Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?

[rfournier103]

I’ve often wondered why atheists come here and ask us about belief. I’ve never once asked an atheist why they don’t believe in God (they often volunteer that information).

Isn’t it a waste of their time to come here and engage us if they believe there is no God unless they are trying to convince us of their point of view and get us to renounce God and our beliefs?

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

This person hopes there is a God and hopes they will be converted here. This is their way of saying, ‘Please explain how my beliefs are in error.’

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

Scientists have proven there was a beginning to time. And prior to that, nothing. It is an event they call the Big bang. Yet even they do no know how matter and linear time was created from nothing.

Saint Thomas of Aquinas a famous philosopher said: ‘God is the unmovable Mover. The one who created matter and time from nothing.’

CS Lewis once was a famous aetheist but realised, we are creatures in a world of creation, it is 100% that there is a Creator. (God).

 

[rfournier103]

He’s said this? I haven’t been able to read all 450+ posts…

 

[Gorgias]

Isn’t it a waste of their time to come here and engage us if they believe there is no God unless they are trying to convince us of their point of view and get us to renounce God and our beliefs?

No. It’s called ‘dialogue’. And, from the perspective of the believer, it’s an opportunity to witness to the faith.

He’s said this? I haven’t been able to read all 450+ posts…

No. The usual approach is “let me explain to you why I’m right and you’re wrong.” But, as Christians, we believe that all hope that there is a loving God… even if they refuse to believe it (or place conditions on it, or insert personal beliefs about His nature and being). So, we enter into dialogue, knowing that it’s not us, but rather, the Holy Spirit, who does the work of conversion.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

This isn’t what you said before. You were quite clear and very adamant (you used bold type even!) that each and every claim must be demonstrated by objective, measurable, repeatable sources.

Do you really think that I should repeat every proposition issued in every post of this thread? Over 450 posts? If you are interested, you can follow the thread back to its origin. If you prefer I am willing to give you a synopsis. Just let me know.

You deflect the issue. Objective, measurable, repeatable results are not the only criteria that can be used to make claims about ontological reality. Certainly a system capable of measuring the quantifiable can be used to examine the quantifiable. However, that a system capable of ONLY measuring the quantifiable can (unsurprisingly) only measure the quantifiable and is incapable of examining the qualitative, such as epistemological methods, the truth tracking of our perceptions, value and moral judgments, purpose, etc… That they have to be qualitatively evaluated does not make such claims unreal. If there are things we could not expect to be measurable, it doesn’t mean they do not exist. We can reason a posteriori to real truth claims. If we couldn’t argue for the validity of epistemology, or make logical arguments, etc.

The scientific method is an incredibly useful tool for measuring the quantifiable. But if a tool can’t be used for other jobs it doesn’t mean the other jobs don’t exist. If a drunk only looks for his lost keys under a streetlamp because it’s the only place he can see, it doesn’t mean that if the keys aren’t under the streetlamp they don’t exist.

 

[theCardinalbird]

so really what you are saying is that science cannot be used to find out if God is real because it is the study of the physical and natural world where God is supernatural and in the spiritual (not physical) world (kind of idea?)

It would be like trying to find an atom using the naked eye

(the analogy means that science is the wrong type of equipment to use in finding the supernatural)

 

[Wesrock]

so really what you are saying is that science cannot be used to find out if God is real because it is the study of the physical and natural world where God is supernatural and in the spiritual (not physical) world (kind of idea?)

It would be like trying to find an atom using the naked eye

(the analogy means that science is the wrong type of equipment to use in finding the supernatural)

More than that, even. If there are qualitative realities or truths about the natural world, science can’t observe them. Examples include purpose, value judgments (such as moral judgments), even certain truth claims which have to be known a priori or reasoned to a posteriori.

While I myself used the analogy of using the wrong tool for the job, I should be clear that these are not gap claims, a matter of technological improvement that could someday detect something qualitative like “purpose” or the ability to make a moral judgment without appealing to truths beyond what can be measured. These simply aren’t quantitative things to begin with and so cannot ever be subject to measurement in themselves.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I did not think about some of the stuff you said. Thank you

 

[Sophia]

When one is dealing in history and in the written record, those are not the standards.

Who said anything about “history”? The past does NOT exist any more, it is not part of the objectively existing reality. The records, written or oral are irrelevant. Especially if they are second- and third-hand therefore hearsay testimonials. On the other hand, God, the angels and the demons are supposed to be alive and well today. They are also - allegedly - in constant interaction with our physical reality. The “guardian angels” are supposed to be very busy, protecting us from all sorts of unspecified problems. The demons are supposed to tempt us, day and night. God fulfills the petitions sometimes. A whole plethora of “interface” between the physical and the “non-physical” realm. And as long as there is an interface, the rules of empirical studies apply.

Same here: not all explanations must (or should) use the ground rules of science.

It was you who brought up the word “investigate”. And now you try to disavow it? Do you even understand the meaning of “investigate”? Does not look like it.

The point is that your grounds – your attempt at defining an epistemology, or a method, or whatever you want to call it – are unreasonable in the given context.

I only made a few requirements: Your attempt to substantiate your claims must be “objective” - I am not interested in your subjective opinions. They must be “repeatable” - who cares about a one-off alleged occurrence? And “measurable” - how on Earth can we separate the true and false propositions? By the way, you call my method “unreasonable” because they contradict your hoped-for results.

Once again, give me the procedures, which I can use on my own, and arrive the purported solution. Do you remember the hoax of “cold fusion”?

 

[Sophia]

You deflect the issue. Objective, measurable, repeatable results are not the only criteria that can be used to make claims about ontological reality. Certainly a system capable of measuring the quantifiable can be used to examine the quantifiable. However, that a system capable of ONLY measuring the quantifiable can (unsurprisingly) only measure the quantifiable and is incapable of examining the qualitative, such as epistemological methods, the truth tracking of our perceptions, value and moral judgments, purpose, etc… That they have to be qualitatively evaluated does not make such claims unreal. If there are things we could not expect to be measurable, it doesn’t mean they do not exist. We can reason a posteriori to real truth claims. If we couldn’t argue for the validity of epistemology, or make logical arguments, etc.

The epistemological methods ARE measured by their effectiveness. Value and moral judgments are subjective evaluations, based upon the chosen “ethical systems”, of which there are many.

For the sake of this discussion I stipulated that the “physical realm” is NOT all there is.

The whole point was that I am looking for the specific epistemological methods pertaining to the “non-physical” (and yet physically active) realm. God, angels (guardian angels) and demons are supposedly “real”. There is theology (the study gods), angelology (the study of angels) and demonology (the study of demons). I am asking for the epistemological methods these disciplines use, so I can evaluate the propositions made about them.

Not that big a deal.

 

[anon10271182]

…would make me a believer, that is.
The effect of atheist arguments is to strengthen my belief. Every time. Deo gratias!

 

[Gorgias]

The past does NOT exist any more, it is not part of the objectively existing reality. The records, written or oral are irrelevant.

And as long as there is an interface, the rules of empirical studies apply.

And as soon as you can demonstrate that you can capture the effects of the interface, we can have a productive discussion. Otherwise, your lack of positive results does not prove the null hypothesis.

(Oh – and “results of prayer” doesn’t count, for the reasons already given: you’re misinterpreting what prayer actually is, and attempting to reduce it to pulls of a slot machine. Inasmuch as you continue viewing it that way, you’re never gonna understand it.)

Your attempt to substantiate your claims must be “ objective ” - I am not interested in your subjective opinions.

Inasmuch as we’re dealing with literature and historical accounts, there’s no way to get around the ‘subjectivity’ issues. If you can’t abide by that, then I think you’re barking up the wrong tree.

They must be “ repeatable ” - who cares about a one-off alleged occurrence?

Again, it’s called ‘history’. Think about archeology: are those discoveries not scientific? And, are they repeatable?

And “ measurable ” - how on Earth can we separate the true and false propositions?

And, yet again: there are things which are empirical yet unmeasurable. Read up on it a bit…

By the way, you call my method “unreasonable” because they contradict your hoped-for results.

No – I call it unreasonable because you’re attempting to impose methods from one discipline onto another.

(Wait… wait… here it comes: I’m being “intellectually dishonest”, eh? )

 

[Sophia]

And as soon as you can demonstrate that you can capture the effects of the interface, we can have a productive discussion.

How ridiculous. When I have a conversation with a nuclear physicist, who presents a new hypothesis, I am not the one who should be responsible to set up the experiment to verify or falsify his hypothesis. He is. Just like here.

Oh – and “results of prayer” doesn’t count…

Why don’t you enlighten those millions of poor Christians who utter millions of futile prayers every day, and ask for God’s benevolent interference? The “prayer-test” fulfills all the necessary requirements, it is objective, measurable and repeatable - too bad that they refute your null-hypothesis. Those poor misinformed supplicants waste innumerable days by engaging in a futile activity. You know? Your unsupported opinion cannot stand in the way of millions of believers.

Archeology? Who cares? It is not science.

And, yet again: there are things which are empirical yet unmeasurable.

Examples? How can you experience something objectively existing, without also being able to measure it? Experiencing something can only happen through your senses, or their extensions. Any and all of those sensory organs detect some physical particles, which are measurable.

But I help you again. There are those nifty little demons (with or without their horns and hoofs along with their sulphuric smells), which are able to possess some humans. That is the official teaching of the church. The Vatican maintains exorcists, to discover and expel them. This endeavor fulfills all the necessary criteria, it happens within the physical realm, it is empirically detectable (according to the exorcists), and it can be repeated. The demons can be expelled by some physical means. (Also according to the exorcists).

You can get help from the exorcists to set up the proper experiments, and collect supporting evidence for your cutesy little demons. Once you are done, you can get around to set up experiments to discover some “guardian angels”. Some believers assert that they could see and talk to their guardian angels and also assert that without the interference of their own, personal guardian angels they would have experienced some real bad events. Get their help to set up the experiment.

But forget about hearsay “evidence”. Of course I know that you are unable to offer anything better. If only you would “come clean” and admit it, all would be well.

 

[Gorgias]

How ridiculous. When I have a conversation with a nuclear physicist, who presents a new hypothesis, I am not the one who should be responsible to set up the experiment to verify or falsify his hypothesis. He is. Just like here.

Improper foundation. The correct comparison is that you’re trying to tell the physicist what it takes for you to accept his analysis… and then, you refuse to tell him why it’s reasonable that your approach should lead to reasonable results.

Why don’t you enlighten those millions of poor Christians who utter millions of futile prayers every day, and ask for God’s benevolent interference?

Or, perhaps, why don’t you recognize that those “millions of poor Christians” already realize that “your will, God, over mine” isn’t implicitly part of their prayer?

Those poor misinformed supplicants waste innumerable days by engaging in a futile activity.

It’s “futile activity” only from your point of view, in which the goal is “what I want”. Christians generally realize that “what I want” takes a back seat to “what You want, God”.

Archeology? Who cares? It is not science.

Right. As soon as your presumptions are challenged, it’s time to discount those fields of endeavor. Got it.

Gorgias:

And, yet again: there are things which are empirical yet unmeasurable.

Examples?

Already gave them to you. (Perhaps in another thread?) I’ll ask you to do your own homework. Come back and ask again if you’re unable to find the references.

How can you experience something objectively existing, without also being able to measure it?

That’s the issue: there are events which happen, but which humans do not experience. Therefore, there’s the question as to their measurability. Glad to have helped expand your awareness…

 

[Sophia]

Improper foundation. The correct comparison is that you’re trying to tell the physicist what it takes for you to accept his analysis… and then, you refuse to tell him why it’s reasonable that your approach should lead to reasonable results.

That is not what I am doing, not even close. The physicist presents a hypothesis (for example a hypothesis about cold fusion, or the luminiferous aether) and the other physicists ask for an experiment to substantiate the hypothesis. If the experiments are not forthcoming, or the contradict the hypothesis, they will discard the hypothesis. The point is that it is the claimant who is responsible to set up the method of verification / falsification. After all it is the claimant who is supposed to have the necessary information about the tests / experiments. If he would ask: “well, what experiment would you accept?” he would be laughed out of the house. The answer would be: “objective, measurable and repeatable”, nothing more. The ball is in his court. What is your problem with it?

Or, perhaps, why don’t you recognize that those “millions of poor Christians” already realize that “your will, God, over mine” isn’t implicitly part of their prayer?

I rather doubt that every one of those petitioners are even aware of this “implicit” part. But let it be your way. Even if they explicitly include the “disclaimer”, they still expect a positive response, and every time they perceive that their petition was answered in the “affirmative” they give praise for the good result. So they DO believe that the prayer “works” - just like the vending machine “works” if you insert the coin. Of course if the vending machine does not “work”, it will be delivered into the junk yard.

In the Islamic world it is simple, when you offer a petition, you explicitly add: “Inshallah” - “God willing” (it is pretty much “mandatory”). No matter what the outcome is, after the experiment you always say: “Mashallah” - “that is what God wanted”. If the result was what you hoped for, you praise “Allah”, if the result was NOT what you hoped for, you just “shrug it off” - Mashallah.

How convenient! If we toss a coin, and the result is heads “God wins”. If the result is tails, “God still wins”. Now there is nothing “wrong” with that. If you find a sucker who will play this kind of “three card Monte”, you can take all his money. What you cannot claim to conduct an “honest” game.

If you check the studies of the efficacy of prayers, you will see that the positive outcome is heralded as the sign of God’s benevolence, while the negative outcomes are swept under the rug. No one will accept the “study”, which only includes the positive outcomes, but refuses to present the negative ones.

Just imagine, a pharmaceutical company presents a new drug, and when it is required to present the test results (FDA?), it would only produce the positive outcomes, and hide the negative ones.

 

[Sophia]

Right. As soon as your presumptions are challenged, it’s time to discount those fields of endeavor. Got it.

No, you did not get it. You did not challenge my presumptions, you tried to include things which do not belong. Archeology may discover interesting artifacts, can provide information about ancient cultures, can even answer some specific questions about the past. But none of them affect us. As I said several times, God, angels, demons etc. all exist (allegedly) today, so any question pertaining to them must be answered in the here and now, not in some ancient texts.

Already gave them to you. (Perhaps in another thread?) I’ll ask you to do your own homework.

I am not interested in a wild goose chase across all sorts of threads. Just list a few of those events which are empirical and yet, not measurable.

That’s the issue: there are events which happen, but which humans do not experience. Therefore, there’s the question as to their measurability.

I already elaborated on such events, and gave some examples. The events which are outside the light cone, or inside the Scharwschield radius. None of these are part of the problem. They all exist, but none of them affect us, either explicitly or implicitly. I did not ask about the result of the latest angel-demon soccer game either. The question is about the events which affect us, and yet (allegedly) we cannot experience them. Any example of these?

If you don’t like the prayer-test, I offered you the “demon-test” in my previous post. It fulfills all the necessary criteria, objective, measurable and repeatable. Moreover it carries the approval of the church. What else can you hope for?

You can also try the “Lourdes-test”. No prayers are necessary. Allegedly, the water at Lourdes has beneficial effects, if can cure all sorts of maladies. So gather a bunch of people with all sorts of ailments, and randomly place them into two groups, the “test group” and the “control group”. Send the test group to Lourdes, and control group into convincing facsimile of Lourdes. After a predetermined time, check both groups, and see if there is any significant difference between the two groups. Make sure that there will be a few amputees in both groups.

There are many other possible tests, which could separate the goats from the sheep. So far none of them “worked” - in the sense that they gave evidence for the “supernatural”.

 

[Gorgias]

The point is that it is the claimant who is responsible to set up the method of verification / falsification. After all it is the claimant who is supposed to have the necessary information about the tests / experiments. If he would ask: “well, what experiment would you accept?” he would be laughed out of the house . The answer would be: “objective, measurable and repeatable”, nothing more. The ball is in his court. What is your problem with it?

What problem?

• I’ve identified that "objective, measurable and repeatable’ is a method that applies to a specific domain, but not all domains, but you refuse to recognize that fact.
• I’ve offered a description of the types of contexts that philosophers and theologians work in, and you blithely rejected them, arbitrarily.
• I’ve noted that your responses are devoid of content and rich in insult.

And you still claim that your interlocutors are the “intellectually dishonest” ones? Umm… ok.

If you check the studies of the efficacy of prayers, you will see that

… the notion of “efficacy of prayer” is the wrong measure. You, unfortunately, seem unwilling to accept that fact.

I am not interested in a wild goose chase across all sorts of threads.

Trust me… “wild goose chase” seems characteristic of your demands.

Allegedly, the water at Lourdes has beneficial effects, if can cure all sorts of maladies.

Show me where the Church makes that claim dogmatically. Individuals might make that claim, but not the Church. The Church asks for belief in Christ, not in water.

 

[Sophia]

I’ve identified that "objective, measurable and repeatable’ is a method that applies to a specific domain, but not all domains, but you refuse to recognize that fact.

Please pay attention. I was explicitly talking about the physicist and his claim about some new hypothesis, which belongs to the empirical realm. But the principle is the same: “The claimant is the one who must present the argument for his hypothesis. You cannot demand the skeptic to present ‘what would be convincing’ to you?” Do you understand this? (Not a rhetorical question! I am expecting an answer.)

And you still claim that your interlocutors are the “intellectually dishonest” ones? Umm… ok.

Oh, no. I never speak about a group in a general terms. I always speak about individuals.

… the notion of “efficacy of prayer” is the wrong measure. You, unfortunately, seem unwilling to accept that fact.

It is maintained by serious apologists as a valid measure. Lots of studies have been performed within that framework. Too bad that none of them support the null-hypothesis.

I’ve offered a description of the types of contexts that philosophers and theologians work in, and you blithely rejected them, arbitrarily.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. God, the angels and the demons all are supposed to exist here and now. They all are supposed to interact with the physical reality, here and now. The Vatican maintains the exorcists to expel the demons, here and now. Therefore, there must be an empirical, objective, repeatable method to discover these demons, and to force them to leave the bodies of those, whom they “occupied”. Got it? (Do you have a good spell to “invoke” some demons? I would love to see a few of them, face to face. Just don’t say that it would be a dangerous experiment. I am not scared. Don’t you know that demons cannot harm you, if you do not allow them? And not believing them is the perfect way to keep them at bay.)

But yes, I reject hearsay testimonies - of all kinds.

Show me where the Church makes that claim dogmatically. Individuals might make that claim, but not the Church. The Church asks for belief in Christ, not in water.

Some of the “miracles” at Lourdes are recognized by the church as authentic, “real” miracles. Of course “miracles” cannot substantiate God, or angels or demons, but they could be a good way to show that "there is SOMETHING out there.

It is rather amusing that you keep selecting a few sentences from my posts and only reflect on them. But that is fine. I am aware that your time is limited, and you are unable to present a valid criticism. So, just concentrate on the demons and the exorcists.

 

[Gorgias]

You cannot demand the skeptic to present ‘ what would be convincing ’ to you?” Do you understand this? (Not a rhetorical question! I am expecting an answer.)

Please pay attention: I already have a strong suspicion that, no matter what I posit, you will reject it as nonsensical, intellectually dishonest, or whatever the insult of the day might be. Therefore, rather than wasting my time positing an assertion, just to have you reject it out of hand, I’m cutting to the chase: I’m asking you to tell me exactly what kind of answer you’d be willing to accept. Yes, in a perfect world, I’d propose. But we both know how that will go. So… let’s save time: tell me what kind of solution works for you? (To be fair, though, you too already know that the kinds of things you propose tend to get shot down, too… so this dynamic may not help us come to a consensus.)

[Efficacy of prayer] is maintained by serious apologists as a valid measure.

It is? Seriously?

Please tell me that you’re not referring to “prosperity gospel” charlatans…

Lots of studies have been performed within that framework.

And my assertion remains that they were invalid experiments. Conducted rigorously, without a doubt. But, at their heart, they were fundamentally flawed hypotheses.

Therefore, there must be an empirical, objective, repeatable method to discover these demons, and to force them to leave the bodies of those, whom they “occupied”.

Read up on the notion of possession and exorcism. It’s not as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be.

It is rather amusing that you keep selecting a few sentences from my posts and only reflect on them.

That’s because the signal-to-noise ratio is so low.