been shown to me many times, and on each occasion I have pointed out exactly how they are flawed

If your rebuttals have been anything like the tired assertions that you have been regurgitation here, then i can only assume that all you have really pointed out is the very little understanding that you truly have of logic and science. You obviously have little time for real intellectual debate, and more then enough time to make baseless unsupportable assertions.

Yes, one can have a *reasonable *belief outside of empirical verification

Honesty is the best policy. By admitting this here you obviously know that you were wrong.

(I don’t doubt that you have a reason for your belief)

I have good reasons for my belief. Many of which have been posted on this very forum.

but not a rational belief.

Good reasons supported by strict logic equals a rational world view; as opposed to the poor reasons which you have demonstrated for your atheism.

 

[tonyrey]

                 Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5717335#post5717335)                 
             *I'm afraid you miss my point. I have not referred to an alternative theory. I have simply stated that atheism is weakened by the fact that important aspects of reality remain unexplained. It would obviously be strengthened by the discovery that consciousness, for example, is explained by certain physical events.*
                             How is it weakened? Atheism is purely the disbelief in God due to lack of evidence. It would only be weakened if it claimed to have an explanation for all these 'important aspects of reality.' As you know, atheism makes no such claims.

1. Atheism is based on the belief that there are definite criteria for determining what constitutes evidence.
2. The atheist believes these criteria to be entirely physical.
3. Therefore atheism is based on physicalism.

I agree. That is precisely what I have done.
You’ve claimed it. You haven’t demonstrated it!

You have taken my quote out of context:

Besides, as far as creation we’re talking about something we can’t know. All we can do is infer, and this is exactly what each side has done. If you want to explain your logic, go for it, but neither side can rightfully say they are right. At best, you could claim the other side’s logic is faulty in one way or another - which does not support other theories if true.
I agree. That is precisely what I have done.

Where did I use the word “demonstrated”?

 

[tonyrey]

Anybody that claims to know that God doesn’t exist is arguably as dense as someone who claims to know that he does.I’ve never seen any proof that God doesn’t exist.

In that case you admit the possibility that God exists. You will, of course, object that a mere possibility is not worth considering but to do so implies a high degree of confidence in your rejection of the possibility. How is it possible to be so confident when confronted with a question that concerns the entire universe, the existence of human beings and the fundamental nature of reality?

I guess I’m a “soft” atheist. Although for reasons of accuracy, I’d change “believe” in your definition to “recognise.”

Why do you prefer “recognise”?

 

[wanstronian]

If i wanted to remain an atheist, i wouldn’t want to be convinced either.

Desire has nothing to do with it.

You are making a positive assertion here, so its your responsibility to prove that there are no logical arguments that point to Gods existence. Demonstrate to us why you are correct.

No, you’re asking me to prove a negative (and you don’t even seem to realise it!). The broken-record bleat of the theist strikes again.

One more assertion is not going to help your case. Prove it.

Well, unless you are asserting that all atheists are illogical and all theists are logical, then the ultimate conclusion is that logic cannot answer the question of God’s existence either way.

One more assertion is not going to help your case. Prove it.Another challenge to prove a negative. It must be so frustrating to claim that God exists, then have to resort to challenging skeptics to prove otherwise!

There has been plenty of examples throughout the history of this forum. Feel free to look through them. Perhaps you might want to look at the thread “8 steps to the Existence of God”.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=359235

That thread has 191 posts. You’ll forgive me if I don’t trawl through them looking for evidence to support your claim. The first one is a mere argument from contingency, which is not worth squat. You are the one stating that logical contradictions have been made. I am asking you to point them out. But I repeat, errors made by atheists don’t mean that God exists!

There are plenty of threads including ones that are started by my self, warpspeedpetey, and J Daniel, that show why it is reasonable to believe in God. Feel free to look around you.

See my previous comment. I am looking around me - I don’t see God anywhere.

 

[MindOverMatter]

No, you’re asking me to prove a negative (and you don’t even seem to realise it!).

Ah, wantronian, asking somebody to demonstrate why an arguement concerning Gods existence is false (including the ones that i have posted), is not asking somebody to prove a negative. Asking somebody to prove that God doesn’t exist is asking somebody to disprove a negative.:doh2: How many more straw-man are you going to manifest today?:hypno:

 

[wanstronian]

First demonstrate that its the truth. You have no arguments as usual; just more assertions. Pitty.

Prove that science is the truth??? Er, I don’t really think I need to.

If your rebuttals have been anything like the tired assertions that you have been regurgitation here, then i can only assume that all you have really pointed out is the very little understanding that you truly have of logic and science. You obviously have little time for real intellectual debate, and more then enough time to make baseless unsupportable assertions.

Presumably you are aware of the saying, “Pot calling the kettle black?” That’s what you just did. Incredible hypocrisy! What baseless assertions have I made?

Honesty is the best policy. By admitting this here you obviously know that you were wrong.

Don’t be ridiculous. I’ve said nothing inconsistent. If you have to hang your arguments on vapid interpretations of legitimate comment, then you are showing just how weak your case is.

I have good reasons for my belief. Many of which have been posted on this very forum.

I think I understand your reasons. They mainly seem to rest on contingency and/or cosmological arguments. Even assuming there is an incontingent cause for every subsequent contingent event and entity… why would it be a sentient entity called God?

Good reasons supported by strict logic equals a rational world view; as opposed to the poor reasons which you have demonstrated for your atheism.

Absolutely. But they’re not objectively good reasons. They’re reasons that make sense to you, but do not stand up to independent scrutiny. Further, your application of logic is warped to assist you in ‘proving’ that you’re right to believe.

By contrast, my reason for atheism - that there is no evidence for God’s existence - is impregnable until someone provides me with such evidence.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Atheists use “superstitious evidence”? Care to give an example?

A very specific example that truly defines “superstition” is the belief in the force called “strong force”.

This name and concept came from noticing that something is holding protons together (a misconception, presumption already) and thus whatever it is, we will call “strong force”.

The problem is that there is actually no force there at all. It is a mental invention to explain a phenomena that had no other explanation == “superstition”

Magnetism (named after “magic”), gravitational force, weak force, and quantum force, are believed by the same kind of reasoning; something is happening, we don’t know what it is, so we will give it a name, declare it a force, and proceed to measure it.

Then, interestingly, and very commonly fallacious, because they can measure it, they presume that they must be right about what it is. They use their measurements to predict and then say, “well, we predicted correctly, thus our understanding must be correct.”

But in reality, you can make 3 left turns and still be right.

All of Science is built upon superstition. Only true Logicians can filter through the non-sense to see the reality behind it all. The same is true of religion.

 

[wanstronian]

Ah, wantronian, asking somebody to demonstrate why an arguement concerning Gods existence is false (including the ones that i have posted), is not asking somebody to prove a negative. Asking somebody to prove that God doesn’t exist is asking somebody to disprove a negative.:doh2: How many more straw-man are you going to manifest today?:hypno:

Nice try, the fact remains that you have no proof of God’s existence, and you are trying to get me to prove that you have no proof. You can accuse me of straw-manning if you like, but if you’re resorting to taking issue solely with my phraseology rather than with the underlying issue, then it shows that you have no case.

 

[wanstronian]

In that case you admit the possibility that God exists. You will, of course, object that a mere possibility is not worth considering but to do so implies a high degree of confidence in your rejection of the possibility. How is it possible to be so confident when confronted with a question that concerns the entire universe, the existence of human beings and the fundamental nature of reality?

Because there’s no evidence!! How many times does that simple but fundamental fact have to be pointed out!??

Why do you prefer “recognise”?

Because ‘believe’ implies an opinion whereas ‘recognition’ reflects the factual reality. However, I do have to qualify that I was talking about your definition of the “soft” atheist. “Believe” is an appropriate word in the definition of the “hard” atheist. Sorry, should have made that clear before.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Prove that science is the truth??? Er, I don’t really think I need to.

Now prove to me where i say that you must prove that science is the truth. Another straw-man. How many more have you got to day mr postman.
wanstronian;5727521:

I think I understand your reasons.

No you don’t. Or rather, perhaps you don’t want to understand.

They mainly seem to rest on contingency and/or cosmological arguments. Even assuming there is an incontingent cause for every subsequent contingent event and entity… why would it be a sentient entity called God?.

It has been demonstrated on many occasions why a necessary cause infers what we understand to be the existence of God. You simply choose to ignore the logical evidence put forward.

But they’re not objectively

good reasons.

Prove it!!! One more assertion, and i will stop talking to you.

They’re reasons that make sense to you.

They’re good reasons that follow from logical necessity; so of course they make sense to me.

but do not stand up to independent scrutiny.

Its irrelevant to me what other people think or understand if logical truth is telling me something different. Its certainly convinces some people. But this is not about other people. This is about you being honest with yourself and the evidence.

Further, your application of logic is warped to assist you in ‘proving’ that you’re right to believe.

Prove it. Don’t just assert it.

By contrast, my reason for atheism - that there is no evidence for God’s existence - is impregnable until someone provides me with such evidence.

All i see here is willful ignorance and pride in the face of logically valid arguments for the existence of God. Thats all i see in your post.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Nice try, the fact remains that you have no proof of God’s existence, and you are trying to get me to prove that you have no proof.

You are dodging the issue as usual. Demonstrate that my arguments and all the arguments made for the existence of God are all logically invalid. Start with mine.