What are the common, modern-day objections to the existence of God?

[AlbertBall]

then please tell me how you saw it? i dont believe you were an astronaut that was involved (wouldnt that be wierd)

Err no, $5000 says i have seen these things in space with my own eyes. We can set this up over paypal You game, yes or no?

Wow! seems my evidence is better than yours, if not PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

i have seen these things in space with my own eyes.

i can do as much by looking anywhere above the horizon. glad i didnt bet now. trying to be sneaky huh?

now to the serious business of faith.

you are now aware that denial of Scripture on the basis of incredulity is a logical fallacy. you are also now aware that there is an epistemological double standard in rejecting Scripture as evidence while accepting other historical events as true.

so, the choice seems to be either the Scriptures should be accepted as evidence and we can begin discussing your reconversion to the service of G-d instead of yourself. or you can choose the irrational position of a logical fallacy or epistemic double standard. which would then make you dismissable as someone who simply wants to disbelieve. only a servant of yourself, just like all the other sheep.

i really hope for another brother. but that would take a lot of internal fortitude. so i suspect i will be jeered or be ignored for the invitation, though i dont seek to offend. if you really want to be a rebel, if you really want to be countercultural, if you want to be a justice crusading radical. become Catholic we are all those things, alot of people hate us. we love it! you dont have to tell anyone, just go to the Church tell the Priest you want to convert. it can be a secret at work and school as long as you want. you could be the mole within academia, you could be G-ds hidden servant. you could shape the world for the greater glory of G-d. but not if your a sheep. dont be a sheep. live for more than what pleases you.

in the coming months and years, remember. you can always come home. if not today, then tomorrow. i did. i hope you will too.

 

[Sair]

we as a Church witnessed thes events. we know what happened. thats why there is a Church. why would we need further verification?

Moving the goalposts in midplay again, by the sound of this. You don’t seem to be applying any standard of evidence - on the one hand, you take it as given that the moon landing is a deniable event, despite millions of people witnessing it via broadcast methods, at the time. Does it not strike you as somewhat idiosyncratic for you to then turn around and assert that you, as part of the church, know the truth of gospel events that you, as part of the church, witnessed via the agency of copies of copies of copies of ancient texts?

As to actually using gospel texts as evidence, they are indeed excellent evidence for what people believed, and wanted others to believe, at around the first and second centuries CE. They are not, in themselves, much use as evidence for what actually happened, and they are not corroborated by independent, unbiased accounts.

why is it wrong to violate the golden rule? are you saying there is an objective morality that we should abide by?

The golden rule is a rational standard of morality by which humans may live harmoniously as social creatures. Those who violate the golden rule - who treat others in ways they would not tolerate themselves - generally find that unless they operate via means of fear and oppression, they don’t get very far within human society. But then, Yahweh, as described in the Bible did indeed operate via means of fear and oppression, and those who supposedly did Yahweh’s bidding followed suit - as evidenced by the example of Elijah and the bear.

Humans have a moral instinct hardwired into our brains by millions of years of evolution. It’s part of the makeup of every social animal to have an innate understanding of how to interact with others. Given that humans can, if they so desire, apply rationality to moral considerations, it makes good practical sense to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself. Call it an objective standard if you like, but it paints with very broad strokes, and has its basis in the subjectivity of human preferences.

 

[AlbertBall]

i can do as much by looking anywhere above the horizon. glad i didnt bet now. trying to be sneaky huh? .

I have a 10" meade. You would be amazed at the detail you can see on the ISS, even the shuttle.

http://www.bryanbradley.com/ISS_Shuttle_LG.jpg

now to the serious business of faith.

you are now aware that denial of Scripture on the basis of incredulity is a logical fallacy. you are also now aware that there is an epistemological double standard in rejecting Scripture as evidence while accepting other historical events as true.

Eh have we not just been through this? The claims made in scripture are NOT the same as historical events because they go against everything we know about the cosmos, in short they are not just extraordinary, but down right ridiculous. So no there is no double standard. **Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. **

 

[1holycatholic]

**Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. **

That’s an extraordinary claim. What extraordinary evidence do you have to support it?

 

[Sair]

That’s an extraordinary claim. What extraordinary evidence do you have to support it?

You’re arguing from absurdity. If I claimed to have eaten an apple yesterday, you would have no reason to doubt it, because people eat apples all the time. If I claimed that I cured someone’s melanoma yesterday, you would require more evidence than my mere assertion before you would accept my claim. You might begin by asking if I were an oncologist.

You can’t pretend that things like resurrection are everyday events. They are extraordinary, and therefore require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You’re arguing from absurdity. If I claimed to have eaten an apple yesterday, you would have no reason to doubt it, because people eat apples all the time. If I claimed that I cured someone’s melanoma yesterday, you would require more evidence than my mere assertion before you would accept my claim. You might begin by asking if I were an oncologist.

You can’t pretend that things like resurrection are everyday events. They are extraordinary, and therefore require extraordinary evidence.

I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For myself, the evidence of Christianity is in my daily experience of the world, in my sense of the meaning of the cosmos, in my understanding that death and life are intimately connected, in my awe before the mythopoetic significance of human language and its fulfillment in the person of Christ, in my respect for the lasting teachings of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, in my conviction that human lives are valuable irrespective of people “valuing” them, in the oft-ignored humble places in my heart that whisper that I am utterly and wholly dependent.

You may rightly claim that you have not received extraordinary evidence, but I wonder whether you would claim that the personal evidence I have listed above is ordinary. We believe in the Apollo landing because we trust our sources, and we have reason to trust them. Which source listed above do I have reason to distrust – my heart or my intelligence?

Are you willing to admit that, though some people may not have extraordinary evidence of some claim, another person may have extraordinary evidence of the same claim? But at this point the burden becomes: is my evidence communicable? I will admit: it is not. It is a reason for me to believe, but not as much of a reason for you to believe. And you may have access to incommunicable evidence that I don’t have.

At any rate, it is hardly reasonable to discard another person’s evidence, sight unseen. That is cynicism. An important step here is to realize: not all evidence is scientifically verified evidence. The historicity of the moon landing is not, perhaps, scientifically verifiable, but we have reason to believe it. What reason do I have to discard non-scientific, non-verifiable evidence?

 

[AlbertBall]

I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For myself, the evidence of Christianity is in my daily experience of the world, in my sense of the meaning of the cosmos, in my understanding that death and life are intimately connected, in my awe before the mythopoetic significance of human language and its fulfillment in the person of Christ, in my respect for the lasting teachings of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, in my conviction that human lives are valuable irrespective of people “valuing” them, in the oft-ignored humble places in my heart that whisper that I am utterly and wholly dependent.

You may rightly claim that you have not received extraordinary evidence, but I wonder whether you would claim that the personal evidence I have listed above is ordinary. We believe in the Apollo landing because we trust our sources, and we have reason to trust them. Which source listed above do I have reason to distrust – my heart or my intelligence?

Are you willing to admit that, though some people may not have extraordinary evidence of some claim, another person may have extraordinary evidence of the same claim? But at this point the burden becomes: is my evidence communicable? I will admit: it is not. It is a reason for me to believe, but not as much of a reason for you to believe. And you may have access to incommunicable evidence that I don’t have.

At any rate, it is hardly reasonable to discard another person’s evidence, sight unseen. That is cynicism. An important step here is to realize: not all evidence is scientifically verified evidence. The historicity of the moon landing is not, perhaps, scientifically verifiable, but we have reason to believe it. What reason do I have to discard non-scientific, non-verifiable evidence?

Actually the moon landings are verifiable. However the point is this, “But at this point the burden becomes: is my evidence communicable? I will admit: it is not.”

Your personal experiences are exactly that, personal experiences, and while i have no doubt you are having experiences of some sort your personal experiences do not and should not serve as a reason for me to believe.

What do you think about those who have personal experiences with allah, are they a reason for you to give up catholicism and subscribe to islam?

 

[Nan_S]

You’re arguing from absurdity. If I claimed to have eaten an apple yesterday, you would have no reason to doubt it, because people eat apples all the time. If I claimed that I cured someone’s melanoma yesterday, you would require more evidence than my mere assertion before you would accept my claim. You might begin by asking if I were an oncologist.

You can’t pretend that things like resurrection are everyday events. They are extraordinary, and therefore require extraordinary evidence.

I disagree. If I was standing in a hospital wearing a white lab coat and a name tag that said “Dr.” and I claimed I cured a melanoma yesterday, you would accept my claim. In fact, you would consider it rude and presumptious to not accept my claim.
[Let’s not get into the side discussion that no cancer is ever really “cured,” please.]

No extraordinary evidence is required if we have a credible, authoritative source. On the other hand, you would poo-pooh evidence of even the most extraordinary kind if the source is merely ordinary or questionable.

So, please stop telling us you need extraordinary evidence, because you wouldn’t accept it coming from an internet forum even if we handed it to you on a silver platter.

Tell us instead what SOURCE of evidence you need before you will consider the evidence credible.

 

[R_Daneel]

A Catholic apologetics group at my parish is going to be discussing the existence of God this week, and I’m wondering what the most prevalent reasons are for not believing in God. I know there are a lot of non-believers on this forum, so in the spirit of understanding, please share the major reasons for you not believing in the Catholic concept of God. Also, what are your rebuttals to the more common arguments you hear for the existence of God?

I do NOT mean for this to be a debate about the existence of God, but just so that I can learn what the other side is thinking. Thanks.

Lots of things have been said so far. I cannot claim to have any insight into the “common” objections, but I can give you my own - for whatever it is worth. The concept of God as usually presented have a lot of very specific attributes associated with it. Also a lot of alleged actions and events attributed to God. My main problem is the incoherence of these claims. Without going into details, here are a few which I find unacceptable:

1. The omnimax attributes. There is no coherent definition of these attributes. We simply cannot find a good definition just what omnipotence, omniscience and the like might be. And the presented definitions (omniscince is that God knows the future) are logically inconsistent and incoherent.
2. God’s alleged existence outside time. This attribute is flatly contradicted by asserting that God is active, God acts. The idea of timeless action is nonsense. Any “action” presupposes that something changed because of that action, which separates the “before” and the “after”, thus indicating time. God said: “let there be light, and there was light” - as the first sentence of Genesis shows. Action, result, change => time.
3. God’s alleged “loving” nature is the most impossible to accept. We simply do not see any evidence that God cares about us - here and now, in this existence.
4. Many of God’s alleged preferences - especially regarding sex - are ludicrous. On one hand, God supposedly gave us this very pleasurable activity, on the other he is supposed to have put all sorts of conditions on how that activity is supposed to be used.
5. The teaching of the Catholic Church is unacceptable, when it comes to “salvation”. The Cathecism tells that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, but then this is refuted by the teaching that the individual’s fate is in God’s hands, and no one should speculate who lands where. Either the Cathecism is correct, and then all Protestants, Muslims, Buddhist, atheists, etc are hellbound, or it is solely within God’s providence to decide, and then the Church should be silent about the matter.

There could be more, many more objections. I do not wish to talk about these in this thread (I am willing elsewhere), since this thread was not designed to examine the arguments, it merely asked for some objections.

 

[1holycatholic]

You’re arguing from absurdity. If I claimed to have eaten an apple yesterday, you would have no reason to doubt it, because people eat apples all the time. If I claimed that I cured someone’s melanoma yesterday, you would require more evidence than my mere assertion before you would accept my claim. You might begin by asking if I were an oncologist.

You can’t pretend that things like resurrection are everyday events. They are extraordinary, and therefore require extraordinary evidence.

Define extraordinary evidence.

 

[R_Daneel]

Let’s drop the “extraordinary evidence”. Everything needs the same evidence. Something that can be independently verified, where the verification process is not dependent upon the a-priori acceptance of the claim. Perferably, the claim must be viewed with skepticism, and if the evidence nevertheless confirms the claim, eventually it must be accepted, no matter how outlandish it might be. (Quite the contrary are Uri Geller’s assertions, that one must remove the skeptics - professional magicians - from the audience, becuase their presence “disturbs” the aura, and the paranormal events will not manifest themselves.)

It is a cute, but misleading saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”, but it should not be taken verbatim. Every claim must be examined the same way.

If the claim is for something that pertains to current affairs, the evidence required is to be objectively verifyable and repeatable. This standard cannot be applied to events in the past. Those cannot be verified by the usual methods. In those cases we must rely on indirect, testimonial evidence - which is inherently less reliable. Based upon the number of independent testimonies and their internal reliability (as pertaining to other events) one can accept or reject the claim.

Now, when the claim is really out of the ordinary (for example walking on water, or resurrecting the dead) the necessity for the number of independent sources increases. That is woefully missing for all the outlandish Biblical claims, there are no independent sources corroborating the events described, so they must be discarded. Not just they are very unlikely, most are scientifically absurd.

 

[Sair]

I disagree. If I was standing in a hospital wearing a white lab coat and a name tag that said “Dr.” and I claimed I cured a melanoma yesterday, you would accept my claim. In fact, you would consider it rude and presumptious to not accept my claim.
[Let’s not get into the side discussion that no cancer is ever really “cured,” please.]

It would, of course, be reasonable, based upon a preliminary assessment of available evidence in this circumstance, to accept a medical doctor’s claim to have successfully treated an instance of melanoma. However, we rarely have access to such immediately assessable evidence when dealing with an historical occurrence. As we get closer to the present day, the extent and availability of evidence becomes greater, and verification therefore easier.

Tell us instead what SOURCE of evidence you need before you will consider the evidence credible.

For evidence to be considered credible in an historical context, it needs to pass several levels of assessment. It must be shown to come from a source who had more-or-less direct access to the events covered - for which detail in terms of description and dating is useful; allowance must be made for the bias of the source, and the evidence must be weighed in light of such bias; and the source must have independent corroboration - meaning that others who could not have had access to the source, and did not share the biases of the source, gave similar accounts. Such assessment is standard practice for the historian. On all of these counts, the gospel texts come up short. Certainly they are good evidence for the beliefs of the writers, and the beliefs they wished to disseminate, but they are not good evidence for any actual events.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Actually the moon landings are verifiable. However the point is this, “But at this point the burden becomes: is my evidence communicable? I will admit: it is not.”

Your personal experiences are exactly that, personal experiences, and while i have no doubt you are having experiences of some sort your personal experiences do not and should not serve as a reason for me to believe.

Nor was I saying that they are reason for you to believe. Now if you have similar experiences to mine, I would propose they would amount to reason to believe. How do I know what experiences you have, or could have, if you were open to them? I don’t. And that’s why I don’t go around on this forum telling people they should believe in God – I don’t know what, given their experiences, they should believe. Anyone who says that it is unreasonable for me to believe in God, however, is assuming that our bases for evidence are the same, which is a very poor assumption.

There is public evidence, and private evidence. The fact that *public *evidence cannot establish some hypothesis beyond a reasonable doubt does not tell the individual person much of anything.

What do you think about those who have personal experiences with allah, are they a reason for you to give up catholicism and subscribe to islam?

Perhaps, although the example is puzzling. How would one know, from an experience, that God is the “Christian” or “Muslim” God? God is God, and He is one. Those who worship Allah in purity of heart worship God. (“Allah” is just the Arabic word for God, by the way). This is not to say that Muslims have the fullness of revelation, nor to endorse the Koran. But when you come in contact with the Source of your being, it matters very little what name you call it.

 

[Nan_S]

It would, of course, be reasonable, based upon a preliminary assessment of available evidence in this circumstance, to accept a medical doctor’s claim to have successfully treated an instance of melanoma. However, we rarely have access to such immediately assessable evidence when dealing with an historical occurrence. As we get closer to the present day, the extent and availability of evidence becomes greater, and verification therefore easier.

For evidence to be considered credible in an historical context, it needs to pass several levels of assessment. It must be shown to come from a source who had more-or-less direct access to the events covered - for which detail in terms of description and dating is useful; allowance must be made for the bias of the source, and the evidence must be weighed in light of such bias; and the source must have independent corroboration - meaning that others who could not have had access to the source, and did not share the biases of the source, gave similar accounts. Such assessment is standard practice for the historian. On all of these counts, the gospel texts come up short. Certainly they are good evidence for the beliefs of the writers, and the beliefs they wished to disseminate, but they are not good evidence for any actual events.

There is independent non-Christian evidence for what Jesus and His followers did, found in the writings of Josephus and other ancient historians. So, relative to other ancient documents and accounts of other ancient events, the gospels do not fall short on that standard.

When compared to the accounts of many other ancient events, the gospels actually have considerably more credibility than many other documents. There is abundant evidence that the earliest copies of the gospel records we do have come from a period within the lifetimes of the people who were only one or two generations removed from the actual events. These copies were made by people who had contact with others who either had been eyewitnesses or had known the eyewitnesses. You can’t say that about any Plato, or Aristotle, or Homer, or most of the other ancient sources we accept without scrutiny.

However, let me rephrase my question. What source will you accept when considering whether the gospels are any more or less credible than, say, the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Pliny, Josephus, or Eusebius?

 

[AlbertBall]

Let’s drop the “extraordinary evidence”. Everything needs the same evidence. Something that can be independently verified, where the verification process is not dependent upon the a-priori acceptance of the claim. Perferably, the claim must be viewed with skepticism, and if the evidence nevertheless confirms the claim, eventually it must be accepted, no matter how outlandish it might be. (Quite the contrary are Uri Geller’s assertions, that one must remove the skeptics - professional magicians - from the audience, becuase their presence “disturbs” the aura, and the paranormal events will not manifest themselves.)

It is a cute, but misleading saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”, but it should not be taken verbatim. Every claim must be examined the same way.

If the claim is for something that pertains to current affairs, the evidence required is to be objectively verifyable and repeatable. This standard cannot be applied to events in the past. Those cannot be verified by the usual methods. In those cases we must rely on indirect, testimonial evidence - which is inherently less reliable. Based upon the number of independent testimonies and their internal reliability (as pertaining to other events) one can accept or reject the claim.

Now, when the claim is really out of the ordinary (for example walking on water, or resurrecting the dead) the necessity for the number of independent sources increases. That is woefully missing for all the outlandish Biblical claims, there are no independent sources corroborating the events described, so they must be discarded. Not just they are very unlikely, most are scientifically absurd.

I agree, the point of the extraordinary was more to set apart the claims rather than the evidence. Like you said, “the claim is really out of the ordinary”.

 

[AlbertBall]

Anyone who says that it is unreasonable for me to believe in God, however, is assuming that our bases for evidence are the same, which is a very poor assumption.

This is a tricky one, for while i have no doubt you are having some sort of experience i am not sure if i had the same experience i would put it down to god.

Before i carry on i would just like to make clear that i am not saying i am right and you are wrong.

I guess that i have a mindset where i will not form beliefs until i have substantial direct evidence. For aside from that fact an experience may have numerous possible sources, as you rightly point out “How would one know, from an experience, that God is the “Christian” or “Muslim” God?”, though many people do claim to know the identity of god through personal experience.

One must wonder what makes people open or closed to such experiences, upbringing? Genetics? One must also wonder how one should approach such experiences?

 

[AlbertBall]

There is independent non-Christian evidence for what Jesus and His followers did, found in the writings of Josephus and other ancient historians. So, relative to other ancient documents and accounts of other ancient events, the gospels do not fall short on that standard.

Well non of them are contemporaries and Josephus is questionable.

 

[1holycatholic]

Let’s drop the “extraordinary evidence”. Everything needs the same evidence.
…]
It is a cute, but misleading saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”, but it should not be taken verbatim. Every claim must be examined the same way.
…]
Now, when the claim is really out of the ordinary (for example walking on water, or resurrecting the dead) the necessity for the number of independent sources increases.

Why is that sources need to increase if everything needs the same evidence?

The “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.” is a fallacy as you have correctly pointed out. It’s the completely subjective method of pseudo-skeptical denial that never fails because the subjective bar of acceptability can be raised as high as the proponent of the fallacy needs to deny a claim.

So why are you using it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Moving the goalposts in midplay again, by the sound of this. You don’t seem to be applying any standard of evidence - on the one hand, you take it as given that the moon landing is a deniable event, despite millions of people witnessing it via broadcast methods, at the time.

millions of people may not have witnessed it via broadcast methods, that could have been shot on a soundstage in houston. google ‘moonlanding hoax’ there are people who deny teh moonlanding happened.

the point being of course that the claims of hoaxes, conspiracies and illusions about the books that comprise the Bible are no more believable than the same claims about events we all reasonably believed happened.

Does it not strike you as somewhat idiosyncratic for you to then turn around and assert that you, as part of the church, know the truth of gospel events that you, as part of the church, witnessed via the agency of copies of copies of copies of ancient texts?

no. why would it? do you believe the magna carta never existed, simply becuase after just a short 800 years we dont have the original copy?

As to actually using gospel texts as evidence, they are indeed excellent evidence for what people believed, and wanted others to believe, at around the first and second centuries CE. They are not, in themselves, much use as evidence for what actually happened, and they are not corroborated by independent, unbiased accounts.

\

they all corroborate eachother. the exact evidence you want. you seem to assume that there is such a thing as an independent unbiased account at the time where some Jew neutral about the Christ would write something. i say there is no such thing as a neutral Jew of the time. one either believed Christ was the Messiah or not. there were no secular Jews at the time, they were all of one faction or another. even the few non-Jews that would be interested, in the internal struggles of a small religion in the backwaters of the roman empire would have no need to write of it, after all, what audience would they write to that would care?

then throw in 2000 years of time passing in the most volitile region of the world, im not surprised. however, there are plenty of references th Christianity when it grew and spread into something large enough to be of interest to the general community f the empire, and not some dead end road in the middle of nowhere.

The golden rule is a rational standard of morality by which humans may live harmoniously as social creatures. Those who violate the golden rule - who treat others in ways they would not tolerate themselves - generally find that unless they operate via means of fear and oppression, they don’t get very far within human society.

is a standard that simply says anything i can get away with is ok. it has no moral force and is simply collective opinion. it gives me no reason not to do anything i please. as long as i can get away with it. by this logic, Stalins mass extermination of millions of peasants was ok, because he got away with it.

all subjectivism boils down to ineffective personal opinion. the only subjective opinion that counts is G-ds, and that forms a de facto objective morality for us to follow. as the Creator, He has a legitimate right to impose a morality on us and provide penalties if we vioate it.

But then, Yahweh, as described in the Bible did indeed operate via means of fear and oppression, and those who supposedly did Yahweh’s bidding followed suit - as evidenced by the example of Elijah and the bear.

how was that fear or oppression?, that was punishment. you seem to think that death is some horrible punishment that shouldnt be applied by G-d. it never occurs to you that from G-ds perspective it amounts to a time out, its not as though they were wiped from existence, as you imply, they were sent to their room. G-d put those kids in time out, your emotional response to death as an atheist, or just a human doesnt equate to it being something G-d shouldnt do. i put my kids in time out if a spanking or are physical labor are inappropriate resonses to the offense. i bet you do too. so if you and i doit, why shouldnt G-d?

Humans have a moral instinct hardwired into our brains by millions of years of evolution. It’s part of the makeup of every social animal to have an innate understanding of how to interact with others. Given that humans can, if they so desire, apply rationality to moral considerations, it makes good practical sense to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself. Call it an objective standard if you like, but it paints with very broad strokes, and has its basis in the subjectivity of human preferences.

what about the millions of times people violate this “hardwired” golden rule, every day? we treat people different then we would like to be treated all the time. there iis no hardwired morality.