Of course we can't prove God or have evidence

[ngill09]

And I suppose that if I have faith in my parents, that they will love me and I should do what they say, that you would say that is confirmation bias.

Or if I trust my math teacher when he says that I should learn calculus, even though I don’t understand its purpose yet, that it will unlock truths in the future, that this is confirmation bias.

Or that if I trust a doctor that I have faith in to operate on me to save my life, that this is confirmation bias.

I’m OK with that.

You make my point for me.

You are making a moral claim that confirmation bias might be a bad thing, when in fact it is a neutral concept. Just part of life. Just a big fancy word for something obvious. IMHO.

You might want to look up what confirmation bias is.

 

[miguel]

I’ve surfed many threads here. I see atheists claim that we can’t prove God exists or show any evidence for him…

They’re just plain wrong. The existence of God is provable purely by the use of sound philosophical reasoning, unaided by divine revelation, as St Thomas Aquinas showed 800 years ago. That is the Catholic position. Other truths, the Trinity for example, can only be known by divine revelation.

 

[Al_Moritz]

So if you’re going to ignore what people say and imagine them saying things they don’t, then of course they’re going to seem evil. Congratulations, you’ve convinced me that the only reason Catholics fear atheists is because Catholics are incapable of understanding what an atheist actually says and insist on arguing with the “evil atheist” of their imagination.

Well, I am a Catholic and I don’t fear atheists, and I don’t think they are necessarily evil (not more than believers are necessarily evil). In fact, I will have dinner tonight with an atheist friend of mine, should be a great time. And yes, I am too well capable of understanding what an atheist actually says, i.e. their arguments. That is why I am not an atheist.

 

[Al_Moritz]

They’re just plain wrong. The existence of God is provable purely by the use of sound philosophical reasoning, unaided by divine revelation, as St Thomas Aquinas showed 800 years ago.

While Aqunas’s reasoning (based on Aristotle by the way) seems persuasive to me, I can at least somewhat understand that it is not convincing for everyone, even some atheists trained in philosophical thinking. But most atheists neither have had that training nor properly understand these arguments. Certainly not when they only know the kindergarden caricatures of them as presented by Dawkins in The God Delusion. A reading of Feser’s Aquinas might be in order. By the way, many Catholics who like Aquinas’s arguments don’t fully understand them either.

 

[ccmnxc]

Links, please?

And while Kreeft is a respectable and humble philosopher, if you really want to see arrogance and mockery, look up the apologist William Lane Craig.

Congratulations, you’ve convinced me that the only reason Catholics fear atheists is because Catholics are incapable of understanding what an atheist actually says and insist on arguing with the “evil atheist” of their imagination.

I hope it doesn’t bother you that I can’t take your initial complaint seriously seriously. You call Craig arrogant then proceed to say that Catholics fear atheists because we are incapable of understanding you. You can continue to perpetuate that whole “hardness of heart” stereotype about atheists if you wish, but I’m guessing dialogue would be much more fruitful if you dropped the condescending, arrogant, hypocritical attitude. My two cents.

 

[ngill09]

I hope it doesn’t bother you that I can’t take your initial complaint seriously seriously. You call Craig arrogant then proceed to say that Catholics fear atheists because we are incapable of understanding you. You can continue to perpetuate that whole “hardness of heart” stereotype about atheists if you wish, but I’m guessing dialogue would be much more fruitful if you dropped the condescending, arrogant, hypocritical attitude. My two cents.

Is it condescending, arrogant, and hypocritical to point out when someone uses quotemining and strawman fallacies?

 

[ccmnxc]

Is it condescending, arrogant, and hypocritical to point out when someone uses quotemining and strawman fallacies?

No. It is arrogant, however to generalize Catholics of being
a) afraid of atheists, and
b) are so because the only way we can argue with you is by misconstruing what you say,
and then hypocritical to call someone out for doing the same thing.

 

[ngill09]

No. It is arrogant, however to generalize Catholics of being
a) afraid of atheists, and
b) are so because the only way we can argue with you is by misconstruing what you say,
and then hypocritical to call someone out for doing the same thing.

Sorry, my original post was a bit misleading. I was not saying that all Catholics are afraid of atheists. I was responding to people who were afraid of atheists, and when I probed why they felt that way, they cited misunderstandings of quotes from atheists.

And it’s not so much about “the only way you can argue with atheists” as it is “the only reason you have to fear atheists.” People can argue with and disagree with atheists while understanding what atheists actually think, but the only reason to really be afraid of atheists, or to call them the spawn of Satan, is by misconstruing everything atheists say.

 

[ccmnxc]

Sorry, my original post was a bit misleading. I was not saying that all Catholics are afraid of atheists. I was responding to people who were afraid of atheists, and when I probed why they felt that way, they cited misunderstandings of quotes from atheists.

And it’s not so much about “the only way you can argue with atheists” as it is “the only reason you have to fear atheists.” People can argue with and disagree with atheists while understanding what atheists actually think, but the only reason to really be afraid of atheists, or to call them the spawn of Satan, is by misconstruing everything atheists say.

Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Frankenfurter]

You might want to look up what confirmation bias is.

Of course everybody has biases. That is life.

I don’t know what your point is. Sounds like throwing out a fancy word to try and derail common sense.

I don’t get lost in arguments about the meaning of pseudo-science words. That’s a rabbit hole.

I find your comments to be an example of derialargumentawithbigfancywordia.

This is all in good fun you understand I’m sure.

 

[miguel]

While Aqunas’s reasoning (based on Aristotle by the way) seems persuasive to me, I can at least somewhat understand that it is not convincing for everyone, even some atheists trained in philosophical thinking. But most atheists neither have had that training nor properly understand these arguments. Certainly not when they only know the kindergarden caricatures of them as presented by Dawkins in The God Delusion. A reading of Feser’s Aquinas might be in order. By the way, many Catholics who like Aquinas’s arguments don’t fully understand them either.

I agree. Sound philosophical reasoning can be acquired through work and study. He also held God’s existence wasn’t self-evident. Neither is F=Ma self-evident to the untrained. Many folks who fly in airplanes don’t fully understand Newton either. That doesn’t mean Newton is wrong. All are invited to study Newton and Aquinas. Not all accept. Not all have the ability or the interest. For others, Mozart is their passion…or Shakespeare…

 

[polytropos]

Of course everybody has biases. That is life.

I don’t know what your point is. Sounds like throwing out a fancy word to try and derail common sense.

I don’t get lost in arguments about the meaning of pseudo-science words. That’s a rabbit hole.

Confirmation bias is a legitimate psychological concern, I think, and should be considered when we talk about faith. It is the tendency to only pay attention to what you already expect to be true (or want to be true). So the classic caricature that conflates faith and confirmation bias (I don’t think what you said represents that “best” example of confirmation bias) goes something like this: “If something good happens, it came from God. If something bad happens, God had a reason for allowing it. If I don’t know why it happened, God has a reason for not revealing it.” It is impossible to look at the world with this line of thinking and not attribute everything to God. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad conclusion, or that it’s necessarily bad to think this way (faith is experienced differently by different people), but it is very easy for atheists to caricature and does not work for everyone.

Part of the problem is that someone who thinks about God philosophically might arrive at this conclusion. Atheists, having not apprehended God philosophically, look at someone who makes sure a statement and take it as the reason for the theist’s belief.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Confirmation bias is a legitimate psychological concern, I think, and should be considered when we talk about faith. It is the tendency to only pay attention to what you already expect to be true (or want to be true). So the classic caricature that conflates faith and confirmation bias (I don’t think what you said represents that “best” example of confirmation bias) goes something like this: “If something good happens, it came from God. If something bad happens, God had a reason for allowing it. If I don’t know why it happened, God has a reason for not revealing it.” It is impossible to look at the world with this line of thinking and not attribute everything to God. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad conclusion, or that it’s necessarily bad to think this way (faith is experienced differently by different people), but it is very easy for atheists to caricature and does not work for everyone.

Yes, there are many believers who have a lot of confirmation bias. Yet most atheists have a lot of confirmation bias too. I see this all the time. What pisses me off is when they a priori think they are the ones who have ‘rationality’ and ‘reason’ on their side, and that believers impossibly can. It’s just not true, and it leads to an intellectually lazy attitude that I see all the time as well. It is also an excuse for not being critical about their own worldview while they delude themselves of being the ones who are critical.

While atheists pride themselves of being on the side of reason, I rarely see them actually study the issues. Instead they just like to discuss. Well, if I would always have only discussed without actually studying the issues I would still be an adherent of biological so-called Intelligent Design instead of now being a die-hard evolutionist and holding that also the origin of life must have had natural causes (the latter I concluded only after having studied primary scientific literature on the subject for months).

 

[ngill09]

Confirmation bias is a legitimate psychological concern, I think, and should be considered when we talk about faith. It is the tendency to only pay attention to what you already expect to be true (or want to be true). So the classic caricature that conflates faith and confirmation bias (I don’t think what you said represents that “best” example of confirmation bias) goes something like this: “If something good happens, it came from God. If something bad happens, God had a reason for allowing it. If I don’t know why it happened, God has a reason for not revealing it.” It is impossible to look at the world with this line of thinking and not attribute everything to God. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad conclusion, or that it’s necessarily bad to think this way (faith is experienced differently by different people), but it is very easy for atheists to caricature and does not work for everyone.

Part of the problem is that someone who thinks about God philosophically might arrive at this conclusion. Atheists, having not apprehended God philosophically, look at someone who makes sure a statement and take it as the reason for the theist’s belief.

You’ve got it. Except that it’s not about atheists being able to make a caricature - it’s about thinking in such a way that is bound to lead yourself away from the truth. That is why confirmation is bad. It is starting with a conclusion, and then reinterpreting all evidence so that it matches your preconception. If you do not look out for confirmation bias and fight against it, you will never be able to find out if you’re wrong about anything.

And this is the problem with the version of faith being advocated for in this thread. People have explicitly stated that the evidence for God does not exist unless you start with the conclusion that God exists. In that case, confirmation bias will kick in and cause you to reinterpret normally meaningless data to fit your conclusion. And it’s the most explicit case of confirmation bias I’ve seen because those arguing for this type of faith are arguing for blatant confirmation bias, as if it were a good thing.

Suppose you were a juror at a murder trial. Because you think that faith (believing something without evidence only because you want to) is a good thing, you immediately jump to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty. You then sit through the trial and accept only the evidence that supports your conclusion. During the defense testimony, there may be times when you are tempted to doubt your conclusion, but you suppress that doubt in the name of Faith.

Would your behavior in this example be virtuous? Would it lead you to the truth? Or is it better, perhaps, to try to remain objective and withhold judgment until sufficient reason and evidence has been presented?

*Note: I know that many Catholics on this forum believe that God can be proven through reason alone, and that is fine. That is not the type of faith I’m addressing. I am specifically referring to the type of faith described in post 36 (“faith precedes knowledge”)

And yes, Al, I know that atheists are subject to this as well. But usually they don’t claim that you must first believe that God does not exist before you can find any reason to think that God does not exist. After all, a great number non-Christians were once Christians. And I’d hardly call Dawkins the best atheists have to offer. If you want a philosophically rigorous criticism of the arguments for God’s existence, I’d suggest J. L. Mackey.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Atheists, having not apprehended God philosophically, look at someone who makes sure a statement and take it as the reason for the theist’s belief.

Thanks for that. That is a subtle point regarding communication. None of what I said was my reason for belief at all. Just an observation of how the journey from faith to knowledge works in the real world. And that this process seems to be true for knowing God and other mundane things too IMHO.

My belief is based on experience. Just like the guy who has flown in the plane and knows that flight is real. But this knowledge can’t be transferred to another directly since I don’t have the skill to describe it in first principles to the skeptic. And the skeptic may lack certain prerequisite knowledge as well.

 

[Al_Moritz]

And this is the problem with the version of faith being advocated for in this thread. People have explicitly stated that the evidence for God does not exist unless you start with the conclusion that God exists.

Did anybody really explicitly say that? If so, that would be incredibly stupid. But I can’t recall having seen it (post # 36 does not quite suggest this to me).

 

[Frankenfurter]

And this is the problem with the version of faith being advocated for in this thread. People have explicitly stated that the evidence for God does not exist unless you start with the conclusion that God exists. In that case, confirmation bias will kick in and cause you to reinterpret normally meaningless data to fit your conclusion. And it’s the most explicit case of confirmation bias I’ve seen because those arguing for this type of faith are arguing for blatant confirmation bias, as if it were a good thing.

No. Sorry. I see now how you are interpreting things. Just a simple misunderstanding.

In your court room drama, the jurors will never get to the truth no matter what their biases if the evidence is all bad. Only the evidence gathered beforehand will illuminate the truth.

Can I describe not the juror, but instead the detective for the prosecution. He has a hunch that the guy did it. So he assumes that it is true (standard investigation method) and that he can uncover the truth. He chooses to have faith in his team. From this position he digs in, spends months of hard work, relies only on faith for a while, but eventually, finds the surveillance footage and bloody knife that prove the accused is guilty. The detective only collects data that helps him confirm his theory and discards all the rest unless they prove the man is innocent. This process leads to the truth.

Faith preceded knowledge in my detective’s example. That is all I am saying.

It is a process.

The knowledge might have ended up being that the man was innocent. that is still knowledge.

My belief in God is experiential, just like my detective who witnesses the hard evidence. But to get to that place where the experience was possible, there had to be faith.

It is not like a mathematical proof where you assume A, and the prove A, as you are alluding to. That is a caricature and I object to it. It is instead like having faith that you CAN someday prove Fermat’s last theorem, and then work for 40 years and finally arrive at it. Unfortunately, only a few can understand it.

 

[shoe]

It seems to me that the atheists are always demanding proof for the existence of God while conveniently overlooking a universe that is filled to the brim with proof. Every material thing we see is a creation and is therefore proof of a creator. And those things such as knowledge, for example, that are unseen are never products of material objects. And yet we find knowledge (information) inside material objects, such as inside rocks, plants, and trees, that have no knowledge of their own; which is to say that someone had to impart that knowledge. And since knowledge is always a product of the mind and never of material things, we can say that the knowledge we discover from rocks, plants, trees, etc., comes from the mind of God. “Ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse” (Romans 1:20 NJB).

 

[prodigalson2011]

In response to this: youtube.com/watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60

… Craig posted this: reasonablefaith.org/must-everything-that-begins-to-exist-have-a-material-cause

… Which completely and utterly strawmans the original argument to an astounding degree, attributing the person he’s responding to a position he explicitly explains that he’s not holding. Watch: youtube.com/watch?v=4IGlgYExLOo to see the full extent of how badly he mischaracterizes his opponents’ arguments.

William Lane Craig is a terrible apologist. His arguments seem good, until you see the objections. And because he is hell-bent on ignoring the real objections to his arguments, he is unconvincing to anyone except those who’ve never heard the real objections to his arguments.

A few observations:

1. The first video you linked is not the original argument to which Craig responded. I, however, did find the video and watch it.
2. Craig makes explicitly clear the fact that he was only familiar with this argument through messages and questions from his own readers, who had submitted the formal argument to him with no further context.
3. Having mainly read Craig’s published works and watched his debates, I will concede that he did take on a pretty condescending tone, bordering on elitism.
4. That said, he does not create a straw man of Clifton’s argument. Whether he misinterpreted the first premise is a point with which I won’t attempt to grapple, because it’s ultimately trivial. The argument is invalid, built upon contradictory premises and, thus, absurd.
5. Right off the bat, Clifton’s first premise is completely unsubstantiated. The only justification he provides for it is an argument from ignorance, which is fallacious. The argument has already fallen apart.
6. The second premise is a non-sequitur, following from an already fallacious premise.
7. Assuming, for the sake of argument, his first premise WAS true, the more logical conclusion would be that nothing ever began to exist. This is the view he actually holds, incidentally, and his argument is now exposed for what it is–a rigged game: the third premise has been set up for a fall by the sophism of the preceding premises.
8. Premise 4 states that the universe was not caused to exist by anything that exists. Premise 5 states that God caused the universe to exist. Again, these premises are contradictory and this is why Craig correctly said that this argument assumes the existence of non-existent things, among which is God. Furthermore, he claims that this non-existent thing has caused something to exist. This is supposed to make it seem like the theist’s argument is self-contradictory when in fact he has just created a disingenuous mess of an argument built on both false and deliberately contradictory premises. If two premises are contradictory, they cannot coexist in a single argument. This is the epitome of sloppy philosophy.

 

[Frankenfurter]

It seems to me that the atheists are always demanding proof for the existence of God while conveniently overlooking a universe that is filled to the brim with proof. Every material thing we see is a creation and is therefore proof of a creator. And those things such as knowledge, for example, that are unseen are never products of material objects. And yet we find knowledge (information) inside material objects, such as inside rocks, plants, and trees, that have no knowledge of their own; which is to say that someone had to impart that knowledge. And since knowledge is always a product of the mind and never of material things, we can say that the knowledge we discover from rocks, plants, trees, etc., comes from the mind of God. “Ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse” (Romans 1:20 NJB).

The church says that one of the ways we can gain knowledge about the nature of God is through studying creation.

I resonate with you.