The demand for evidence for the existence of God

[levinas12]

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

Thanks … I took a quick look at the articles … the Behe one seems confined to irreducible complexity after the first “moment of information” … the other two articles do talk about this moment … that there was not just one “moment” but a plurality of entities involving gene translation … but like the question about where the Big Bang came from … where did the gene that was translated come from … in other words, the two articles assume that there was some sort of “information” from the beginning to be translated … did I misunderstand

 

[atheistgirl]

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.”

I am telling you that your statement insulted me. Now, Im so hyper aware that I am an athesit and a guest on a catholic forum, that I havent been able to, and dont feel able, to be fully myself here and make the points I want to make in the way I would normally make them, for fear of causing offence, being accused of trying to trash someones faith, causing an insult, or breaking some rule or other.
For this reason, rather than going back and forth with you, and given how I feel this moment about your insulting comment, I feel it’s for the best I ignore you.

Sarah x

 

[Betterave]

I am telling you that your statement insulted me. Now, Im so hyper aware that I am an athesit and a guest on a catholic forum, that I havent been able to, and dont feel able, to be fully myself here and make the points I want to make in the way I would normally make them, for fear of causing offence, being accused of trying to trash someones faith, causing an insult, or breaking some rule or other.
For this reason, rather than going back and forth with you, and given how I feel this moment about your insulting comment, I feel it’s for the best I ignore you.

Sarah x

No problem. Ignoring me is actually what you were already doing, from a rational perspective, anyway, by miscontruing my rational analysis of your claims as an insult. Your post 207 clearly ignored all of my clearly reasoned arguments against your position. However, carry on!

(We can of course note that your choosing to ignore my rational arguments and misconstrue them as insults once again proves that you have “left your rationality at the door.”)

 

[atheistgirl]

Thanks … I’m impressed … I took a quick look at the articles … the Behe one seems confined to irreducible complexity after the first “moment of information” … the other two articles do talk about this moment … that there was not just one “moment” but a plurality of entities involving gene translation … but like the question about where the Big Bang came from … where did the gene that was translated come from … in other words, the two articles assume that there was some sort of “information” from the beginning to be translated … did I misunderstand

There’s links within the links argueing againt Behe’s IC. Here’s one:

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

Sarah x

 

[mdrummer5]

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.”

Isn’t what is rational relative to our beliefs?

Atheists (forgive me for speaking in general terms) essentially denounce the existence of God due to lack of proof. To them it’s irrational to believe in something that can’t be proven, they equate it to believing in Santa Claus. They refuse to accept things based on faith in documents that are 2000 years old. If you consider this perspective it can’t really be said that it’s irrational especially considering that the Church does in fact pick and choose which of those documents are accepted as truth and which are considered to be heresy. To someone thinking from a purely logical standpoint this is very rational. It seems irrational to someone of faith because this is what they perceive to be truth, despite the fact that it can’t be proven. To try to prove something that literally can’t be proven as people with faith sometimes try to do… is that not more irrational?

On the other hand to someone who believes (regardless of which particular faith), it’s irrational (some might say arrogant) to believe that there isn’t a supreme being (God, Allah whatever) and to not put our trust in it. To believe that things have happened all on their own without some sort of divine intervention.

I guess what I’m saying is that an Atheist and a believer will never see eye to eye on what is and isn’t rational so someone’s ability to rationalize is almost irrelevant.

 

[Betterave]

Isn’t what is rational relative to our beliefs?

It’s a good question. What do you think this would imply about the thesis that “religions ask you to leave your rationality at the door”?

Atheists (forgive me for speaking in general terms) essentially denounce the existence of God due to lack of proof. To them it’s irrational to believe in something that can’t be proven, they equate it to believing in Santa Claus.

But this “irrational to them” is in fact irrational. They haven’t bothered to understand the grounds for believing in God. Their equation of belief in God to belief in Santa Claus is clearly very irrational (of course, not all atheists are stupid enough to make such an equation). Can you see that?

They refuse to accept things based on faith in documents that are 2000 years old.

In a sense, I would refuse to do that too - we do not have faith in documents as such. That is too vague and is an inadequate (and thus irrational) working characterization of Christian faith.

If you consider this perspective it can’t really be said that it’s irrational especially considering that the Church does in fact pick and choose which of those documents are accepted as truth and which are considered to be heresy.

The Church’s role that you refer to here is part of the content of the faith, not the grounds for faith, so your characterization is again inadequate (misleading, in fact) and irrational.

To someone thinking from a purely logical standpoint this is very rational.

What is a “purely logical standpoint”?

It seems irrational to someone of faith because this is what they perceive to be truth, despite the fact that it can’t be proven. To try to prove something that literally can’t be proven as people with faith sometimes try to do… is that not more irrational?

You’re working with an inherently vague term here: “proven.” I don’t think it is possible to give wholly general a priori answers to your questions. It depends on what exactly is implied by ‘proven’ in a given context of ‘proving.’

On the other hand to someone who believes (regardless of which particular faith), it’s irrational (some might say arrogant) to believe that there isn’t a supreme being (God, Allah whatever) and to not put our trust in it.

Maybe. Or maybe it’s just unreasonable. Or maybe it’s evil. Or maybe it’s just wrong. But those are just conclusions; from a rational perspective it is the reasons that matter, and you have bypassed those.

I guess what I’m saying is that an Atheist and a believer will never see eye to eye on what is and isn’t rational so someone’s ability to rationalize is almost irrelevant.

That statement is far too general and defeatist, don’t you think?

 

[levinas12]

There’s links within the links argueing againt Behe’s IC. Here’s one:

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

Sarah x

I looked at the above link … and also the links in the references … the whole array is something like chinese boxes or russian eggs … again, the links within the links arguing against Behe seem focused on irreducible complexity … which is later in the game of life … not on the very origin of information … which cannot be explained by a darwinian process like selection … because the first information would have to come from the inorganic (would not involve competition between life forms because there would be no predecessor life forms) … this would seem to apply even to a “plural” origin as suggested by some of the articles … I think Francis Crick originally posed this problem …

I know you have another job than responding to postings … but at some point if you could explain in more detail the research, I would appreciate it … hope you don’t think I’m being obstinate … this is sincere questioning … it may be that I don’t have the background (or IQ) to understand the articles

 

[mdrummer5]

It’s a good question. What do you think this would imply about the thesis that “religions ask you to leave your rationality at the door”?

I would agree to a point in the sense that any religion you’re not a believer in asks you to ignore what you believe which is in and of itself irrational. In other words someone who believes in religion X who’s never even heard of Jesus is not going to find my beliefs rational. So me asking him to believe or trying to convince him is asking him to go against his own beliefs which again, most rational people will not do.

But this “irrational to them” is in fact irrational.

How so? For someone who’s a clean slate in terms of faith (very unlikely hypothetical here) believing in the existence of an unseen supreme being impregnating a virgin with no proof other than oral tradition eventually being written down it sounds ridiculous.

In a sense, I would refuse to do that too - we do not have faith in documents as such. That is too vague and is an inadequate (and thus irrational) working characterization of Christian faith.

Not true. When someone asks about a specific belief or practice of ours we inevitably refer to a Bible passage. We have faith that the Bible is the word of God, who’s existence can not be proven. So again, to someone without faith it’s like a kid writing down the rantings of an imaginary friend.

The Church’s role that you refer to here is part of the content of the faith, not the grounds for faith, so your characterization is again inadequate (misleading, in fact) and irrational.

My point is that we still put our faith in very old documentation that we believe to be true but cannot prove that it’s truth.

What is a “purely logical standpoint”?

By purely logical, I mean without considering abstract ideas that can’t be proven… which is what God is to someone who doesn’t believe.

You’re working with an inherently vague term here: “proven.” I don’t think it is possible to give wholly general a priori answers to your questions. It depends on what exactly is implied by ‘proven’ in a given context of ‘proving.’

The word proven couldn’t be any less vague. Something that is proven to be true leaves no room for doubt. 2+2=4… that can be proven… it’s a fact. If God’s existence could be proven Atheists would not exist and we wouldn’t call it faith, we would call it fact.

Maybe. Or maybe it’s just unreasonable. Or maybe it’s evil. Or maybe it’s just wrong. But those are just conclusions; from a rational perspective it is the reasons that matter, and you have bypassed those.

I’ve not bypassed them… I don’t even need to point them out. It’s common knowledge. The reason Atheists don’t believe is because it can’t be proven.

That statement is far too general and defeatist, don’t you think?

No. It’s true. I at one time considered myself an Atheist or at the very least an Agnostic Atheist. To me the belief in God (specifically Christianity) seemed ridiculous. I have changed my view by God’s grace. Someone telling me why they believe or why I should does nothing for me. God showed me why I should believe. If it weren’t for God showing me you or anyone could’ve tried to rationalize to me why I should and I’d have considered you to be a nutjob… now, I’m the nutjob

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Im very aware of history - look closely at Stalin, Hitler, and others, and look for the shadow of faiths - you’ll see.

Sarah x

Hello Sarah I wanted to share this section with you though you can read the rest online. It’s the biography of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI:

*His youthful years were not easy. His faith and the education received at home prepared him for the harsh experience of those years during which the Nazi regime pursued a hostile attitude towards the Catholic Church. The young Joseph saw how some Nazis beat the Parish Priest before the celebration of Mass.

It was precisely during that complex situation that he discovered the beauty and truth of faith in Christ; fundamental for this was his family’s attitude, who always gave a clear witness of goodness and hope, rooted in a convinced attachment to the Church*. . . .
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/biography/documents/hf_ben-xvi_bio_20050419_short-biography_en.html

Have a nice day.

As far as your comment about Behe, I’m not a proponet of the Intelligent Design Movement.

 

[Betterave]

I would agree to a point in the sense that any religion you’re not a believer in asks you to ignore what you believe which is in and of itself irrational.

No, not to ignore; that would be irrational. To reconsider; that is rational.

In other words someone who believes in religion X who’s never even heard of Jesus is not going to find my beliefs rational.

Why not? Just because she doesn’t share your belief?? That’s irrational!

So me asking him to believe or trying to convince him is asking him to go against his own beliefs which again, most rational people will not do.

No. All rational people (not just most) are willing to consider beliefs that conflict with their own. This is a *necessary *condition for being rational (though not a sufficient one).

How so? For someone who’s a clean slate in terms of faith (very unlikely hypothetical here) believing in the existence of an unseen supreme being impregnating a virgin with no proof other than oral tradition eventually being written down it sounds ridiculous.

“That sounds ridiculous to me!” is not a rational argument. (It’s also not irrational - it’s just a matter of fact about someone’s subjective belief, that’s all. [It does *become irrational if you try to convert it into the kind of claim that Sarah (atheistgirl) has attempted to defend here.])

Not true. When someone asks about a specific belief or practice of ours we inevitably refer to a Bible passage.

I sure don’t! And I sure don’t claim that I know my beliefs are true simply because this document says so - that certainly would be irrational.

We have faith that the Bible is the word of God,

…but why? That’s the question you must answer in order to assess whether a belief is rational.

…who’s existence can not be proven.

Are you sure about that? I’d like to see the proof of this unprovability.

So again, to someone without faith it’s like a kid writing down the rantings of an imaginary friend.

But again, that is a very stupid attitude based on a highly irrational adherence to her own unbelieving prejudices.

My point is that we still put our faith in very old documentation that we believe to be true but cannot prove that it’s truth.

But saying that does not address whether it is rational to believe.

By purely logical, I mean without considering abstract ideas that can’t be proven… which is what God is to someone who doesn’t believe.

Anyone who is unwilling/unable to consider abstract ideas is not rational. Begging the question is not rational.

The word proven couldn’t be any less vague. Something that is proven to be true leaves no room for doubt. 2+2=4… that can be proven… it’s a fact. If God’s existence could be proven Atheists would not exist and we wouldn’t call it faith, we would call it fact.

I think you are mistaken. Standards and criteria of what constitutes ‘proof’ most certainly do vary in different contexts. Banal example: criminal court vs. civil court. Better example: chemistry vs. history.

I’ve not bypassed them… I don’t even need to point them out. It’s common knowledge. The reason Atheists don’t believe is because it can’t be proven.

But have they proven it can’t be proven? Appeals to common knowledge are very unlikely to be rationally defensible, and clearly in this case you beg the question.

No. It’s true. I at one time considered myself an Atheist or at the very least an Agnostic Atheist. To me the belief in God (specifically Christianity) seemed ridiculous.

That doesn’t imply that it was ridiculous! Rational people recognize this.

I have changed my view by God’s grace. Someone telling me why they believe or why I should does nothing for me. God showed me why I should believe. If it weren’t for God showing me you or anyone could’ve tried to rationalize to me why I should and I’d have considered you to be a nutjob… now, I’m the nutjob

You might have had that attitude; but you wouldn’t have been rational in doing so - you would have been irrational.

 

[mdrummer5]

But have they proven it can’t be proven?

It can’t be proven as is evidenced by the fact that it has not been. That may change some day but for now it is a fact that it can’t be proven until proven otherwise. This and the entire converstation of what is and is not rational is a never ending cyclical argument is my point.

It’s a matter of agreeing to disagree. You are so confident that what you believe is right that you can consider not believing all you want you’re not likely to sway. Atheists feel the same way.

Both sides have valid points… it’s a matter of what we as individuals believe which is entirely subjective.

 

[Betterave]

It can’t be proven as is evidenced by the fact that it has not been.

But that is not a fact! You are transparently just begging the question again in claiming that it is! That is irrational!

That may change some day but for now it is a fact that it can’t be proven until proven otherwise. This and the entire converstation of what is and is not rational is a never ending cyclical argument is my point.

The cycle can end when you understand that it is irrational to beg the question and stop doing so.

It’s a matter of agreeing to disagree. You are so confident that what you believe is right that you can consider not believing all you want you’re not likely to sway. Atheists feel the same way.

As far as we are being rational, how we *feel *is irrelevant. What is relevant is how we conduct ourselves in the give and take of reasons. Rationality consists in the particular form and content of what we say (in the context of/in response to what the other says), not in our subjective confidence in having truthfully resolved some particular point of contention.

Both sides have valid points… it’s a matter of what we as individuals believe which is entirely subjective.

It is only entirely subjective insofar as you don’t understand objective arguments and refuse to adhere to rational standards of inquiry.

 

[mdrummer5]

But that is not a fact! You are transparently just begging the question again in claiming that it is! That is irrational!

Perhaps I didn’t word it clearly enough. God’s existence has not been proven. Fact. It is because of that Atheists do not believe. If it is at any point in time proven, well we’ll have a record number of converts lol.

The cycle can end when you understand that it is irrational to beg the question and stop doing so.

That’s the problem. Non-believers beg the question because until it can be answered they’re not going to believe. That’s why you end up with “you can’t prove God’s existence” and “you can’t disprove it” being repeated back and forth.

I will stand by what I said earlier and leave it at this. What is rational is relative. What is rational to you may not be to someone else and vice versa and it is unreasonable for you to expect someone to rationalize in the same way you do.

You and atheistgirl went back and forth over what was rational… and had she not decided to stop responding (understandably so) you two would still be having the same conversation which is why I won’t respond anymore. I’m not saying that so that I “have the last word” it’s a simple matter of realizing when a conversation is going nowhere, as this one is.

 

[Betterave]

Perhaps I didn’t word it clearly enough. God’s existence has not been proven. Fact.

Your “fact” is in fact just begging the question (still).

It is because of that Atheists do not believe. If it is at any point in time proven, well we’ll have a record number of converts lol.

Wrong. We’ll only have converts if they understand the proofs. The existence of a proof is not in itself enough to convert anyone. And if there are barriers to their understanding these proofs, they often may not understand them (as we see to be the case).

That’s the problem. Non-believers beg the question because until it can be answered they’re not going to believe. That’s why you end up with “you can’t prove God’s existence” and “you can’t disprove it” being repeated back and forth.

Until what can be answered?? Rational people will refuse to be held hostage to the irrationality of others. If you or anyone else simply insists on begging the question, that doesn’t mean you’re somehow being ‘rational,’ just because you refuse to back down!

I will stand by what I said earlier and leave it at this. What is rational is relative. What is rational to you may not be to someone else and vice versa and it is unreasonable for you to expect someone to rationalize in the same way you do.

Nonetheless, your question-begging is not rational!

You and atheistgirl went back and forth over what was rational… and had she not decided to stop responding (understandably so) you two would still be having the same conversation which is why I won’t respond anymore.

Possibly. So what? If someone is persistently irrational, this doesn’t somehow convert her *irrationality *into rationality!

I’m not saying that so that I “have the last word” it’s a simple matter of realizing when a conversation is going nowhere, as this one is.

But it would be nice if you would try to understand *why *it is going nowhere: it’s because you are being irrational!

 

[Betterave]

b.t.w., I do “ACTIVELY try to convert people to rationality,” but I do it precisely by “presenting the option.” Their is no exclusive dichotomy between the two. If you don’t want to convert, that’s unfortunate, but it won’t keep me up at night.

 

[hecd2]

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.

Hi John, I may be missing the point - since you are its author you are in the best position to declare what you meant to convey. But my point is that the analogy is not apposite - in the one case there really is an ice cream truck that anyone can sense who cares to do so and in that case the other kids’ belief in the presence of the truck is absolutely based on sensory evidence - either immediate sensory evidence at the time or an inference from prior and repeatable sensory evidence. To the extent that our anti-hero is missing out, he is doing so because he is rejecting the idea that others can have reliable sensory evidence to which he is not party. So in this case the others are, in effect, saying “we know the truck is there because we have sensory evidence that it is so - come along” and he is saying “naw - I won’t accept your report - I’ll wait till I have direct evidence myself” and in that he is a fool, because sometimes one should accept the well attested sensory evidence of others, assuming that, at least in principle, one could test it for oneself. Either the truck is there or it is not, and there is no ambiguity in determining whether it is or not provided one puts it to the test by seeking evidence for it.

Now contrast that with the case for theism, which does not, cannot, depend on sensory evidence as you yourself admit by talking about a reality that transcends evidence. The epistemic warrant for theism is radically different for the epistemic warrant for the ice cream truck. In saying that the demand for evidence is blocking the experience of full reality, you are making a claim for the existence of a reality which is beyond sensory experience, that is manifested - how? - through private revelation and inward contemplation I suppose, that is untested and untestable. Perhaps such a reality does exist but it is beyond knowledge for us; you can only make such a claim on faith, and the essence of your post is to admit that. Our guy knows he’s screwed up when the other kids come back, faces sticky with good eating - he gets the direct sensory evidence that the truck *was *there and surely he’ll go along with the evidence tomorrow (unless he’s even more of a fool than he seems). In the case of the theistic claim, its rejection is not, cannot be refuted by evidence.

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?

So I think I can paraphrase your point here as follows (tell me if I’m wrong - I’m not trying to set up a straw man or anything - I’m putting the argument in my own words to make sure I understand it): ‘Loads of cool dudes have believed. They didn’t need evidence. Maybe they were right. By demanding evidence you are (unreasonably?) restricting reality to what you can sense.’ To which I say, 'OK then, I’m open to persuasion. I’d like to believe in the existence of a bigger reality. In fact, as far as I know, there could well be huge areas of reality beyond sensory experience. Hit me with it. But not everything I can imagine corresponds to reality. So, how do I know what’s really out there? Maybe the believer dudes can show me what is real and what is illusion."

Can you?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[JDaniel]

I dont buy into it. The work being done on the cell and evolutionary biology discredits it. That is not to say science has all the answers. It doesnt, and when done properly raises more questions than answers. But that’s a good thing. There’s no need for ID in the equation.

Sarah x

Sarah:

Another question for you: When you peer out of those pretty blues (or greens, or browns) do you see structure of disarray, order or chaos?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

So are you saying the popes of old who led and financed crusades were dys-christians, not to mention great military leaders who subsequently became saints
(disclaimer - the same logic would obviously apply to other christian denominations and not just catholicism)

Sarah x

I’d love to answer valid (conforming historically) questions. But not nonsense.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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

Sarah x

Why, yes, I did, didn’t I?

God bless,
jd

 

[atheistgirl]

Sarah:

Another question for you: When you peer out of those pretty blues (or greens, or browns) do you see structure of disarray, order or chaos?

God bless,
jd

All of the above.

Sarah x