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

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

nice pic.

i pointed out before that this is the logical fallacy known as an argument from incredulty. it implies that because you do not know how these things occured, they did not. which as we know from the progress of science. such a position is untenable.

and as we all know, a logical fallacy generally invalidates an argument.

**Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. **

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

another incredulity fallacy here.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.)

yup

but wait…you dont believe uri gellar is legit?

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.

 

[AlbertBall]

but we know, that he simply didnt have the relevant information

EXACTLY! Now provide the same level of intricate details that are available on the moon landings to support the bible claims i will believe them.

 

[The_Exodus]

this is where i differ. simply being incredulous of the claim is a fallacious reason for the claims rejection. simply being unaware of the process by which something occured, doesnt say anything about whether it actually occured or not.

 

[R_Daneel]

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

Simple, because the more sources you happen to have the less likely is the mistake or the unintentional error of the sources. It does not invalidate the “equal evidence”, rather it makes the evidence more reliable.

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?

I don’t. If you have one witness, you have a higher probability of error than you have with one million, independent witnesses.

Every policeman knows that the testimonial evidence is the least reliable of all the different types of evidence. Not because the witnesses intentionally try to skew the testimonies, rather because the event observed is filtered through the preconceptions of the witness. Even if the event in question is just a collision of two cars, with 10 different eye witnesses you have 10 different descriptions of what actually happened. This does not mean that the witnesses intentionally distort the event, it is just the natural course of events.

For example there was a huge outbreak of “crop circles” a while ago. They were attributed to all sorts of “alien” landings, yet they were actually just a bunch hoaxes perpetrated by some playful kids. One must stay skeptical in order to stay objective.

 

[R_Daneel]

but wait…you dont believe uri gellar is legit?

It depends on what you mean by “legit”? He is a competent stage magician, but his claim that his performances are of “paranormal nature” is unfounded. Any good stage magician can do the same tricks without resorting to “paranormal” claims. That, of course does not “prove” that he is a liar, but makes it very probable indeed.

yup, as long as we arent simply incredulous to the contents of the reports.

Incredulity is a far cry from healthy skepticism. Any investigator must stay properly skeptical of the claim being investigated, that is the basic stance of staying objective. There is a very good reason why all the claims of any kind are subject to a double-blind testing mechanism. Even when it comes to the effect of an insofar untested drug, neither the patients, not the administers of the drug are aware who gets the real drug and who gets the placebo. Again, no one accuses the administers of the drug to willfully skew the results, it is the way to eliminate unintentional errors.

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel, who says, “That is woefully missing for all the outlandish Biblical claims, there are no independent sources corroborating the events described, so they must be discarded” is in fact arguing in a circle, because he first presupposes that the Biblical claims are outlandish to begin with.

Well, how many times have you seen the dead being resurrected? Entropy being reversed?

Of course, simply because Daneel and others have not seen these events, they deem them worthy of skepticism or being “outlandish.” This is expected, but, stricly speaking, it is not worthy as an argument for dismissing the claims as impossible.

Not impossible, rather very improbable. And since there are many valid, interesting and diffcult problems to tackle, it woul be a waste of time and effort to investigate stuff, which is clearly contradicted by science. There are many morons who keep sending in papers to mathematical journals and claim that they solved the trisection of an angle, or the squaring of a circle or the doubling of a cube. There are also many idiots who send in papers to physical periodicals and claim that they solved the problem of the “perpetuum mobile”. All of these have been proven to be impossible. There is no reason why to even look at such claims. And the Biblical claims are of this kind.

 

[1holycatholic]

Simple, because the more sources you happen to have the less likely is the mistake or the unintentional error of the sources. It does not invalidate the “equal evidence”, rather it makes the evidence more reliable.

I don’t. If you have one witness, you have a higher probability of error than you have with one million, independent witnesses.

Every policeman knows that the testimonial evidence is the least reliable of all the different types of evidence. Not because the witnesses intentionally try to skew the testimonies, rather because the event observed is filtered through the preconceptions of the witness. Even if the event in question is just a collision of two cars, with 10 different eye witnesses you have 10 different descriptions of what actually happened. This does not mean that the witnesses intentionally distort the event, it is just the natural course of events.

For example there was a huge outbreak of “crop circles” a while ago. They were attributed to all sorts of “alien” landings, yet they were actually just a bunch hoaxes perpetrated by some playful kids. One must stay skeptical in order to stay objective.

Are you looking for 100% certainty?

 

[R_Daneel]

Are you looking for 100% certainty?

No, not necessarily. It would be nice, but hardly attainable in reality. What kind of certainty would you assign to the Biblical claims? (Just don’t say 50% - they either happened or they did not… I have seen such nonsense before.)

 

[1holycatholic]

No, not necessarily. It would be nice, but hardly attainable in reality. What kind of certainty would you assign to the Biblical claims? (Just don’t say 50% - they either happened or they did not… I have seen such nonsense before.)

Your previous example:

Even if the event in question is just a collision of two cars, with 10 different eye witnesses you have 10 different descriptions of what actually happened.

Ten witnesses testify to a car collision, but vary on the details…

It would be reasonable to say a car collision happened.

 

[chiefnalu]

I found that most non-bleivers, do belleive in some God just not mine. they are usally selfish and wanting. They want a god that is slave to their beliefs. My God is a merciful God and if you surender to him he will forgive you and you will be set free from your blindness

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

Quite so. And I don’t know that what I would think, if I had your experience. So we’re in the same boat there.

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

I get what you mean by saying that. Personally, I would tend to say something slightly different: “I am saying that I am right and you are wrong, but I know very well that I am sometimes wrong”. Which amounts to the same thing.

I guess that i have a mindset where i will not form beliefs until i have substantial direct evidence.

But this is problematic, when considering metaphysical claims. For consider: if the heavenly choir of angels perpetually sang to God in the skies while floating midair, there would still be atheists. They would say that such observations did not amount to evidence because God was still unseen; they would say that the observations could be explained without resorting to the supernatural; etc. And if God “walked” up to you and showed you wonders, saying He was God, you could still doubt what He said.

I think all of us should consider what a world with God would look like, and what a world without God would look like. What would it even mean for God to provide substantial direct evidence of His existence?

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.

Well, it’s important here to realize that the same stimulus (God’s prompting) can be experienced different ways. We’ll only “get” what we let in. In my opinion, mystics – of all faiths – let in far more of the reality of God into their consciousness than the rest of us. But this is, of course, at the cost of coherence. There are truths that defy definition. It’s like trying to explain to a blind person what pi is: you can line up digit after digit after digit, but only when his eyes are opened and he knows what diameter, circumference, and circle refer to, then he truly knows.

But how do you explain such a thing, to someone who doesn’t see it himself?

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

Well, your hypothesis seems to be that a person’s attitude toward a religious experience is, to some degree at least, beyond their control. But I’m a skeptic of that particular hypothesis.

 

[The_Exodus]

Well, how many times have you seen the dead being resurrected? Entropy being reversed?

Zero.

Not impossible, rather very improbable.

It is only improbable because you are assuming it is in the first place. You’re only assuming it is improbable because you have not seen it happen. In fact, “probability” is a nonsense term. Everything that happens, happens for a reason – whether or not you believe in God. Things that happen rarely, such as winning the lottery or flipping a coin to heads 5 times consecutively, are not “improbable” events, strictly speaking. They have the same, reasonable, unavoidable causes as “probable” or “common” events.

The things in scripture either happened or they didn’t. They didn’t “randomly” happen, nor does anything in the cosmos. Hume’s whole notion of probability rests on a fallacy of mislabeling how the universe works.

Point being, if Christ is a divine Being, it is certainly reasonable to suppose he did these things. It is reasonable to assume (so long as you do not smuggle in preconceived presuppositions) the people who wrote the gospels were accuratel reporting what they saw.

 

[1holycatholic]

It is only improbable because you are assuming it is in the first place. You’re only assuming it is improbable because you have not seen it happen. In fact, “probability” is a nonsense term. Everything that happens, happens for a reason – whether or not you believe in God. Things that happen rarely, such as winning the lottery or flipping a coin to heads 5 times consecutively, are not “improbable” events, strictly speaking. They have the same, reasonable, unavoidable causes as “probable” or “common” events.

Hang around a bit. That premise will be rejected. Things will be said to pop magically into existence for no reason at all.:hypno:

The arguments about the divinty of Christ seem rather pointless. If someone denies the existence of God, what’s the point in arguing with them whether Jesus is God?

 

[The_Exodus]

Hang around a bit. That premise will be rejected. Things will be said to pop magically into existence for no reason at all.:hypno:

The arguments about the divinty of Christ seem rather pointless. If someone denies the existence of God, what’s the point in arguing with them whether Jesus is God?

If someone denies miracles due to denying God, that’s fine. But to deny miracles simply because they are “improbable” or because one hasn’t seen them is not justifiable. That’s my basic point.

 

[AlbertBall]

Well, your hypothesis seems to be that a person’s attitude toward a religious experience is, to some degree at least, beyond their control. But I’m a skeptic of that particular hypothesis.

Well this may well be the most interesting point of debate i have came across .

 

[cranster]

Simple, because the more sources you happen to have the less likely is the mistake or the unintentional error of the sources. It does not invalidate the “equal evidence”, rather it makes the evidence more reliable.

I don’t. If you have one witness, you have a higher probability of error than you have with one million, independent witnesses.

Fair enough, then take fatima which had approximately 100,000 witnesses, plus independent sources from up to 30 miles away. The event was predicted by 3 children and involved the mother of the person whom people are skeptical of walking on water and rising from the dead. These people witnessed the sun dancing in the sky and appearing to move close to the earth which subsequently instantaneously dried the muddy ground and sopping wet clothes.

 

[R_Daneel]

Ten witnesses testify to a car collision, but vary on the details…

It would be reasonable to say a car collision happened.

Yes, that is true. But one does not need any witnesses in that particular scenario, the physical evidence tells the story itself. Here we deal with a completely different set of circumstances. You only have a few witnesses, and no independent corroboration. No physical evidence.

However, the problem goes much deeper than that. God is supposed to be alive and well - today. God is supposed to active - today. Yet, no one has any evidence of God’s existence, or activity - today (excpet maybe a few subjective experiences, which can be explained without the God hypothesis.) There is no evidence that God “loves” us - today.

The testimonial evidence - with all its deceptive and dubious nature only applies to events in the past. Where is the beef, now?

 

[R_Daneel]

It is only improbable because you are assuming it is in the first place. You’re only assuming it is improbable because you have not seen it happen. In fact, “probability” is a nonsense term. Everything that happens, happens for a reason – whether or not you believe in God. Things that happen rarely, such as winning the lottery or flipping a coin to heads 5 times consecutively, are not “improbable” events, strictly speaking. They have the same, reasonable, unavoidable causes as “probable” or “common” events.

The things in scripture either happened or they didn’t. They didn’t “randomly” happen, nor does anything in the cosmos. Hume’s whole notion of probability rests on a fallacy of mislabeling how the universe works.

Obviously you are not a mathematician. I am. So better not try to speak of mathematical concepts. You only reveal your ignorance.

Point being, if Christ is a divine Being, it is certainly reasonable to suppose he did these things. It is reasonable to assume (so long as you do not smuggle in preconceived presuppositions) the people who wrote the gospels were accuratel reporting what they saw.

You use circular reasoning. It cannot be assumed that Christ was a “divine” being, and therefore its is “reasonable” to assume that he performed what he supposedly did. It is a logical error to have your hypothesis and use it also as a corroborating evidence.

Why should I assume that they accurately reported whay they allegedly saw? The Gospels were written many decades after the alleged events took place. The nature of verbal communication is that the story gets embellished as it is being repeated. This can be observed in the canonic Gospels. The different Gospels describe the same alleged events differently. And that does not lend credence to their being accurate. In the meantime, the Romans were famous for their meticulous record keeping. Yet there is not one historical text corroborating any of those alleged miracles.