The demand for evidence for the existence of God

[Windfish]

But the practical implications in believing in unicorns or tea-pots orbiting Saturn and believing in God are infinitely different, my friend.

Yeah, but who cares about the epistemological ramifications of materialism, anywho?

 

[Touchstone]

Absence of evidence for x is evidence of absence for x when we should expect to have evidence for x (or more than we do for x). So, if there were an elephant in my classroom right now, I would expect to see its intruding mass. That is evidence that I would expect to see for the presence of an elephant in my classroom. And so the absence of evidence for an elephant in my classroom is evidence of its absence. In the same way, we can reasonably dismiss the existence of unicorns and pieces of china orbiting planets. There is no evidence (when there should be) for the existence of unicorns, and there is no evidence of us launching pieces of china into space. We are reasonable in dismissing both possibilities.

(Obviously, God is different since He is not any one thing in the universe like a unicorn or a piece of china.)

Well, this raises the obvious question, then: what would the reasonable basis for dismissing God be, then, in your view. What are the “reasonable conditions in dismissing” God, on your understanding?

-TS

 

[Windfish]

Well, this raises the obvious question, then: what would the reasonable basis for dismissing God be, then, in your view. What are the “reasonable conditions in dismissing” God, on your understanding?

-TS

I am not a philosopher (or even a student of philosophy), so I couldn’t tell you right of the top off my head. I have heard other theistic philosophers write on this, though. I could tell you what would merit dismissal of Christianity, though (Resurrection didn’t happen, etc.).

 

[The_Exodus]

Yeah, but who cares about the epistemological ramifications of materialism, anywho?

Precisely.

If materialism is true, there is no reason I should or should not live as if there is a God, or hope that there is a God, etc, for the impetus behind “believing true worldviews” is subjective, and ultimately meaningless, outside of what I choose to make meaningful.

 

[The_Exodus]

I am not a philosopher (or even a student of philosophy), so I couldn’t tell you right of the top off my head. I have heard other theistic philosophers write on this, though. I could tell you what would merit dismissal of Christianity, though (Resurrection didn’t happen, etc.).

To TS, not you Windfish.

A reasonable basis for dimissing God is the same reasonable basis we have for dismissing any claim: showing that the claim is absurd or contradictory.

Ah, but that’s right. You don’t think this shows anything, since you think the contradictory actually may possibly obtain in reality.

Which brings up an interesting point: your whole criticism that Aquinas’ epistemology cannot be falsified can be applied to your theory of reality and “the contradictory obtaining photon.” For, you say, just because it is contradictory or absurd to us doesn’t make it absurd in reality. But that is subject to the same “unfalsifiable” objection you raise. (I don’t care much for a response, so perhaps you should spend your energies on other posters. Just wanted to point that out.)

 

[JDaniel]

OK, fair enough. I didn’t cite the FIrst Way as a whole, of course, though, just a premise I recalled from it (and you had me thinking I had my Five Ways confused for a moment, and I was recalling a premise from the Fourth way or something.

Googling a little, I don’t find:

“Sequences of motion cannot extend ad infinitum”

Phrased exactly thus, but, for instance here (St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways):

“7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.”

There’s a singular/plural difference there, but I say that’s the same premise (true for one or any or all sequences).

I see that Prof. of Philosophy Echelbarger of SUNY-Oswego relies on the same account of Aquinas above:

oswego.edu/~echel/

From here at Yale.edu:

The First Way:

(my emphasis)

Or see this from Notre Dame (that hotbed of anti-Catholic disinformatoion):

I don’t need to point out more – this is a premise from Aquinas’ First Way that exemplifies “not even wrong” as a way of thinking without putting one’s thoughts at risk of being discredited, practically or even in principle.

As for the previous thread, it’s unfortunately necessary to just lie low and go elsewhere on forums like this at times. The tolerance for free speech is better here than many other religious forums (and kudos for that), but that tolerance runs really thin sometimes, unfortunately. Being banned isn’t the end of the world (it’s humdrum for me, by now), but the operating conditions seem a bit better now, so it’s not such a clear risk of wasting my time as it was previously.

Do you have a thread link or keyword to search for on the old thread you are referring to?

And would you name, even if you refuse to expand, the one Way you find Aquinas to be most liable to falsification, to rising above “not even wrong”? I’d like to know which one you think that is, even if I can’t get you to go into why that would be.

-TS

TS:

None of that was the case on my thread, at that time. You would have learned that “Sequences of motion cannot extend ad infinitum” does not in any way mean, “The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.” This is one of the primary misunderstandings of Saint Thomas’ First Way. Or, it’s merely a red herring. Now, as I said, this is someone else’s thread; not mine. I will not be a party to its hijacking. If you wish to discuss the First Way here, we shall have to ask for and receive the permission of the OP.

God bless,
jd

 

[Touchstone]

Precisely.

If materialism is true, there is no reason I should or should not live as if there is a God, or hope that there is a God, etc, for the impetus behind “believing true worldviews” is subjective, and ultimately meaningless, outside of what I choose to make meaningful.

And Nietzsche sends his regards your way from the grave. That is a nice bit of overman style response there, Zarathustra! And I don’t have a problem with that in principle – define yourself and create your own myth and forge your own gods as they suit your purposes.

More power to ya.

But that is still epistemically far from earnest theism. To live as if it were true is not to embrace it as epistemically true. What you choose to make meaningful is your choice, as you have it, then, not the choice or decree of any god. You are overman and not… theistman. Fine with me!

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

TS:

None of that was the case on my thread, at that time. You would have learned that “Sequences of motion cannot extend ad infinitum” does not in any way mean, “The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.” This is one of the primary misunderstandings of Saint Thomas’ First Way. Or, it’s merely a red herring. Now, as I said, this is someone else’s thread; not mine. I will not be a party to its hijacking. If you wish to discuss the First Way here, we shall have to ask for and receive the permission of the OP.

God bless,
jd

jd,

I created this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=534451

if you care to take it up over there, where we won’t be off topic, thanks.

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

To live as if it were true is not to embrace it as epistemically true.

This is the only meaningful and relevant line I could find in your post, and (ironically) it doesn’t follow from what I said. Embracing a stance as true would be the same as living as if it were true on an epistemology which is pragmatically driven. This is what you do regarding the existence of God, for instance.

 

[Touchstone]

To TS, not you Windfish.

A reasonable basis for dimissing God is the same reasonable basis we have for dismissing any claim: showing that the claim is absurd or contradictory.

OK.

Ah, but that’s right. You don’t think this shows anything, since you think the contradictory actually may possibly obtain in reality.

But it does show something. A contradiction begs of resolution, causes doubt in either/both of the opposing claims. Sometimes harmonization and resolution is available, a model that works, and is NOT contradictory. The non-existence of God doesn’t implicate any such contradictions so far as I’m aware. That seems a straightforward resolution to the clash between “God exists” and “we have no basis for thinking God exists on the evidence and observations available”. Those two do contradict each other, but the latter can be embraced at the expense of denying the former, and nothing breaks (so far as I’m aware).

That’s not the case in other parts of our inquiry. Saying “photons are just particles” breaks our evidential witness; we have “waveness” that proceeds empirically and from performative math models we deploy. So there isn’t a straightforward resolution like there is in dismissing “God exists”.

Which brings up an interesting point: your whole criticism that Aquinas’ epistemology cannot be falsified can be applied to your theory of reality and “the contradictory obtaining photon.” For, you say, just because it is contradictory or absurd to us doesn’t make it absurd in reality.

It does just precisely THAT. That’s the whole point of the seeming contradictions in quantum physics; they paint a picture of reality that is absurd, surreal. The whole problem we are faced with is that in some (albeit remote/narrow) contexts, reality seems thoroughly absurd, even as it works in a nicely predictable and manageable fashion at “human scales”. But you read me wrong if you think I was saying that reality can’t be absurd. It might be in some ways. What we find intelligible, is intelligible. But other parts may confound, thwart and mock our reasoning and structuring, and indefinitely for all we know.

But that is subject to the same “unfalsifiable” objection you raise. (I don’t care much for a response, so perhaps you should spend your energies on other posters. Just
wanted to point that out.)

I am glad to have a chance to clear that up.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

This is the only meaningful and relevant line I could find in your post, and (ironically) it doesn’t follow from what I said. Embracing a stance as true would be the same as living as if it were true on an epistemology which is pragmatically driven. This is what you do regarding the existence of God, for instance.

“As if” (that’s what the “if’” there signals) doesn’t require belief that it is actually true. The “as if” dismisses the merits of the question (true? false?) as irrelevant – you can and will proceed in the same fashion, regardless. You will create your own myth, and this is the power of myth, and the message of Zarathrustra, coming down the mountain, ten years later.

It doesn’t matter if the epistemology is pragmatic or not, if it is concerned with knowledge, then the merits of the question matter. Your “as if” doesn’t need to concern itself anymore than Nietzsche’s. "As if"is the aftermath of realizing God is Dead. We live “as if”, and create our own myths and define our own meaning, just as you declared!

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

“As if” (that’s what the “if’” there signals) doesn’t require belief that it is actually true. The “as if” dismisses the merits of the question (true? false?) as irrelevant – you can and will proceed in the same fashion, regardless. You will create your own myth, and this is the power of myth, and the message of Zarathrustra, coming down the mountain, ten years later.

It doesn’t matter if the epistemology is pragmatic or not, if it is concerned with knowledge, then the merits of the question matter. Your “as if” doesn’t need to concern itself anymore than Nietzsche’s. "As if"is the aftermath of realizing God is Dead. We live “as if”, and create our own myths and define our own meaning, just as you declared!

-TS

You don’t understand what I’m saying.

The individual will make for himself whatever god he wants, whether that be a loyalty to “knowledge” or “truth” or “materialism.” Hence the “as if” may dismiss a question as irrelevant, but the very judgment of it being irrelevant is dependent on the will in the first place.

Nothing is “objectively relevant,” not even “true worldviews.” So you may say you have “good reason” for not believing God to exist, but that only means your will has given authority to said reason(s), and thereby made them good. They were not good *before *your will granted this authority, even if (you think) “truth” as such or “science” gives us an accurate understanding of reality. For even that judgment is only valuable and true to you insofar as your will has granted it that authority in your mind.

Self-consciousness and the will then trump all. They color every proposition and give every proposition value – even “true” ones.

So we return again to my point. If you are right and materialism is true and the individual alone gives value and meaning to his existence, you cannot give me any good reason for not living as if God did exist, hoping he exists, taking communion, praying, etc. For all your good reasons are only good because your will has given them that adjective. They are not “objectively” or “universally” good reasons.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

The fact that the majority of human beings believe in God does not in any way make God’s existence any more likely. In my opinion it is one of the weakest and easily defeated arguments you could make. Let’s say that I’m standing in the middle of a 20,000 seat arena and I have a coin hidden in either my left or right pocket. I ask the audience to raise their hand if they think the coin is in my right pocket and only a couple of people do. Then I ask them to raise their hand if they think the coin is in my left pocket and every hand goes up except for those two who thought it was in the right pocket. Just because the vast majority of people in the audience believed the coin was in my left pocket does not in any way make it more likely that the coin is actually in there. For me the majority of people on earth have believed in God is one of the weakest arguments for His existence and will be pathetically ineffective on an atheist. I find the arguments from efficient causality, time and contingency, design, and conscience to be much more effective. (Kreeft &Tacelli, 1994)

Reference:

Kreeft, P., & Tacelli, R.K. (1994). Handbook of christian apologetics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

I don’t get his analogy. The point of the majority of believers argument is not to show the likelyhood of God’s existence (I agree with Kreeft that that isn’t a very strong philosophical argument), but to invite non-believers to seriously consider the arguments of believers because if the majority of people believe something, there might be good reasons for that belief.

If I’m standing in Kreeft’s arena and I see everyone but a few raise their hand in favor of the left pocket, it would be very reasonable to assume that they have information I don’t.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

I think it’s possible that the ringing the other kids heard was all in their heads.

Hey, don’t run off with my story!

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Ouch. Well, I can’t think of anything more discrediting to your OP than what you’ve said right here. This atheist bows to defeating your OP better than he could.

Don’t you get the point of the analogy? Believers seem to have reasons for their belief that go beyond scientific or philosophical proofs. Believers are far outnumbering non-believers. Isn’t that an invitation to seriously consider living as a believer for a while (running around the corner with the other kids) and see if believing in God start to make sense (the icecream truck might be real)?

The analogy is a background to the invitation of Pascal’s Wager. What do you have to lose? Don’t you want icecream?

 

[Touchstone]

Don’t you get the point of the analogy? Believers seem to have reasons for their belief that go beyond scientific or philosophical proofs. Believers are far outnumbering non-believers. Isn’t that an invitation to seriously consider living as a believer for a while (running around the corner with the other kids) and see if believing in God start to make sense (the icecream truck might be real)?

Yes, sure, that certainly prompts one to consider, and inclines one to “go along”, even. I mean, can all those people be mistaken?? I was a Christian for 30 years, so I do understand the appeal, the desire for the things you commending to me. But I suggest the motivation you commend as well, the reasons why it should be so appealing to believe it, not because it’s grounded in facts and evidential warrant, but because it’s something you (and I) just WANT to believe, is a strong counter-appeal, a reason you consider living as an unbeliever.

The “ice cream” you speak of is a strong motivation to “make believe” to embrace ideas based on desire (er, maybe the “hope in things unseen”?) that clouds and overrides your reasoning and clear judgment on the matter. You “hear” ice cream on the way because you want that to be the case so much. As did I, as a Christian.

The analogy is a background to the invitation of Pascal’s Wager. What do you have to lose? Don’t you want icecream?

OK, I didn’t get this an appeal to Pascal’s Wager, but I see it now. What I have to lose is my honesty and my integrity and stewardship I have over the only mind and life I’ve got, so that’s a lot, and really, Pascal’s Wager is just about the worst argument for believing in God I’m aware of. I think it’s much more likely that a hidden god would be testing us to see who would use the brains he gave them to think and reason rather make cynical cosmic on hedges like old Pascal.

If I’m wrong about God, I will have been wrong on the merits, taking the matter serious, and will have owned that question with my own mind. Deciding that I’m better off believing what I can’t justify on the merits because of some perceived imbalance between the upside of one and the downside of another mocks the whole question, and abdicates one’s position as the steward of his own mind.

It’s also so transparently open as a means of exploitation and manipulation. All I would have to do to control you is convince you that big-scary-bad consequences await those who deny my claims over the ho-hum consequences of rejecting them. If I puff up the consequences of rejecting my claims into something horrifying and brutal, I don’t need to demonstrate those outcomes, just to scare you with them as part of the “afterlife” to get you to submit to slave mentality.

“Don’t you want icecream”, then, I see as a call to suspend my reasoning, and “join the delusion” and participation in the self-indulgence of that kind of faith, the naked desire for things like eternal life and final justice and streets of gold, by mortgage my mind and my precious moments here on earth.

In just watching The Office reruns on NetFlix last night with my kids, I recall a scene where the character Ryan owes $50 to another colleague in the office, Pam. He appeals to Pam – “hey, how about I give you $5,000 a year from now, instead of the $50 now. If you give me another $50, I will combine it with the $50 I owe you and invest it to return you $5000 in a year!”.

Pam, shrewdly, isn’t buying. “I want the $50 now”.

Ryan is shocked. “What? You don’t want $5,000??? Who doesn’t want $5,000???”

Quite right. Who doesn’t want ice cream?

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

You don’t understand what I’m saying.

OK, but if so, not for lack of trying!

The individual will make for himself whatever god he wants, whether that be a loyalty to “knowledge” or “truth” or “materialism.” Hence the “as if” may dismiss a question as irrelevant, but the very judgment of it being irrelevant is dependent on the will in the first place.

Yes, not disputed. But that doesn’t change the distinction I made; in such a case, the 'true believer" has a very different epistemic position than the overnman. Your point still holds, that the will may make the question irrelevant, but that doesn’t make the epistemic position of those who are earnest believers any closer to your overman stance.

Nothing is “objectively relevant,” not even “true worldviews.” So you may say you have “good reason” for not believing God to exist, but that only means your will has given authority to said reason(s), and thereby made them good. They were not good *before *your will granted this authority, even if (you think) “truth” as such or “science” gives us an accurate understanding of reality. For even that judgment is only valuable and true to you insofar as your will has granted it that authority in your mind.

Again, my distinction was an epistemic one, which this just completely ignores. Knowledge regarding the question may not come up, but where and if it does, the overman is in a different place than the true believer. This was my point above, and your points hold, but don’t affect my point.

Self-consciousness and the will then trump all. They color every proposition and give every proposition value – even “true” ones.

So we return again to my point. If you are right and materialism is true and the individual alone gives value and meaning to his existence, you cannot give me any good reason for not living as if God did exist, hoping he exists, taking communion, praying, etc. For all your good reasons are only good because your will has given them that adjective. They are not “objectively” or “universally” good reasons.

I don’t think I’ve contested this here. It just doesn’t speak to epistemology, to the question of knowledge, insofar as that applies. Where it does apply, where there in an epistemic question, you are in a very different place than the true believer, no matter if we nod together that the will is the anchor for priority and meaning.

As for good reasons to choose better myths, I don’t claim there is an objective basis for such a choice, beyond what innate reasoning and impulses you have been endowed with by evolution. And in fact if that is the kind of myth you desire and choose, I’m inclined to think that is the life you deserve to live, and you are welcome to that kind of myth. Subjectively, since were in a Nietzschean groove based on your overman voguing here, this strikes me as the embrace of what Nietzsche called “slave morality”, a kind of myth making that despises and hides from life in hopes that the “afterlife” will treat you better in return.

But I don’t claim to have an objective basis for commending better meanings and myth-making than what you want to adopt. Have at it!

-TS

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Thank you for your response, Touchstone.

You argue that the desire for ‘icecream’ is delusional, that we simply want to have icecream and therefore believe it exist. Have you ever considered the possibility that u might be the one who is deluding himself? Could the desire for a life without God, a life with complete autonomy, be the reason you believe in a world without God, ‘overriding and clouding your objective judgement’?

Also, the reasons you name to hold on to your position of unbelief, like suspending your reasoning and giving up stewardship of your mind and life and participating in the self-indulgence of faith, aren’t these far outdone by the joy of eternal life, eternal love, eternal happiness? In other words, isn’t icecream far better than staying in the schoolyard kicking pebles?

Even if there turns out to be no icecream truck, you could still go back to the schoolyard right?

 

[Touchstone]

Thank you for your response, Touchstone.

You argue that the desire for ‘icecream’ is delusional, that we simply want to have icecream and therefore believe it exist.

No, I understand te desire to be quite real and visceral. The desire is not a delusion, you and I really do desire on some level to cheat death and live forever (although this becomes less appealing as the years go by for me). We desire to have justice finally rendered somehow over all that has happened in our lives and the lives of others.

The desires here I take to be quite real. It’s the “solution” that I suggest is made up, an imaginative product of our real desires.

Have you ever considered the possibility that u might be the one who is deluding himself? Could the desire for a life without God, a life with complete autonomy, be the reason you believe in a world without God, ‘overriding and clouding your objective judgement’?

Also, the reasons you name to hold on to your position of unbelief, like suspending your reasoning and giving up stewardship of your mind and life and participating in the self-indulgence of faith, aren’t these far outdone by the joy of eternal life, eternal love, eternal happiness?

Yes, I do claim to have considered that. But per Ryan’s plea in my previous post, I’d like $5000 a year from now, too. It’s something to consider. The value has to judged in light of the confidence or reasonability of its realization. Ryan’s $5,000 pledge Pam reasonably understands to be a ploy by Ryan for paying back the $50 now, something she is very unlikely to see.

Similarly, the “ice cream” you are waiting for strikes me as even less likely than that. So as wonderful and desirable as those things may be, viewed through a critical lens that factors in our warrant and models for actually seeing those things realized, it’s not something to bother with.

In other words, isn’t icecream far better than staying in the schoolyard kicking pebles?

Even if there turns out to be no icecream truck, you could still go back to the schoolyard right?

No, and that is really the crucial point. In chasing your ice cream trucks, your one and precious real life is being squandered. And worse, you weren’t even aware you were frittering all that precious time away – at least “squandering on purpose” is something you can own!

-TS

 

[LongJohnSilver]

No, I understand te desire to be quite real and visceral. The desire is not a delusion, you and I really do desire on some level to cheat death and live forever (although this becomes less appealing as the years go by for me). We desire to have justice finally rendered somehow over all that has happened in our lives and the lives of others.

Where do desires that in essence cannot be fulfilled come from?

Yes, I do claim to have considered that. But per Ryan’s plea in my previous post, I’d like $5000 a year from now, too. It’s something to consider. The value has to judged in light of the confidence or reasonability of its realization. Ryan’s $5,000 pledge Pam reasonably understands to be a ploy by Ryan for paying back the $50 now, something she is very unlikely to see.

Similarly, the “ice cream” you are waiting for strikes me as even less likely than that. So as wonderful and desirable as those things may be, viewed through a critical lens that factors in our warrant and models for actually seeing those things realized, it’s not something to bother with.

Unless you could taste some of the icecream already in the here and now.

No, and that is really the crucial point. In chasing your ice cream trucks, your one and precious real life is being squandered. And worse, you weren’t even aware you were frittering all that precious time away – at least “squandering on purpose” is something you can own!

If you are right and I have ‘squandered’ my life and you haven’t, and we both dissappeared into the Great Nothing, who cares?

But if I’m right, there is infinite reward for me.