What evidence?

[Vera_Ljuba]

The question comes up periodically when there is a conversation between a Christian and an atheist.

Christian: “What would be a sufficient evidence for you to accept God’s existence?”
Atheist: “I would accept some kind of physical evidence”.
Christian: “That is ridiculous. God is not a physical being.”
Atheist: “I heard that God can manifest himself in a human form. Is it not true?”
Christian: “Yes, it is true”. “But how dare you demand that God should be at your beck and call?”.
Atheist: “I did not demand anything. You asked a question, and I replied”.

Are you interested in playing the role of that Christian?

 

[Wesrock]

Christian: Would an argument from the Principle of Sufficient Reason do?

Atheist: No, because you can’t demonstrate the PSR is true.

Christian: …But the reason you say you don’t believe in God is that you don’t have sufficient evidence? So even though you don’t accept the PSR, you at the same time hold all your beliefs and acceptable arguments to it as a standard?

Atheist: Precisely.

Christian: :ehh:

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Christian: Would an argument from the Principle of Sufficient Reason do?

Atheist: No, because you can’t demonstrate the PSR is true.

Christian: …But the reason you say you don’t believe in God is that you don’t have sufficient evidence? So even though you don’t accept the PSR, you at the same time hold all your beliefs and acceptable arguments to it as a standard?

Atheist: Precisely.

Christian: :ehh:

I will have to change the answers of your hypothetical atheist.
Christian: Would an argument from the Principle of Sufficient Reason do?

Atheist: No, because the PSR is NOT true. The chain of explanations cannot extend to infinity. There needs to be a “final” point which is self-evidently true; which is a brute fact. The only such starting point is that the Universe exists.

Your turn.

 

[Gorgias]

Christian:

You have quite the imagination!

“But how dare you demand that God should be at your beck and call?”.

It’s a reasonable (and reasonably asked) question, though, don’t you think? What responsibility does one bear to answer a question? More to the point, in this context, what is God’s responsibility to answer a particular question, and in a particular fashion, in response to a human demand?

 

[Russell_SA]

Christian: “What would be a sufficient evidence for you to accept God’s existence?”

Atheist: As an atheist, I don’t know what would change my mind about the paradigm shift of the supernatural being part of reality. It’s an entirely new realm beyond this one and we have no evidence of any realms outside of this one to even begin to reference for analogies. But this deity should know what evidence it would take for me to become a deist and has either not presented it or is refusing to present it. Either way, not my problem since this deity is still presented as absolutely no different than an imagined idea of a deity. I can not tell the difference between the two, so I am forced to stay at the default position of I don’t believe the theist’s claims yet.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Blessed is he who believes without seeing…

 

[Gorgias]

But this deity should know what evidence it would take for me to become a deist and has either not presented it or is refusing to present it.

It’s a cute argument, but the question remains: why is it the responsibility of God to kowtow to your personal definition of what you believe suffices to convince you of his existence? This isn’t the shrill screaming that VL makes it out to be – it’s an honest question. When a flat-earther or moon-landing-denier claims that the evidence doesn’t suffice to prove the claim, the normal reaction isn’t “oh, yeah, you’re right – we need to agree that your standard is the reasonable one, and we’re all the ones who are unreasonable.” Why do you claim that this is the proper response in this context, though?

 

[Russell_SA]

It’s a cute argument, but the question remains: why is it the responsibility of God to kowtow to your personal definition of what you believe suffices to convince you of his existence? This isn’t the shrill screaming that VL makes it out to be – it’s an honest question. When a flat-earther or moon-landing-denier claims that the evidence doesn’t suffice to prove the claim, the normal reaction isn’t “oh, yeah, you’re right – we need to agree that your standard is the reasonable one, and we’re all the ones who are unreasonable.” Why do you claim that this is the proper response in this context, though?

We can not investigate this realm yet. Everyone knows this. We can investigate the moon and the earth and all those other things as well. Also, these claims are independently verifiable and falsifiable. You seem to be arguing that any idea is equivalent as natural claims. That someone’s belief in the paranormal, ghosts, mind reading, and all mythical creatures of literature are just as equal in claim as the moon landing or a round earth. Or do you think this is an unfair conclusion to what you are presenting?

Your god should know what it would take to turn every atheist into a deist and has, from the religious claims, the ability to do so. The demascus road experience, becoming a shaman with actual healing powers, using holy relics to wipe out opposing armies and nations, bringing people back from the dead, curing leprosy and blindness, etc. It seems to know that people may need that level of evidence to convince them that this god is actually there and didn’t have a problem presenting it to them. Why not now for the rest of us that would need that level of evidence?

What amount of evidence would it take for you to not believe in catholicism and to believe that Hogwarts exists and manifesting magic through wands? That is the equivalent it seems to atheists what the deists are claiming. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as the phrase goes.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You have quite the imagination!

And I am also prone to exaggerate things - for fun.

It’s a reasonable (and reasonably asked) question, though, don’t you think? What responsibility does one bear to answer a question? More to the point, in this context, what is God’s responsibility to answer a particular question, and in a particular fashion, in response to a human demand?

No, the question is NOT reasonable, because I do not and did not “demand” anything. The question was: “what would I consider sufficient evidence” and I answered that. Whether the suggested evidence is “forthcoming or not” is irrelevant. I could not care less if a physical demonstration is presented. If it does… fine, I would accept God’s existence. If it does not… also fine. God’s existence would not change my behavior in the least.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Blessed is he who believes without seeing…

I would use a different word, instead of “blessed”… the word “gullible” comes to mind.

 

[meltzerboy]

I would use a different word, instead of “blessed”… the word “gullible” comes to mind.

Blessed are the gullible and blessed are the skeptics.

 

[Lion_IRC]

The question comes up periodically when there is a conversation between a Christian and an atheist.

Christian: “What would be a sufficient evidence for you to accept God’s existence?”
Atheist: “I would accept some kind of physical evidence”.
Christian: “That is ridiculous. God is not a physical being.”
Atheist: “I heard that God can manifest himself in a human form. Is it not true?”
Christian: “Yes, it is true”. “But how dare you demand that God should be at your beck and call?”.
Atheist: “I did not demand anything. You asked a question, and I replied”.

Are you interested in playing the role of that Christian?

Sure, but I usually only get this far…

Christian: “What would be a sufficient evidence for you to accept God’s existence?”
Atheist: “I would accept some kind of physical evidence”.
Christian: “OK great, Jesus physically rose from the dead.”
Atheist: “No He didn’t”
Christian: “Oh, so you actually DONT believe physical evidence”

You see, the irony here is that when the uber-skeptic sees physical evidence with their own eyes and they have that Road-to-Damascus conversion experience, the first thing they want to do is go running to tell their atheist friends - and have a guess what response they receive.

 

[Bradski]

Sure, but I usually only get this far…

Christian: “What would be a sufficient evidence for you to accept God’s existence?”
Atheist: “I would accept some kind of physical evidence”.
Christian: “OK great, Jesus physically rose from the dead.”
Atheist: “No He didn’t”
Christian: “Oh, so you actually DONT believe physical evidence”

Objection m’lud. Hearsay. The report of the alledged event noted by my learned friend is nearly 2,000 years old, was written decades after the allegd event, the author is not the person who claims to have written it and there are contradictions between it and other reports.

Sustained. The jury will disregard the last statement. The court cannot allow written ancient records of dubious worth and questionable veracity to be entered as ‘physical evidence’.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Since when does evidence have a shelf-life?

 

[Bradski]

Since when does evidence have a shelf-life?

When it passes the point when it can be verified by other means. The judge might ask:

Who actually wrote the report?
Was it the same man whose name appears as the author?
Did that person have any reason to exagerate or modify the claims?
Are there other reports that do not contradict this one?
How long after the events was the report written?
Were records kept during the interim or was the information orally transmitted?
Was the person alleged to have written the report an eye witness?
When did he interview the alleged witnesses?
Did the alleged witnesses have any reason to eggagerate or modify their claims?
Do we have written reports from any eye witnesses?
Is the alleged report the original or a copy?

None of the answers would allow any reasonable person to consider such reports as ‘evidence’.

Dismissed.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You see, the irony here is that when the uber-skeptic sees physical evidence with their own eyes and they have that Road-to-Damascus conversion experience, the first thing they want to do is go running to tell their atheist friends - and have a guess what response they receive.

Bradski already answered, so I will just add a little advice:

I suggest you do not try to incorporate the hypothetical atheist’s assumed answer. You are simply not qualified. Just present your best argument.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Objection m’lud. Hearsay. The report of the alledged event noted by my learned friend is nearly 2,000 years old, was written decades after the allegd event, the author is not the person who claims to have written it and there are contradictions between it and other reports.

Sustained. The jury will disregard the last statement. The court cannot allow written ancient records of dubious worth and questionable veracity to be entered as ‘physical evidence’.

Objection. Where is the proof that the written report of the event was written ‘decades’ later? Where is the proof that the author is ‘not the person who claims to have written it’, and do the contradictions differ any more than eyewitness reports of any other large scale event?

"Dubious worth and questionable veracity’. . .

Really now. So you’re willing to accept written reports of exactly whom from exactly when?

You’re willing to accept written reports from Babylon as being by Hammurabi, right?

How about Draco and his code?

How about reports of Horatius at the bridge? The brothers Gracae?
The battle of Thermopylae?

How about the murder of Julius Caesar --how accurate are those reports?

The murder of Cicero?

Was there a real Confucius?

Lao Tze?

Marco Polo?

Can we accept Alexander Selkirk’s testimony of his life as a castaway?

Etc. etc.

 

[Gorgias]

We can not investigate this realm yet.

We cannot investigate it empirically. Fair enough.

We can investigate the moon and the earth and all those other things as well. Also, these claims are independently verifiable and falsifiable.

We can investigate physical claims through empirical methods. Agreed.

You seem to be arguing that any idea is equivalent as natural claims.

No. I’m challenging the (seemingly implicit and unexamined?) assertion that empirical methods are the only means by which we may reach truth. I agree that empirical methods are valid and useful… for investigating physical realities. However – and correct me if I’m wrong – what I hear from atheists is “since i cannot use empirical tools to evaluate transcendental claims, these claims are therefore baseless.” If, on the other hand, I heard “I cannot offer an evaluation of your claims with the tools that I’m willing to use”, I’d recognize the intellectual honesty of such a claim. Sadly, “your claims cannot be proven true” smacks of a certain unreasonable smugness (whether intended or not).

That someone’s belief in the paranormal, ghosts, mind reading, and all mythical creatures of literature are just as equal in claim as the moon landing or a round earth. Or do you think this is an unfair conclusion to what you are presenting?

Yes, I do. Believers’ claims are “just as equal” as empiricists’ – although we’re making claims in different realms – and we disrespect each other when we ridicule our respective conclusions while disregarding the premises from which they proceed. (After all, if one thinks there are no realities other than physical realities, he will never seriously attempt to consider transcendental arguments; conversely, if one believes in transcendental realities, he will never consider a worldview which rejects these.)

Your god should know what it would take to turn every atheist into a deist and has, from the religious claims, the ability to do so.

We’re not arguing that point. We agree. What you haven’t addressed is the (seemingly implicit and unproven) assertion that you seem to be making that God is obligated to do so.

What amount of evidence would it take for you to not believe in catholicism and to believe that Hogwarts exists and manifesting magic through wands?

Non sequitur.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as the phrase goes.

Ahh… one of the most mis-quoted and mischaracterized phrases in the debate.

 

[Gorgias]

And I am also prone to exaggerate things - for fun.

LOL! Me, too!

 

[Thom18]

Deist: what information would convince you God exists?
Atheist: if he came down and talked to me
Deist: some people claim this has happened to them. Christians say God did. Do you believe their claims?
Atheist: no, because they’re brainwashed or they’re lying
Deist: so would you expect anyone to believe you if it happened to you?
Atheist: no, so God should come down to everybody
Deist: what if God doesn’t think that would be a good idea?
Atheist: if he wants to save people, then he should do it.
Deist: the creator of the universe probably knows better than we do. If they’re an infinite, all knowing being like a lot of people claim, then the fact that they haven’t done so should tell us that they don’t think it’s a good idea.
Atheist: then he must not want to save everyone.
Deist: that doesn’t necessarily follow…
Atheist: it just sounds to me like you can’t defend your beliefs
Deist:

Great dialogue.