Evidence for theism and atheism

[tonyrey]

1. An unknown source of energy has always existed.
2. An unknown source of energy appeared spontaneously.
3. Physical energy has always existed.
4. Physical energy appeared spontaneously.

#1 is the most likely explanation considering that (a) physical energy is irrational and purposeless and (b) there is no explanation of how energy can appear spontaneously.

In a court of law there is much acceptable evidence that is not scientific but personal. Intangible motives, decisions and purposes serve as a basis for determining innocence or guilt. Intents (which have a reference to the future) have not been explained in terms of physical processes (which have no reference to the future). So they constitute evidence for the existence of non-physical activity.

“Physical objects, small and large, are not the only posits. Forces are another example; and indeed we are told nowadays that the boundary between energy and matter is obsolete. Moreover, the abstract entities which are the substance of mathematics – ultimately classes and classes of classes and so on up – are another posit in the same spirit. Epistemologically these are myths on the same footing with physical objects and gods, neither better nor worse except for differences in the degree to which they expedite our dealings with sense experiences.” Two Dogmas of Empiricism: W.V.Quine

Atheism implies that reality can in principle be explained solely by physical causes. Yet atheists believe persons and their intangible experiences exist beyond reasonable doubt. Since the most important aspects of reality like persons have not been explained in terms of physical causes there is a fundamental weakness in the rejection of God’s existence.

 

[liquidpele]

Since the most important aspects of reality like persons have not been explained in terms of physical causes there is a fundamental weakness in the rejection of God’s existence.

I think that’s the biggest misconception. Just because you disagree with a purely physical universe, does NOT lend credit to any alternate theory. Theories must stand on their own. Just because you think I’m not wearing a baseball cap does NOT make it more probable that I’m wearing a cowboy hat.

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.

 

[Eucharisted]

Atheists use materialist and superstitious evidence to prove God dosen’t exist. Theists use reason and revelation to prove God dose exist. That’s what it boils down to, really. If more atheists would just realize that all truth and good comes from and points to God, than they might realize why theists say creation and motion and logic and such things are proof of God’s existence. However, most of them are stuck in world where nothing divine can exist, where miracles are simply inexplaiable events waiting for science to explain them away (or leave them mysteries), where superstition and religion are the same thing, where spirits are supernatural and have no connection to God, where life is simply temporal, where science dictates how to percieve of everything, where anything that points to God is either dismissed or explained as natural or as foolish or as tampered with, and where anything out of the ordinary is simply ordinary and has no real meaning whatsoever.

 

[liquidpele]

Atheists use materialist and superstitious evidence to prove God dosen’t exist. Theists use reason and revelation to prove God dose exist. That’s what it boils down to, really. If more atheists would just realize that all truth and good comes from and points to God, than they might realize why theists say creation and motion and logic and such things are proof of God’s existence. However, most of them are stuck in world where nothing divine can exist, where miracles are simply inexplaiable events waiting for science to explain them away (or leave them mysteries), where superstition and religion are the same thing, where spirits are supernatural and have no connection to God, where life is simply temporal, where science dictates how to percieve of everything, where anything that points to God is either dismissed or explained as natural or as foolish or as tampered with, and where anything out of the ordinary is simply ordinary and has no real meaning whatsoever.

Atheists use “superstitious evidence”? Care to give an example? You also cite miracles… care to give examples? You also seem to be under the impression that science tries to explain things in order to undermine God, which clearly shows your bias regarding the quest for answers and truth. You’d prefer things be unexplained I imagine.

My new favourite video on this subject: youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

 

[Eucharisted]

Atheists use “superstitious evidence”? Care to give an example? You also cite miracles… care to give examples? You also seem to be under the impression that science tries to explain things in order to undermine God, which clearly shows your bias regarding the quest for answers and truth. You’d prefer things be unexplained I imagine.

My new favourite video on this subject: youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

Thanks for not reading my post.

 

[Eucharisted]

Atheists use “superstitious evidence”? Care to give an example? You also cite miracles… care to give examples?

Most atheists use superstitious evidence in two ways: 1) They say that chance proves God dosen’t exist and 2) They say that the preternatural proves God dosen’t exist. Obviously not all atheists do this, but most who don’t believe in God do.

Examples of miracles would include the healing water at Lourdes and Jesus’ resurrection. I’m sure you’re going to say neither is a miracle, probably demand a definition of miracles, than probably attempt to prove that the two miracles I cited aren’t miracles at all, and I’m sure I won’t be around to witness such foolishness. Most atheists think attacking miracles is a good way to prove God dosen’t exist, but the only thing it proves is their arrogence.

I also predict you’ll take my words out of context, just as you did with my first post above. But I pray for God to make a fool of me.

 

[wanstronian]

Atheists use materialist and superstitious evidence to prove God dosen’t exist.

This shows that you don’t have the first clue what atheism even is. How can you debate a point without understanding it? It’s really simply: Atheists do not claim to be able to prove that God doesn’t exist. Atheists conclude that God doesn’t exist because there is no evidence to the contrary. This is a very simple truth, and if more theists had the integrity to understand and accept it, they would be far less prone to setting up straw men and wasting everybody’s time. As you have done.

Theists use reason and revelation to prove God dose exist.

There are no conclusive arguments for God’s existence. There is only speculation, biased ontological arguments and awful logic. You may call this reason if you like . Furthermore, how can revelation prove that God exists? What is revealed to whom, that results in any sort of evidence?

That’s what it boils down to, really. If more atheists would just realize that all truth and good comes from and points to God,

Ah, so all we have to do is ignore the absence of evidence, abandon logical thought, see every coincidence as a sign, and just plain old adopt your belief system, then we’d understand the truth?

than they might realize why theists say creation and motion and logic and such things are proof of God’s existence.

Two parts of your statement are a howling non sequitur. “Truth and Good come from God, therefore motion and logic are evidence of God’s existence?” In fact you’ve pulled off something special here - a case of circular reasoning that still manages to result in a non-sequitur!

However, most of them are stuck in world where nothing divine can exist, where miracles are simply inexplaiable events waiting for science to explain them away (or leave them mysteries), where superstition and religion are the same thing, where spirits are supernatural and have no connection to God, where life is simply temporal, where science dictates how to percieve of everything, where anything that points to God is either dismissed or explained as natural or as foolish or as tampered with, and where anything out of the ordinary is simply ordinary and has no real meaning whatsoever.

We’re all stuck in that world. Some of us have the pragmatism and security to recognise the fact though.

Although I don’t really like the word ‘stuck’ - I’m delighted to be living in a world where things happen that give me the opportunity to discover more about stuff, rather than just saying, “Oh, that’ll be God. Nothing to learn here, noses back in bibles.”

 

[Eucharisted]

This shows that you don’t have the first clue what atheism even is. How can you debate a point without understanding it? It’s really simply: Atheists do not claim to be able to prove that God doesn’t exist. Atheists conclude that God doesn’t exist because there is no evidence to the contrary. This is a very simple truth, and if more theists had the integrity to understand and accept it, they would be far less prone to setting up straw men and wasting everybody’s time. As you have done.There are no conclusive arguments for God’s existence. There is only speculation, biased ontological arguments and awful logic. You may call this reason if you like . Furthermore, how can revelation prove that God exists? What is revealed to whom, that results in any sort of evidence?Ah, so all we have to do is ignore the absence of evidence, abandon logical thought, see every coincidence as a sign, and just plain old adopt your belief system, then we’d understand the truth? Two parts of your statement are a howling non sequitur. “Truth and Good come from God, therefore motion and logic are evidence of God’s existence?” In fact you’ve pulled off something special here - a case of circular reasoning that still manages to result in a non-sequitur!We’re all stuck in that world. Some of us have the pragmatism and security to recognise the fact though.

Although I don’t really like the word ‘stuck’ - I’m delighted to be living in a world where things happen that give me the opportunity to discover more about stuff, rather than just saying, “Oh, that’ll be God. Nothing to learn here, noses back in bibles.”

Your arrogence is showing, and I am really getting tired of atheists’ arrogence. But rather than get mad, I’ll just stop coming to this thread. Better to not play around with an occasion to sin than to justify the means with the end.

 

[wanstronian]

Most atheists use superstitious evidence in two ways: 1) They say that chance proves God dosen’t exist and 2) They say that the preternatural proves God dosen’t exist.

I’ve never seen these arguments used. Can you cite a post? I assume so, as it seems to be all you ever hear from atheists!

Obviously not all atheists do this, but most who don’t believe in God do.

You seem to be dividing atheists into two camps - those who don’t believe in God, and those… who do…???

Examples of miracles would include the healing water at Lourdes and Jesus’ resurrection. I’m sure you’re going to say neither is a miracle, probably demand a definition of miracles, than probably attempt to prove that the two miracles I cited aren’t miracles at all, and I’m sure I won’t be around to witness such foolishness. Most atheists think attacking miracles is a good way to prove God dosen’t exist, but the only thing it proves is their arrogence.

Regardless of the definition of a miracle, there is no evidence that the water at Lourdes has any healing effect whatsoever. Did you see Dawkins’s two-part documentary “The Root of All Evil” from a few years ago? He established that out of the more than eight million visitors to the shrine, less than 0.025% of them has ever been cured. I don’t mean 2.5%, I mean one fortieth of one percent. These are figures from the official Lourdes tour rep.

Nor is there any evidence that Jesus was resurrected. So the definition of miracles becomes a moot point unless you can show that these effects/events are even true.

I also predict you’ll take my words out of context, just as you did with my first post above. But I pray for God to make a fool of me.

I don’t think anybody’s taken your words out of context. Your words seem pretty specific and definite to me. They just don’t make any sense.

 

[captainradon]

Wouldn’t the “Miracle of the Sun” at Fatima count as a genuine miracle and hence, evidence of God?
Has anyone come up with a definitive scientific explanation yet?
The attempts that I’ve read to explain it away seem to be more outlandish than the possibility that it was caused by divine intervention. I mean, sundogs? Mass hypnosis? Dust blowing up from the Sahara? Come on guys…
The reason that the debunkers can’t simply dismiss it as superstitious fairytale, like more ancient miracles, is that it took place in modern times, when newspaper reporting and photography were able record that *something *extraordinary took place, and that there were several thousand witnesses.

 

[liquidpele]

Wouldn’t the “Miracle of the Sun” at Fatima count as a genuine miracle and hence, evidence of God?
Has anyone come up with a definitive scientific explanation yet?
The attempts that I’ve read to explain it away seem to be more outlandish than the possibility that it was caused by divine intervention. I mean, sundogs? Mass hypnosis? Dust blowing up from the Sahara? Come on guys…

The reason that the debunkers can’t simply dismiss it as superstitious fairytale, like more ancient miracles, is that it took place in modern times, when newspaper reporting and photography were able record that *something *extraordinary took place, and that there were several thousand witnesses.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun#Critical_evaluation_of_the_event

What I find far stranger than the sun “dancing” is that this was not seen by other people all over the world… there’s only one sun.

 

[hatsoff]

1. An unknown source of energy has always existed.
2. An unknown source of energy appeared spontaneously.
3. Physical energy has always existed.
4. Physical energy appeared spontaneously.

#1 is the most likely explanation

Explanation of what? The existence of energy?

Wikipedia describes energy very well: it is a scalar physical quantity. In other words, the existence of energy, if indeed that is what you wish to explain, follows necessarily from the existence of matter.

Now, from whence did matter originate? Did it originate from anywhere at all? Those have been questions for the ages. However, lest you allow your mind to wander to it, I can assure you that “God did it” will not serve as a satisfactory answer.

 

[wanstronian]

Your arrogence is showing, and I am really getting tired of atheists’ arrogence. But rather than get mad, I’ll just stop coming to this thread. Better to not play around with an occasion to sin than to justify the means with the end.

I may have been flippant in my last comment, but not arrogant. Arrogance would be, for example, continuing to cling to a belief that you understand another’s opinion, even when you have been corrected - a bit like your presumption on the stance of the atheist.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif Since the most important aspects of reality like persons have not been explained in terms of physical causes there is a fundamental weakness in the rejection of God’s existence.
I think that’s the biggest misconception. Just because you disagree with a purely physical universe, does NOT lend credit to any alternate theory.

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.

Theories must stand on their own. Just because you think I’m not wearing a baseball cap does NOT make it more probable that I’m wearing a cowboy hat.

I agree.

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.

 

[tonyrey]

Atheists do not claim to be able to prove that God doesn’t exist.

If atheists cannot prove God doesn’t exist they do not** know** that God doesn’t exist.If they do not know that God doesn’t exist they are “soft” atheists. They are “hard” atheists if they claim to know that God does not exist.

Atheists conclude that God doesn’t exist because there is no evidence to the contrary.

“Soft” atheists conclude that God doesn’t exist because they believe there is no evidence to the contrary. “Hard” atheists conclude that God doesn’t exist because they believe they can prove that God doesn’t exist.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I think that’s the biggest misconception. Just because you disagree with a purely physical universe, does NOT lend credit to any alternate theory. Theories must stand on their own. Just because you think I’m not wearing a baseball cap does NOT make it more probable that I’m wearing a cowboy hat.

There is not a mere disagreement in the posts. One is expressing the fact that there are certain aspects of human experience that doesn’t make sense in terms of a purely physical universe. Thus there is legitimate grounds for doubting philosophical naturalism and considering another philosophical theories that fit more with the facts of our expereinces.

 

[wanstronian]

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.

I agree. That is precisely what I have done.

You’ve claimed it. You haven’t demonstrated it!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Atheists use “superstitious evidence”?

“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.

 

[wanstronian]

If atheists cannot prove God doesn’t exist they do not** know** that God doesn’t exist.If they do not know that God doesn’t exist they are “soft” atheists. They are “hard” atheists if they claim to know that God does not exist.

Then maybe you should specify which brand you are referring to when you post. Anybody that claims to know that God doesn’t exist is arguably as dense as someone who claims to know that he does.

“Soft” atheists conclude that God doesn’t exist because they believe there is no evidence to the contrary. “Hard” atheists conclude that God doesn’t exist because they believe they can prove that God doesn’t exist.

I’ve never seen any proof that God doesn’t exist.

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

 

[wanstronian]

There is not a mere disagreement in the posts. One is expressing the fact that there are certain aspects of human experience that doesn’t make sense in terms of a purely physical universe. Thus there is legitimate grounds for doubting philosophical naturalism and considering another philosophical theories that fit more with the facts of our expereinces.

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.