The demand for evidence for the existence of God

[Windfish]

To be honest, I also do not understand you, TS. I have to read your sentences more than once to somewhat understand what you are saying.

 

[Touchstone]

Of course.

If you are a naturalist and you have to explain something that is hard to explain from a naturalist/materialist standpoint, just say ‘evolution did it!’ and you’re done. No evidence or further explanations needed.

Evolutionary theory has more evidence and research material to crawl through than a a dozen people could get through in a lifetime, so there’s a lot of substance to draw on beyond “Evolution did it”. And the survival imperative is not an esoteric niche area of the theory. It’s basic evolution 101. The drive to survival affords benefits toward reproduction and gene propagation.

But that’s hardly needed, frankly, given what you’ve signaled here. If a godless world means that life is futile, meaningless, worthless in your view, we don’t need to look any further than that. It’s necessary for you to believe there’s something that makes you cosmically special, even it’s not true, else you have an existential crisis. Why worry about evolution when we have a compelling answer right there in your posts?

You seem to think that Christians have no ground to hope for icecream, that we only have that hope out of some therapeutic need.

I don’t think that’s the only driver, but like I said, just from your post, the therapeutic value for you is as extreme as it is obvious. You have contempt for life on the merits, and horror at the idea of a godless world, clearly; it’s futile, and without meaning. What deeper crisis can one face?

So, the anodyne Gospel appeals. You can have your peers work with you to resign on this life in trade for an imagined lottery win in the next life.

But being Christian on earth means that you get glimpses of how eternal joy and the Presence of God will be. We get tastes of the icecream in the here and now, and I can assure you that it is good icecream. It’s these tastes that drive people to do good in this world, to love others and care for them.

But that just underscores your contempt for this world and the life you do have. Those good things are humans showing kindness and charity and love as part of this world. You consign that to the “kingdom of God” to alleviate the dissonance of goodness in a world and life you despise. All the good comes from the Great Beyond, and all the bad, well because of Adam we labor on behind this veil of tears.

That analogy is false. Gold is not precious because there is little of it, it is precious because we humans can use it for bigger purposes.

Bigger purposes – like keeping it hidden away in a safe deposit box? You must be pulling my leg, here. If the the scarcity and limited supply of a resource that makes the “precious” in “precious resource” meaningful. Oy!

That there is little only makes it more precious than other materials.

Well, yeah! And now, you’ve got more time than you could ever (literally) spend. Time is no object to you in your therapeutic shell, now. You have it made. You can’t even waste it, your consciousness still has an infinite supply of time left no matter what you do, you fortunate son of God!!

But I’m sure that doesn’t devalue 2011, which isn’t even infinitesimal in you wonderful long personal existence. It isn’t even half a blink.

In the case of our lifes, if there is no more than this, if our lifes serve no bigger purpose, than our lifes and actions become absolutely meaningless and the fact that there is little of it doesn’t change that at all.

This is a very good example of what Nietzsche called “slave morality”, contempt for life as it is, the embrace of a death cult where the value and the real substance lie “beyond”. If life in a godless world is “absolutely meaningless”, I wouldn’t believe you if said you’d considered dealing with the world the way it is. You can’t. You really MUST have this delusion. Seriously, I would deny it to you. You should be a Christian.

Yes it does. If there is no objective reason why we should value, enjoy and pursue life, and if there will be absolutely no consequence of or memory from our lifes once we’ve disappeared into oblivion, then there is no need to value, enjoy or pursue life. We might as well bet on the possibility of eternal life.

There is a need, because I desire such. My desires and values are mine only, which means they are subjective. If you can’t value your own life, and the precious time and capabilities you have for their own sake, you really are perfect for Christianity. There’s many I think can benefit from my criticisms here, possibly. You I would say should stay in the fold, your predicament are what Christianity has evolved to address.

Your icecream melts away once you’re dead. My icecream endures forever.

Which means there’s some meaning and value in what I’ve got now, as I wipe that last bit off my chin and relish it at my last. It’s not forever, it’s not valueless because I couldn’t waste it if I tried. I can waste it, I can’t make more when it’s gone, and it is therefore valuable and enjoyable and satisfying in a way you can’t know, because Christianity has corrupted your values, and time is just something to take for granted now. You’ll never perish into oblivion. You got all the ice cream you could ever want, all the time, over the top, so it’s nothing to mind. The infinitely rich man can burn his money in the fireplace to warm his feet, or light his pipe. He needn’t value it at all – he’s got no less after wasting all he can that when he started.

Your forever is your own curse, and you are certainly welcome to it!

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

To be honest, I also do not understand you, TS. I have to read your sentences more than once to somewhat understand what you are saying.

The Exodus supposes that “the true and the good are necessarily related terms, because they are modes of being”.

We can get to “true” as a mode of being if we understand “true” to mean something like “corresponding to the actual state of affairs in the world”. “The apple is one the table” is “true” to the extent that there is an object that corresponds to our concept of “apple” resting on another object we label a “table” *in the extramental world. *It’s true in an objective way, and the apple-on-table either exists objectively (independently of any observer) or not, in which case the proposition would be “false”.

So we can apply positive semantics for “true” as a concept about being – physics!

But we are nowhere in making head way to “good” as a mode of being. That just tries to ride the coattails of “true”. “Good” – on a rational analysis, not theistic superstition – no more a “mode of being” than the color orange smells like the number 9. If you read that last bit again, it should be jarringly nonsensical. “Good is a mode of being” is no more rational or meaningful as a statement about the world than that – you’re just more familiar with that nonsense, so it doesn’t have the jarring newness “orange smells like the color 9” does.

And if you press, you get nothing. That’s just how it must be. Seems like a pleasing intuition, so we’ll go with it.

The basic failure is a well-known ontological chasm between “being” or “is” and values, or “ought”. It’s not hard to understand because “being” is a proposition about the objective state of the world – a configuration of the world around us that is what it is, independent of any and all minds, observers, wills or wishes. “Ought” is a proposition that applies to the subjective, in contrast, and thus bring theists, as The Exodus here to self-contradiction: the [objective] true is the [subjective] good.

It’s a basic category error. A very useful and convenient one for theists to make, but a glaring error, all the same.

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

Necessary based on what. What breaks if “true” and “good” are not synonymous

Well it’s a good thing I think that “true” and “good” are necessarily related then, or I’d be a hypocrite!

I’m only pointing out what you already implicitly assume (though you may explicitly deny it) when you are think I ought to believe what you say on the sole ground that it is true or that your reasons are sound.

touchstone:

Or, you have no warrant for: “Good is a mode of being”. That’s an “ought”, a value judgment posing a circumstance, matter of fact. They are only bound together with hand-waving to avoid the problem of “is” vs “ought”.

It doesn’t follow that, if Good were a mode of being, that statement would be an “ought” simply by itself.

But you misconstrue the nature of my post, which was only to point out what follows from the classical theistic worldview – which you strawmanned – not to demonstrate it.

touchstone:

You might as well say “redness is necessarily related to goodness and truth”. Why? Well because you’ve “necessarily” decided it must be thus. There’s no rational basis for the connection, necessary or otherwise, any more than there is between “true-as-actual” and “good”.

As a matter of fact, redness is related to these things, because it also is a mode of being. If it has “existence” it shares a certain quality with other existents/forms thereof. It therefore would be necessarily related to other modes of being.

In attempting to ridicule my point you’ve actually helped me out. I appreciate it!

touchstone:

We have no warrant for this claim. It’s just pulled out of your hat. And this is the “break” with rational true belief you and I were aligned on prior. You might as well tell me “redness” is the grounding of all goodness. You’ve got precisely the same warrant.

God’s essence is the ground of all being, so there is no parity between it and redness.

touchstone:

You’re invoking axioms like they’re just mints to pull out of the tin an pop in your mouth on a whim.

That which comes from a cause is related to that cause in some way as being “from” it, and things which share a common quality are necessarily related. Those two concepts are not too difficult to follow.

touchstone:

There’s neither any transcendental imperative (that is, it’s not necessary) nor any empirical/model-based grounds for this. The best grounds I can find for your claims here are naked superstition.

…he vehemently claims. Yet why, if “good reasons” have no categorical value?

touchstone:

You’re having a hard time even accepting agreement now! I agree, and have never disputed this point.

Yet you continue to argue, which indicates you do think there is some reason for communicating to me that I ought not to believe in God, ought to believe you are right, ought to think your reasons good, etc.

 

[The_Exodus]

But we are nowhere in making head way to “good” as a mode of being.

Yet if it wasn’t, we’d have no reason to listen to you, even if what you said was correct, and thus you implicitly assume what you deny in engaging in argument.

“Good” – on a rational analysis, not theistic superstition – no more a “mode of being” than the color orange smells like the number 9.If you read that last bit again, it should be jarringly nonsensical. “Good is a mode of being” is no more rational or meaningful as a statement about the world than that – you’re just more familiar with that nonsense, so it doesn’t have the jarring newness “orange smells like the color 9” does.

Modern logic lesson 101: when not wanting to engage intellectually, employ word-salad comparison to refute foreign, difficult, or potentially lethal ideas.

Impressive.

touchstone:

The basic failure is a well-known ontological chasm between “being” or “is” and values, or “ought”.

There is no ontological chasm, since both modes are detected intuitively without demonstration. Therefore, since they are both experienced, they must necessarily have some commonality.

Simply because they are not the same means that they will necessarily be different, but that doesn’t mean they are not connected at all.

“Ought” is a proposition that applies to the subjective, in contrast, and thus bring theists, as The Exodus here to self-contradiction: the [objective]
true is the [subjective] good.

In all seriousness – and I rarely make such sweeping statements – the above is a ridiculous attempt at exposing a contradiction. It just shows the bankruptcy and lack of insight (and even mental creativity) that pervades modern thought.

As if “objective” necessarily excludes subjectivity. It is the subject, after all, who experiences truth. And the good, while it is “subjective,” still involves experiencing an object.

Modern logic lesson 102: Often generalize and attempt to draw a irreconcilable dichotomy between “objective” and “subjective,” and do not attempt to go into detail explaining how the terms mutually exclude one another.

Doubly impressive.

touchstone:

It’s a basic category error.

spits coffee on the table

What is ironic about this is that you have no qualms with supposing that a contradiction can obtain in reality. And yet at the same time you want to dismiss my claims because (you erroneously suppose) they “contradict each other.”

Do I smell…“biased”?

 

[Touchstone]

God’s essence is the ground of all being, so there is no parity between it and redness.

Redness is the ground of all being. There, parity once again.

See, if you want to wave the nonsense wand, I can wave it, too just to show that your claims aren’t grounded in anything more any [insert random word]-ness that I might fancy to throw it. It’s just naked assertions, ungrounded in any rational foundation. It gets a pass here from your peers who value their ability to wave the nonsense wand as well, in peace and with a wink.

But it doesn’t pass with people who don’t need you be silent so they can pull the same stunt.

So, parity again, check. Redness is now the ground of all being. It must be so.

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

Redness is the ground of all being. There, parity once again.

Yuk yuk yuk.

 

[Touchstone]

What is ironic about this is that you have no qualms with supposing that a contradiction can obtain in reality. And yet at the same time you want to dismiss my claims because (you erroneously suppose) they “contradict each other.”

Do I smell…“biased”?

Hey, I don’t control the fundamental structure of reality. I’m not a god. I do have some measure of control over mind, however, and that is the difference. Your irrationality and unintelligibility is self-inflicted. Your contradictions come from the inside of your head, of your choosing. The difficulties I identify obtain outside my mind, and are not of my choosing; I don’t have the power to make a photon “just a particle” or “just a wave”.

Moreover the difficulties I identify stem from applying disciplined principles consistently inside my mind. The only way a wave/particle duality appears to be problematic in the first place is through serious digging into the physics and models that produce the difficulty. It would be an error inside the mind, a self-inflicted irrationality to assume that I knew better than nature how nature must behave, and that my intuition determines the structure of the universe.

The contradiction you’ve embraced freely is of your own making. Nature and empirical study don’t force you into the category error that conflates “is” with “ought”. You adopted that bit of irrationality yourself.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Yuk yuk yuk.

Right, you see where that goes now. Two can play your game.

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

touchstone:

You adopted that bit of irrationality yourself.

-TS

But that doesn’t matter, my friend, if irrationality is not a deal breaker in argument.

How utterly pointless is a debating materialist! (I anticipate you will continue to prove this point.)

 

[The_Exodus]

Right, you see where that goes now. Two can play your game.

-TS

You can’t check-mate someone who refuses to sit down and play, now can you?

 

[Touchstone]

You can’t check-mate someone who refuses to sit down and play, now can you?

A loss is a loss, before or after the first move.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

But that doesn’t matter, my friend, if irrationality is not a deal breaker in argument.

How utterly pointless is a debating materialist! (I anticipate you will continue to prove this point.)

Maybe this post crossed paths with mine above and you didn’t see mine. I’m not arguing for or from irrationality. You just did. I can’t control the structure of quantum physics, but you can take action with respect to gratuitous handwaving and non-sequiturs as the load bearing beams in your arguments.

You can run away from it all you want, and mutter about “materialists”, but it doesn’t change the structure of your claims.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

Yes. By comparison, theology has a hard time demonstrating anything at all, to even get out of the starting gate. Think of the best example of “theological knowledge” that is both substantial (makes some claim about the world) and demonstrable. What would that be?

That we are persons created in the image of God with the ability to distinguish and choose between good and evil.

When he waits for the bell, he’s got solid evidence that he’s not getting yanked around yuks by the other kids in yard who find sport, or some other satisfaction in pulling his leg.

You are assuming the believer in God has been duped many times without explaining how or by whom.

Mapping back over to religion, I think this analogy snaps back on the apologist badly. You can’t produce any minivans. There are no bells. There is no ice cream. There’s just the belief that if you expect cosmic ice cream, it’s real, and it tastes sweet, never mind the man behind that curtain.

You are forgetting or ignoring the positive aspects of religion which have inspired people to produce great works of art, music, architecture, science and, above all, compassion and help for those who were neglected by pagans.

Humans have strong “herd instinct” as the social species we are and there are strong sanctions put in place for dissidents who don’t play along with the group pretending. So perhaps the kid (and other kids in the crowd heralding this “ice cream truck”!) just goes along to get along.

Your estimate of humanity is once again deprecating and unrealistic.

Pointing out that the Emperor Has No Clothes can come at a heavy social cost. It may be foolish to believe there really is an ice cream truck when the crowd announces one, but none appear, time after time. But may be “socially logical” to just capitulate to the group think of the playground gang.

Are you one of the enlightened few?

There’s not even meager, or ANY evidence for the existence of God, scientifically. Not ONE model used in science incorporates the concept of God, or relies on God or supernatural entities/powers for its models. Religion scores a perfect ZERO on this score. So saying “there’s not irrefutable evidence” doesn’t state the problem for religion nearly strong enough. Religion is nowhere on this measure, not just “short of irrefutable”.

Science scores a perfect ZERO on the most important facts of life: its value and purpose…

Doesn’t the non-believer want his life and actions to have meaning? Doesn’t he want eternal life, eternal happiness, fulfillment of all desire?

Yes, all of these desires are pervasive and motivating. And therein is the problem, and a solid reason you should doubt your own beliefs, because you clearly have a strong risk of being compromised by the conflicted interests you have on this matter (and I have the same basic desires). The reason everyone (broadly speaking) believes in God and eternal life is because it’s gratifying and anodyne for them to do so.

You underrate humanity. “everyone” is not so foolish and gullible as you think. People recognise intuitively the primacy of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. Far from being gratifying and anodyne their belief confers obligations and responsibilities the pagan either rejects or fails to recognise. Fundamental desires and aspirations do not stem from self-deception but are linked with self-determination.

It’s a demand, based on our grasp of our own mortality and limitations. and wherever there is a demand, ingenious marketers will find a way to supply hungry customers. Where there is a deep hunger for ice cream, promoting the ever-coming-but-never-arriving ice cream truck is great business.

The deep hunger wouldn’t have survived for thousands of years if it were never satisfied. Ice cream is a poor analogy compared to the bread everyone needs. Science fails to nourish because it leads precisely nowhere. It gives the illusion of progress but has no criteria of progress!

I’d be a chump to just fall for appeals to my emotions at the expense of my brain.

Are you just a brain? Emotions are associated with a person not a biological machine.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes. By comparison, theology has a hard time demonstrating anything at all, to even get out of the starting gate. Think of the best example of “theological knowledge” that is both substantial (makes some claim about the world) and demonstrable. What would that be?

There are other facts that reveal the sterility of science compared with the fertility of theology: the rationality of the universe, the immense value of life, the creativity of humanity, the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity and, most significantly, the capacity for unselfish love.

 

[mark_avery]

well we acknowledge gravity & air without science!Quote:“all my disciples will hear my voice & run from a strange voice”.Also being born again at the age of thirty the contrast was/is undeniable.

 

[Betterave]

But my point still stands: you can’t give me any categorical or objective reason for not believing that God exists.

So this thread has been interesting and challenging, but the main point seems to be that TS admits this fact:

He has no objective reason for not believing that God exists.

So we shouldn’t try to demonstrate this to him. He understands that his unbelief is not rational.

He seems not to understand, however, that it can’t be good to be irrational. And his belief/unbelief in fact seems to be irrational. He claims that good and being and truth are independent, so being/reality can be irrational/bad, truth can be bad/irrational, and the good can be false/non-existent. So his subjective embrace of the subjectively construed ‘goodness’ of subjectively construed notions of ‘rationality’ and ‘reality’ are all reducible (in his subjective system) to arbitrary functions of his subjective preferences. Now this is indeed ‘rational’ but only because ‘rational’ has been rationalized to the point of being no different from ‘irrational.’ So sure, TS’s view is ‘rational,’ but we need to remember 1) that from other perfectly ‘rational’ standpoints TS’s view is also ‘irrational,’ and 2) that TS doesn’t have a problem with this. He’s too busy embracing the ‘now.’ He has made his rational-irrational decision to drink the deep draught of the present moment for the short time that he projects to be able to do so and to seek to forget about the unknown that lies beyond. So good luck changing his mind about that!

 

[Betterave]

Bigger purposes – like keeping it hidden away in a safe deposit box? You must be pulling my leg, here. If the the scarcity and limited supply of a resource that makes the “precious” in “precious resource” meaningful. Oy!

This seems to be a fundamental point of contention: TS thinks he can embrace life only by looking forward to it ending. If it were ‘unlimited’ he could no longer value it, see it as precious. “I love it so much that I want it to end.” Quite a paradox.

Meanwhile the Christian is accused of despising life, because he hopes for its redemption and eternal continuation. An accusation that is again paradoxical.

From Pope Benedict’s Spe Salvi:

Paul reminds the Ephesians that before their encounter with Christ they were “without hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12). Of course he knew they had had gods, he knew they had had a religion, but their gods had proved questionable, and no hope emerged from their contradictory myths. Notwithstanding their gods, they were “without God” and consequently found themselves in a dark world, facing a dark future. In nihil ab nihilo quam cito recidimus (How quickly we fall back from nothing to nothing)[1]: so says an epitaph of that period. In this phrase we see in no uncertain terms the point Paul was making. In the same vein he says to the Thessalonians: you must not “grieve as others do who have no hope” (1 Th 4:13). Here too we see as a distinguishing mark of Christians the fact that they have a future: it is not that they know the details of what awaits them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness. Only when the future is certain as a positive reality does it become possible to live the present as well. So now we can say: Christianity was not only “good news”—the communication of a hitherto unknown content. In our language we would say: the Christian message was not only “informative” but “performative”. That means: the Gospel is not merely a communication of things that can be known—it is one that makes things happen and is life-changing. The dark door of time, of the future, has been thrown open. The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life.

TS, however, thinks he can embrace the hope that life will end in emptiness, as long as he enjoys it while it lasts.

 

[Betterave]

And this is the reason, perhaps (more Spe salvi; sorry for the long quote):

But then the question arises: do we really want this—to live eternally? Perhaps many people reject the faith today simply because they do not find the prospect of eternal life attractive. What they desire is not eternal life at all, but this present life, for which faith in eternal life seems something of an impediment. To continue living for ever —endlessly—appears more like a curse than a gift. Death, admittedly, one would wish to postpone for as long as possible. But to live always, without end—this, all things considered, can only be monotonous and ultimately unbearable. This is precisely the point made, for example, by Saint Ambrose, one of the Church Fathers, in the funeral discourse for his deceased brother Satyrus: “Death was not part of nature; it became part of nature. God did not decree death from the beginning; he prescribed it as a remedy. Human life, because of sin … began to experience the burden of wretchedness in unremitting labour and unbearable sorrow. There had to be a limit to its evils; death had to restore what life had forfeited. Without the assistance of grace, immortality is more of a burden than a blessing”[6]. A little earlier, Ambrose had said: “Death is, then, no cause for mourning, for it is the cause of mankind’s salvation”[7].

1. Whatever precisely Saint Ambrose may have meant by these words, it is true that to eliminate death or to postpone it more or less indefinitely would place the earth and humanity in an impossible situation, and even for the individual would bring no benefit. Obviously there is a contradiction in our attitude, which points to an inner contradiction in our very existence. On the one hand, we do not want to die; above all, those who love us do not want us to die. Yet on the other hand, neither do we want to continue living indefinitely, nor was the earth created with that in view. So what do we really want? Our paradoxical attitude gives rise to a deeper question: what in fact is “life”? And what does “eternity” really mean? There are moments when it suddenly seems clear to us: yes, this is what true “life” is—this is what it should be like. Besides, what we call “life” in our everyday language is not real “life” at all. Saint Augustine, in the extended letter on prayer which he addressed to Proba, a wealthy Roman widow and mother of three consuls, once wrote this: ultimately we want only one thing—”the blessed life”, the life which is simply life, simply “happiness”. In the final analysis, there is nothing else that we ask for in prayer. Our journey has no other goal—it is about this alone. But then Augustine also says: looking more closely, we have no idea what we ultimately desire, what we would really like. We do not know this reality at all; even in those moments when we think we can reach out and touch it, it eludes us. “We do not know what we should pray for as we ought,” he says, quoting Saint Paul (Rom 8:26). All we know is that it is not this. Yet in not knowing, we know that this reality must exist. “There is therefore in us a certain learned ignorance (docta ignorantia), so to speak”, he writes. We do not know what we would really like; we do not know this “true life”; and yet we know that there must be something we do not know towards which we feel driven[8].
2. I think that in this very precise and permanently valid way, Augustine is describing man’s essential situation, the situation that gives rise to all his contradictions and hopes. In some way we want life itself, true life, untouched even by death; yet at the same time we do not know the thing towards which we feel driven. We cannot stop reaching out for it, and yet we know that all we can experience or accomplish is not what we yearn for. This unknown “thing” is the true “hope” which drives us, and at the same time the fact that it is unknown is the cause of all forms of despair and also of all efforts, whether positive or destructive, directed towards worldly authenticity and human authenticity. The term “eternal life” is intended to give a name to this known “unknown”. Inevitably it is an inadequate term that creates confusion. “Eternal”, in fact, suggests to us the idea of something interminable, and this frightens us; “life” makes us think of the life that we know and love and do not want to lose, even though very often it brings more toil than satisfaction, so that while on the one hand we desire it, on the other hand we do not want it. To imagine ourselves outside the temporality that imprisons us and in some way to sense that eternity is not an unending succession of days in the calendar, but something more like the supreme moment of satisfaction, in which totality embraces us and we embrace totality—this we can only attempt. It would be like plunging into the ocean of infinite love, a moment in which time—the before and after—no longer exists. We can only attempt to grasp the idea that such a moment is life in the full sense, a plunging ever anew into the vastness of being, in which we are simply overwhelmed with joy. This is how Jesus expresses it in Saint John’s Gospel: “I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you” (16:22). We must think along these lines if we want to understand the object of Christian hope, to understand what it is that our faith, our being with Christ, leads us to expect[9].

 

[atheistgirl]

Non-believers, don’t wait for the bell to ring, please come, and have icecream with us!

But, what flavor? Hindu? Muslem? Christian? Jewish? Budhist? How could someone looking in know what bell had the right tone? Because exactly everything you would say for a christian icecream, someone would say the same for a hindu or muslem one?