Is the atheist threshold for evidence of God too high?

[Regular_Atheist]

Yeah, I guess that title’ll do.

I’m not really sure where I should have put this. This debate seems to be pretty philosophical. I’m sure it can be moved if such a thing is required. Anyway, I’m responding to an argument already presented by PRmerger, but feel free to give your own opinion. Obviously. Else I wouldn’t have posted this here.

PRmerger:

Curious, this.

Forgive my skepticism, but I am certain that you have never met the pilots that transport you in an aircraft, so I find it hard to believe that you can have trust in this person whom you have never met.

That’s faith.

You live your life by faith, with* very little *evidence for a lot of very, very important things. (Note: I am not saying “no evidence”).

That’s fine. I just hope that you realize that you are being inconsistent with Believers.

For some reason your threshold of demand for evidence for believing in God is curiously high, yet your threshold for demand for evidence for things in which your very life depends is rather low.

I think we’ll have to drop this analogy. This threshold for evidence, and what demands more or less evidence is completely arbitrary and subjective, so I can’t see how we can continue to discuss this. I believe there is already enough evidence to suggest that I will most likely survive flights I take, and I also don’t believe there is yet enough evidence for the existence of God to claim whether he surely does or doesn’t exist. You may need less evidence in order to feel that you can judge God to exist.

PRmerger:

That’s fine. But realize that you do this, too. It’s therefore not logically sound for you to trust your life to a total stranger, acting on faith that she can get you safely to your destination.

But I don’t need to know the pilot in person for me to be quite sure that they’re competent. You seem to find this hard to believe. Why?

PRmerger:

Fair enough. A theological argument.

But there’s at least 20, just from one website. That should be at least as convincing as your trusting a total stranger with your life.

That doesn’t mean the arguments are necessarily good or convincing. There’s also much more physical and demonstrable evidence of competent pilots. You can’t say the same for God. Many theological arguments only work depending on the beliefs of the person in question. For example, an argument for morality requires the person to first believe in an objective morality. Physical evidence works for all.

PRmerger:

Why should your demand for evidence be “much much more”? You’re trusting your life to a complete stranger.

I’d require more evidence for the existence of a God because of the difference of the two clams. With the pilot, you’re asking me whether or not this person who clearly exists and has also managed to by-pass airport security to gain entry to the cockpit has the necessary qualifications to fly a plane. There is no reason for me to doubt that the pilot could be qualified. In fact, it’s more likely they are qualified seeing as they managed to reach the cockpit in the first place.

When it comes to the existence of a god, however, you’re asking me whether this magical being that can not be demonstrated to exist and does not manifest itself in the physical world exists. With such a claim, I don’t even know whether the being in question exists.

PRmerger:

I haven’t really explained it very well, but as I already said beforehand, one claim is asking me to prove something that is run-of-the-mill and is an everyday occurrence, while another claim is asking me to prove something supernatural. I have no reason to doubt that someone could be qualified to fly a plane, in the same way that I need not doubt that you may have eaten a cake. When it comes to a god, however, there is no reason for me to even consider its existence.

Note: the analogy is *not:*evidence for God’s existence : evidence for a qualified pilots existence

Rather, it is: evidence for God’s existence : evidence that this pilot can get you where you need to go safely.

You have never met this pilot. You have not examined a single piece of evidence that she passed her test. You have never looked at her flight record to see how many errors she has made. You do not look at her medical record or psychological exams.

You just have faith that she can get you where you need to go.

That’s HUGE.

Yet there’s lots of other evidence which can lead me to conclude that there’s an extremely good chance of being competent, as I’ve said time after time.

 

[PRmerger]

Great title for this thread, friend!

It does make it appear as if you understand my question quite well!

I will read the above and digest and respond shortly.

 

[zro_x]

Is the atheist threshold for evidence of God too high?

Depends on the atheist. Idealy, if the evidence for God placed the probability for his existence at over 50%, that should be the threshold for evidence. from an empiricist standpoint, each atheist should examine whether or not the evidence for God places the probability for his existence at 50% or higher.

However, even if there is not enough physical evidence to push the probability for God’s existence above these bounds (which I think is the case), I think one rationally come to believe God exists through the use of philosophical arguments. empiricism is not the only way to come to rational knowledge.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The threshold for evidence is too high if it demands that God be detectable in a laboratory petri dish or at the end of a telescope. Scientism, which is mostly the atheistic creed, would seem to require that. Paley’s Watch and the Big Bang aside, I think the universal thirst to find God is evidence enough. Even the atheist appears to be fleeing God, rather than thirsting to know Him up close and personal. As Chesterton put it:

“It is not natural to the normal agnostic, it is not natural to the normal pagan, it is not natural to the blind and ignorant child of this mysterious world, to jump up suddenly and shout at a child that there is no god. There are a hundred instincts of our own unexplored psychology crying out against it… And the fact that the atheists of Russia have gone beyond the ordinary agnostics of Europe, and shown a black impatience to hammer their negation like a nail into the baby’s head, is itself a proof that they are in a strained and unnatural and unhuman condition of mind; that they are in very truth waging a war not only against God, but against human nature.” (written in 1930)

 

[Eleve]

Depends on the atheist. Idealy, if the evidence for God placed the probability for his existence at over 50%, that should be the threshold for evidence. from an empiricist standpoint, each atheist should examine whether or not the evidence for God places the probability for his existence at 50% or higher.

However, even if there is not enough physical evidence to push the probability for God’s existence above these bounds (which I think is the case), I think one rationally come to believe God exists through the use of philosophical arguments. empiricism is not the only way to come to rational knowledge.

I think most philosophers would be comfortable calling philosophical argument a form of evidence. So it would be possible to have too high of a standard by demanding that arguments meet an absurdly high standard of strength.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

The threshold for evidence is too high if it demands that God be detectable in a laboratory petri dish or at the end of a telescope. Scientism, which is mostly the atheistic creed, would seem to require that. Paley’s Watch and the Big Bang aside, I think the universal thirst to find God is evidence enough. Even the atheist appears to be fleeing God, rather than thirsting to know Him up close and personal.

I guess I can see your point. You seem to be implying that it’s somehow innate for people to be spiritual, though. I wouldn’t agree. I, personally, find it hard to have faith in the supernatural. I think most atheists would generally say that just because people want something to be true doesn’t necessarily mean it is.

 

[zro_x]

I guess I can see your point. You seem to be implying that it’s somehow innate for people to be spiritual, though. I wouldn’t agree. I, personally, find it hard to have faith in the supernatural. I think most atheists would generally say that just because people want something to be true doesn’t necessarily mean it is.

It would be difficult to claim that there isn’t some sort of spiritual instinct embeded in all of us, whether or not that instinct evolved or is an actual experience with God. Religion is one of the few things present in every ancient and most modern day cultures. I’ve heard of plenty of atheists who claim that the religious instinct, like certain ingrained psychological biases, is just a vestigial evolutionary trait with no modern day purpose, that can, and should, be overcome if society is going to progress. That view has its own problems, but at least it takes into account the overwhelming universiality of religion.

 

[PRmerger]

With the pilot, you’re asking me whether or not this person who clearly exists and has also managed to by-pass airport security to gain entry to the cockpit has the necessary qualifications to fly a plane.

The analogy is NOT evidence for the pilot’s *existence *is parallel to evidence for God’s existence.

The parallel is that you have faith in the pilot’s ability to fly you safely to your destination, with hardly a whit of evidence, yet have no faith in the possibility of God’s existence, despite quite a bit of evidence.

There is no reason for me to doubt that the pilot could be qualified

Does this not directly contradict your statement that you made here:

Keep in mind that I would never have faith in the pilot being qualified. If someone asked if they were, I would say “I don’t know.” Because I wouldn’t. I’d be agnostic towards the existence of the pilot’s credentials, if you like.

If anything, my view of the pilot’s qualifications are much like my view on Jesus. Jesus may have existed, he may not have. The pilot’s qualifications may exist, they may not do.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Regular

**I guess I can see your point. You seem to be implying that it’s somehow innate for people to be spiritual, though. I wouldn’t agree. I, personally, find it hard to have faith in the supernatural. I think most atheists would generally say that just because people want something to be true doesn’t necessarily mean it is. **

I take your word for it that you find it difficult to have faith in the supernatural. However, you seem to have interest in the supernatural or you’d not be visiting Catholic Answers.

 

[rfournier103]

Honestly, the only way any atheist I know could ever be convinced that there IS a God; would be for God to materialize out of thin air right in front of him or her, and announce that He is God. And probably perform a miracle or three.

 

[down_under]

This is maddening to me. Mostly because as obscure as it is to atheist girl, Gods existence is “brick in the faced” obvious to me. (incidentally I have been hit in the face with a brick. it hurt)
This is a philosophy forum lets talk philosophy

-You do not exist-
you suffer the problem of contingency. Your life is contingent on a great many things. like the act that your mother and father performed a few years back that gave you life. you do NOT exist in and of your self. It is brick in the face obvious that there needs to (philosophically) be a being that does exist and is not contingent. That simply is in and of himself. We call this being God.

-from science primordial molecule-
you object to the head of NASA’s claim that he used all the tools of science to climb the highest peak of science and at the top coming face to face with the theologies who have been there for centuries. NASA found a closed door. that all of there skill at science cannot open and will never be able to open no matter how much we learn. Because they found the moment were all matter came into existence, in one moment of light and energy, out of nothing. Either the last 400 years of science is a big coincidence or the law of causality which science uses applies here. Anything that has a beginning has a cause. We call that cause that existed before everything existed (the first cause, the unmoved mover) God.

and welcome to the world of agnosticism. Because these arguments are irrefutable. you wanted physical evidence, there it is enjoy. (No i don’t believe anyone was just converted. but the argument is still irrefutable. you can deny it but that does not stop it from being logical and true.)

 

[buffalo]

By painting themselves into a corner a threshold isn’t even considered. It is a simple refusal to accept anything other than what is self imposed.

 

[meltzerboy]

I do not think the atheist threshold for evidence of G-d is too high. After all, it is G-d we are talking about, an entity who created the universe out of nothing, a being who is believed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, extra-temporal, extra-spatial, incorporeal, the alpha and the omega; in short, totally unique as no other. Before committing oneself to belief in such a being, it is understandable that one might desire quite a bit of evidence. All this is apart from commitment to a particular religious interpretation of worshiping G-d among the several thousand that currently exist. My view is that evidence is sorely lacking on such a grand scale and that either you have faith or you do not. And even those who have faith may, especially during times of pain and suffering, waiver in their beliefs up to the point of doubting and even denying. Some, perhaps most, continuously question throughout their lives.

 

[rfournier103]

I do not think the atheist threshold for evidence of G-d is too high. After all, it is G-d we are talking about, an entity who created the universe out of nothing, a being who is believed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, extra-temporal, extra-spatial, incorporeal, the alpha and the omega; in short, totally unique as no other. Before committing oneself to belief in such a being, it is understandable that one might desire quite a bit of evidence. All this is apart from commitment to a particular religious interpretation of worshiping G-d among the several thousand that currently exist. My view is that evidence is sorely lacking on such a grand scale and that either you have faith or you do not. And even those who have faith may, especially during times of pain and suffering, waiver in their beliefs up to the point of doubting and even denying. Some, perhaps most, continuously question throughout their lives.

TOTALLY off topic, Meltzerboy… What is the reason Jews do not spell out the name of God? I know you don’t, and a friend of mine doesn’t either. I’ve been meaning to ask for some time, but just happened to remember now.

 

[meltzerboy]

TOTALLY off topic, Meltzerboy… What is the reason Jews do not spell out the name of God? I know you don’t, and a friend of mine doesn’t either. I’ve been meaning to ask for some time, but just happened to remember now.

G-d or Gd is abbreviated this way as a precaution that His written name not be intentionally or inadvertently deleted. In speaking, the name is also abbreviated: Hashem. This is due to awe and reverence for the belief that G-d in His infinite majesty cannot and should not be limited by means of a definitive label.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I do not think the atheist threshold for evidence of G-d is too high. After all, it is G-d we are talking about, an entity who created the universe out of nothing, a being who is believed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, extra-temporal, extra-spatial, incorporeal, the alpha and the omega; in short, totally unique as no other. Before committing oneself to belief in such a being, it is understandable that one might desire quite a bit of evidence. All this is apart from commitment to a particular religious interpretation of worshiping G-d among the several thousand that currently exist. My view is that evidence is sorely lacking on such a grand scale and that either you have faith or you do not. And even those who have faith may, especially during times of pain and suffering, waiver in their beliefs up to the point of doubting and even denying. Some, perhaps most, continuously question throughout their lives.

Being an atheist involves the lack of the Holy Spirit. Once one experiences the Holy Spirit, one knows that God is real. I know, I was an atheist, until I experienced the Holy Spirit.

 

[vames]

Well, I guess the only thing close to a “threshold” lies in how our brains are wired, if we remember those experiments that used to compare nuns and Buddhist monks to Dawkins to study what happens in their temporal lobe. Such experiments are not meant to prove that God exists or not, though, but only that some people are more inclined or better trained than others to have various spiritual experiences.

 

[miguel]

Honestly, the only way any atheist I know could ever be convinced that there IS a God; would be for God to materialize out of thin air right in front of him or her, and announce that He is God. And probably perform a miracle or three.

Even after 10 demonstrations of divine power, Pharoah still chose the hard heart.

It’s not fair that philosophers get to have all the fun. I’m an engineer, and this is an engineering arguement. Architectures are evidence of an architect.

Every biological organism is an architecture (composed of subsystems) which is beyond complete human comprehension, yet completely rational (e.g., the heart is a subsystem that exists to pump blood through a complex network of plumbing to bring oxygen and nutrients to every cell). Similarly, in engineering systems, a car for example, there are many subsystems that make up the system. Different organisms exist to maintain some rational balance in nature. For example, mosquitos exist to keep me from getting too comfortable in the forest. The car itself has an intelligent purpose to take passengers from point A to point B. Each subsystem is an architecture (e.g., the coolant system is a network of plumbing deliberately designed to reject heat from the combustion process).

If anyone suggested that an architecture like a car is there because it magically got here, we’d laugh. Why isn’t the same standard given to the existence of biological architectures?

 

[seagal]

For some atheists there will never be enough evidence. They just don’t want to be convinced. Recently I heard an apologist (can’t remember which one) giving a talk on a youtube video and he mentioned his favourite question to atheists. If, after a discussion the atheist is still unconvinced, the apologist asks “if Christianity were true would you become a Christian?” A surprising number answer with a resounding “NO”.

 

[zro_x]

For some atheists there will never be enough evidence. They just don’t want to be convinced. Recently I heard an apologist (can’t remember which one) giving a talk on a youtube video and he mentioned his favourite question to atheists. If, after a discussion the atheist is still unconvinced, the apologist asks “if Christianity were true would you become a Christian?” A surprising number answer with a resounding “NO”.

I wonder how many christians, if asked whether they would adopt atheism if it were true, would respond similarly.