The demand for evidence for the existence of God

[atheistgirl]

dys-Christian

I had to look that up - you just made that word up didnt you

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Sarah:

I was an atheist once.

God bless,
jd

Is your proof testable, or is it personal revelation?

Sarah x

 

[JDaniel]

Is your proof testable, or is it personal revelation?

Sarah x

No, I only wore a lab coat when I taught biology and zoology. Let me ask you a question: during the coarse of a day, how many new ideas do estimate you have?

God bless,
jd

 

[fakename]

Ok. Well let me say I have more confidence and belief in science finds answers eventually, as our understanding goes from strength to strength, than in the *probability *of a god existing that provided the impetus, fills the gaps or tweeks the design.
But like a true and unabashed atheist, I would change my belief in a heartbeat if evidence could be shown for the existence of God.

Sarah x

I’m not sure if anyone else has said anything about this in this thread, but how would you respond to this idea -that science becomes less likely to be true, as you explain more phenomena since, the possibility of falsification becomes greater. In this case I think a belief in a God would be more explanatory than experimentation.

 

[atheistgirl]

No, I only wore a lab coat when I taught biology and zoology. Let me ask you a question: during the coarse of a day, how many new ideas do estimate you have?

God bless,
jd

Good question. Quite a few to be exact I run my own business, am involved in local politics, help run an animal sanctuary charity, and raise a family - Im full of ideas

Sarah x

 

[LogisticsBranch]

In all the long meandering of this thread, through descriptions of various sorts of temporary and eternal ice cream delight, with pistachios and with thick chocolate sauce, via claims and counter-claims of whether atheists or theists do most good or ill in the world, no-one, and certainly not you, has addressed the fundamental epistemic issue at the heart of your tale. How did the other kids know that the ice cream truck was there?

Ice-cream is something you eat. Why for heavens sake would I want to equate ice-cream with theism or atheism? I haven’t mentioned anything about atheists or theists doing good or ill. You should look at what I have contributed to this topic. I did appreciate your 3rd message to this topic. Thank you.

Now in regards to this comment by you:

No ill can ever be done by a Christian because no true Christian can ever do ill. Don’t you find that just a tad unsatisfying? I am more than happy, as I said up thread, to acknowledge that Christian belief has motivated many wonderfully positive individual acts and social movements and still do so. But that does not mean that the interpretation of Christian beliefs has not led to some very ill acts and movements (and that includes interpretations which were widespread in the leadership and the laity of the Church at many historical times).

You made that comment to someone else but I’d like to say that I spanked my puppy Grace because she tore my nylons. I try my best to look forward not backwards. But then again, don’t sit under the old oaktree cause nuts will fall when ya ain’t looking. I hope you aren’t one of those kettle boys calling the kettle black here. Being a little creative with words since I’m a strong, mentally fit, and creative woman. My major concern is that I was on a topic where AngryAtheist86 protected me. I honestly love that person simply because he was kind, and there were a few other people there too that showed the same kindess while two male Catholics treated me with disrespect. Now I’m on this topic and well let’s see how it goes. The boat sinks when people aren’t respectful of each other. Like I said elsewhere, I only see this on the Internet. Fortunately, outside of the Internet, I hang around individuals (religious and non-religious) that treat each other with genuine fondness and deep respect.

Best wishes to you. Take it easy old chap.

 

[hecd2]

Alec:

Please seat yourself, as I am about to do the unexplainable: I am going to agree with you.

Now I’m sure there are loads of things that we agree on.

At least, to a major extent. Think it through: a Christian cannot do evil, except by hook or crook he does not know he’s doing it. But, genocide, war, vile imprisonment, racialism, communism, fascism, and others, cannot not be known. They originate from the pinnacles of the basest of man’s wretchedness. They are well known to all men, therefore, only a dys-Christian can possibly actualize them.

That’s fine - Christians can knowingly do no ill by your definition of the term. You can have whatever private definitions of words you want and you can even use them to communicate provided you share your definition. I’ll just observe that you’ve defined a mythical beast, like a centaur or a unicorn, never actually to be met with (well, except, according to the Church in precisely two cases). I’m not sure just how useful a definition that is.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[LongJohnSilver]

In all the long meandering of this thread, through descriptions of various sorts of temporary and eternal ice cream delight, with pistachios and with thick chocolate sauce, via claims and counter-claims of whether atheists or theists do most good or ill in the world, no-one, and certainly not you, has addressed the fundamental epistemic issue at the heart of your tale. How did the other kids know that the ice cream truck was there? Because, sure as eggs is eggs, if there is an ice cream truck and some kids ‘know’ it’s there, there will be a reason based ultimately on sense data. Saying that it’s obvious is about as bankrupt an epistemic analysis of that piece of knowledge as one is likely to get. You’re going to have to dig deeper than that.

Hi Alec, I think you are missing the point of the analogy. I made it up to illustrate that the demand for evidence, however reasonable in itself, is blocking the atheist from experiencing full reality. Just like the kid who misses out on the icecream if he insists on hearing the bell first. That is not an unreasonable claim in itself, but it holds him back from the good stuff.

Of course, this is just the believers point of view, and I cannot convince you of the existence of God. But I am trying to show that you might want to reconsider the demand for evidence of the existence of God itself. It’s not a unreasonable demand, but considering the billions of believers who have believed without evidence, many of whom very rational, intelligent people, is it not possible that this demand is an obstacle in experiencing full reality rather than a criterion for reality?

Now just how is that relevant to the proposition that I think you were trying to illustrate - that some people privately believe that there is a supernatural God, by definition beyond sense data, who provides good things and that those who decline to follow them are missing out? (That doesn’t mean there can’t be good arguments in support of the theist proposition, but it does mean that this parable does nothing to promote the idea that those who reject the proposition do so on shaky epistemic grounds.

That’s not the point of the parable. You should read it more like the invitation in Pascal’s Wager.

Basically, what I’m saying is: evidence schmevidence.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Science is philosophy. But I said above, no need to hold to a threshold as high as science to make the point – the demonstration is not forthcoming, the evidence is not available, no tests avail. You can lower the bar way down to very casual non-scientific terms, and faith is still what gets you there, to belief. And by the teachings of your own faith!].

I think this is not right. The Catechism very clearly teaches:
"“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” (par. 36)
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1.htm#II

Also read par. 31-38.

 

[levinas12]

The work being done on the cell and evolutionary biology discredits it.

Sarah x

What work specifically? I haven’t been able to find a good discussion on how the “information” in the first cell of life got there (other than from outer space) … mathematically it seems impossible if we assume a random process involving just inorganic matter …

 

[levinas12]

Science is philosophy.
-TS

By “science”, do you mean physics, chemistry, etc? Mathematics?

Philosophy seems to ask different sorts of questions than these sciences. For example, Kant asked about the conditions of possibility for Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics. This activity seems outside the usual scientific procedures (crucial experiment, mathematical formula). The same applies to discussions of intentionality, disclosure, the person.

 

[Betterave]

Well perhaps you would be good enough to list the very basics of the catholic faith so I can take a look at them?

I’m not sure if you understand the very basic semantics of the notion “very basic,” but what is ‘very basic’ to the Catholic faith is not the same as what is ‘very basic’ to religion in general. Do you understand that? (…and do you understand why that makes your question here inappropriate in the context of your original thesis?)

There is nothing vague at all about the basics of the major faiths tenets. They are quite clear.

Are they? I might let this pass as a statement about each major faith, but see the point above for why that is irrelevant.

Can you prove me wrong by praying for a miracle and making it happen, and have that miracle happen repeatedly under laboratory conditions?

No, but I can prove you wrong by pointing out that the criterion you offer here is inappropriate (silly, in fact) and that a rational person would recognize that - therefore it is you who has left her rationality at the door, ironically precisely in your attempt to prove that religions require this.

Can you scientifically demonstrate the presence or otherwise in the bread and wine - as it applies in several faiths I am not refering just to the catholic faith and ask the question sensitively with due respect to those that believe in the transformation?

See previous point.

Can you demonstrate the three persons in the one God?

Depends what you mean by ‘demonstrate.’ I can’t prove it by the use of natural reason. But that does not imply that believing it entails “leaving one’s rationality at the door.”

Can you demonstrate that the God of Moses is the same God as Allah, but a different god to the hindu gods in an empiracal manner?

Not sure what you mean.

No, no one can?

No one can what? Jump through silly hoops? That proves only that you are being irrational in setting up such silly hoops and expecting me to admit that I ought to be able to jump through them.

To me such believes are not rational, and for me to believe any of them means I must suspend my rational mind.

But it’s clear enough that your rational mind has already been suspended (or more likely, never developed) in coming to these beliefs.

 

[Pieman333272]

Wouldn’t this be problematic for theism, too, then? Back when it wasn’t cool – or safe – to be an unbeliever, lots of theists decided, for whatever reason, to be philosophers, no?
-TS

Ah, good point. Yes, that does apply to theism - more theist philosophers doesn’t make theism more likely to be true (from our understanding), although new arguments for it posed by them may.

 

[atheistgirl]

What work specifically? I haven’t been able to find a good discussion on how the “information” in the first cell of life got there

It’s not impossible as it happened. As for links to works - there’s tons of stuff out there, none involving outer space

sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020618072709.htm

richarddawkins.net/articles/3004

talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Sarah x

 

[Betterave]

**The definition of an athesit is not someone who by definition doesnt believe in God - an atheist by definition says there is not enough evidence to support that belief and there is probably no god.
If evidence could be produced, I would have no hesitation in believing. **

Right, and I never said it was. Apparently you didn’t understand my point. Let me reiterate: the fact that atheist don’t kill (or do anything else, for that matter) in the name of the God they believe in is a completely trivial corollary of the fact that atheists, by definition, do not believe in God. This is a very simple point. If you don’t get it, then let’s be honest: you clearly must have left your rationality at the door.

Why would a child believe what their parents and clergy tell them? Are you serious?

Do you know a lot of parents or clergy that tell children they are going to hell? Are you serious? In any case, you’re evading my point: the primary issue, if you’re being rational about it, is the truth of the matter. Your ignoring this again suggests that you have “left your rationality at the door.”

 

[atheistgirl]

But it’s clear enough that your rational mind has already been suspended (or more likely, never developed) in coming to these beliefs.

Lol. You ramble and duck and dive and evade, then end with an insult

Oh well.

Sarah x

 

[Betterave]

Are you suggesting that Salman Rushdie does not have a death sentence passed on him by a faith based system, and that hundreds didnt die because of a faith based system over a cartoon?

I certainly did not suggest that. Did you read what I wrote??

Im very aware of history *[that’s an assertion - and maybe it’s true…] - look closely at Stalin, Hitler, and others, and look for the shadow of faiths - you’ll see.

Maybe I would, but I wouldn’t know what to look for. What is this “shadow of faiths” you so enigmatically refer to? And what “others” are you suggesting I should look at?

It’s completely germaine to the point. To base a claim for land on a book several thousand years old, who’s authenticity is very questionable, and to slaughter thousands in conflict for that land, on both sides, is completely irrational.

What does the age or authenticity of the book have to do with it?? Your suggestion that these are relevant factors seems to me completely irrational.

 

[mdrummer5]

Ahh, I admit there has been some evil caused by religion.

Just reading through and caught this and wanted to comment that religion has not caused evil. Man’s misinterpretation of religious beliefs/practices has caused evil.

I’m sure this is probably what you mean but just wanted to clarify. Unfortunately Atheists seem to have a valid point when they bring this up, all we can do is point out that it’s man, not the teachings that we try but sometimes fail to follow that cause such things.

 

[Betterave]

Lol. You ramble and duck and dive and evade, then end with an insult

Oh well.

Sarah x

That’s not an insult. It’s a rational evaluation. If you can’t recognize it as such, then, again, this shows that you have “left your rationality at the door.”

 

[Betterave]

P.S. The whitewashing and denialism on Pius XII is not gonna help you make your points!

Wow! There’s a rational argument! You really do value rationality, don’t you?

traces-cl.com/apr2001/pio.htm