What evidence?

[Vera_Ljuba]

If you don’t have a problem with the good, why would you have a problem with evil?
Given this lack of rational coherence, (or lack of wholeness in your life perspective), you come off as an ungrateful whiner who is relentlessly pessimistic.
I’m sure that is not the case, but that’s how it comes off.

Explain the good please, along with the problem of evil. Hold Him accountable for everything, since you are the chief accountant here.

You are just like PR, who does not understand the “problem of evil” either. I do NOT blame God for anything - since there is no evidence that God exists. The point is that the believers keep on asserting that “God is love”, that “God is goodness itself”, and the available evidence does not support it. Actually contradicts it.That is the “problem” of evil, the contradiction between the assumed goodness of God, and the actuality of the “bad things”.

If your basic belief would be that “God is evil”, then you could justly ponder: “but about all the good stuff out there?”. How can an evil God allow all the good things? And that would be the “problem of good”.

If you take all the good and all the bad into account, the only logical conclusion is that “God is indifferent” - if exists at all. Not “bad”, since there are many good things out there. Not “good” since there are many bad things out there.

 

[Vonsalza]

The point is that the believers keep on asserting that “God is love”, that “God is goodness itself”, and the available evidence does not support it. Actually contradicts it.That is the “problem” of evil, the contradiction between the assumed goodness of God, and the actuality of the “bad things”.

And over and over the answer is that this problem exists because God created beings with free moral agency.

I don’t know how much more simply I can state it.

To rid the world of evil would be to rid mankind of its moral agency. This is a problem for a God that desires the affirming will of beings that are free to refuse it.

---

As a related matter, just because I think something is bad doesn’t mean it’s evil.

 

[goout]

You are just like PR, who does not understand the “problem of evil” either. I do NOT blame God for anything - since there is no evidence that God exists. The point is that the believers keep on asserting that “God is love”, that “God is goodness itself”, and the available evidence does not support it. Actually contradicts it.That is the “problem” of evil, the contradiction between the assumed goodness of God, and the actuality of the “bad things”.

So, you make it clear you don’t believe in God.
Yet on you go, militating day after day against God with your problem of evil, all the while ignoring the good things in life. You do it. All the time. So don’t excuse yourself with “I don’t believe in God so I have no responsibility in this conversation”. That’s what 10 year olds do.

You either have a strong belief here or you don’t. If God doesn’t concern you, why are you wasting your life away in circular internet dialogue?

 

[reggieM]

So, you make it clear you don’t believe in God.
Yet on you go, militating day after day against God with your problem of evil, all the while ignoring the good things in life. You do it. All the time. So don’t excuse yourself with “I don’t believe in God so I have no responsibility in this conversation”. That’s what 10 year olds do.

You either have a strong belief here or you don’t. If God doesn’t concern you, why are you wasting your life away in circular internet dialogue?

Eventually it’s no longer a question of philosophy or arguments but, rather, the personality, character, attitude, desire, interest, openness, sincerity and overall inner dispostion of the person.

When there is both an attraction to the topic area (spending much time on a Catholic forum) and also hostility to the forum’s point of view – that appears more as a personality disorder than as a question of argumentation.

It’s like someone who hates the taste of wine, joining a wine afficianado’s forum to complain about things.

A minimal level of sincerity and interest is required in order to understand the people one is trying to communicate with.

Being completely closed down to the discussion and actually possessing hostility to the notion of God is not a sign of that sincerity and interest.

The prior tag line “for amusement only” actually said a lot. It’s just a matter of wanting to play games with people.

 

[Russell_SA]

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).

To the point, “since i cannot use empirical tools to evaluate transcendental claims, these claims are therefore baseless.” - The claims can not be independently distinguished between an imagined idea and an actual truth about reality in any detectable way. As I understand it, logic necessarily is referenced to the reality of this realm that we experience. That is why logic is grounded in this reality. A can not equal B in this reality. It may in an alternate reality, but in this one, that logical conclusion is just a descriptor of how this reality works. That is why it is important to see if this reality, we all experience, matches what someone is presenting. Currently, we have no, zero, nada, evidence of the supernatural being any different than someone’s active imagination. We can’t tell the difference between the two in any way. So the default position to take is to not believe their conclusion that changes the current understanding of this reality. I like to use my Einstein example of gravity waves. He mathematically concluded that gravity waves should exist using the logical process of math. That thought process told us where to go look. We did not conclude that gravity waves are an actual part of reality solely on mathematical logic alone. Not until 2015, when we actually found them in reality, was when we adjusted our current understanding of reality to include gravity waves as a fact. See, you can be logically correct and still factually wrong because you’re logic is based on your current understanding about this reality and how it operates, but since you don’t have all the information about reality, your limited logical conclusions could still be wrong. Reality is the reference if something exists in it or not. So since we can not interact with the supernatural at all at this point, it is not part of reality yet. key word: yet. Atheists are not saying that there is no god, they are saying they don’t believe your reason is justified for belief yet. Ex: Here’s a jar full of gumballs that can not be investigated in any way for the amount of gumballs. There are only three answers to the question of, “Is there an even or odd number of gumballs?” The theist is claiming that there is an Even number of gumballs. The atheist is stating, “I don’t’ believe you.” The antitheist is claiming, there is an odd number of gumballs. The atheist is stating, “I don’t believe you either.” Ok then is there an even or odd? Atheist - I don’t know, and neither do either of you. Theists also claim the jar privately revealed to them there is an even number of gumballs. Atheist - great, that’s true to you, and you alone. To everyone else, it’s hearsay and since we are not able to verify that voice came from the jar, or that you are just making that up, or that you misunderstood that voice, or any other explanation for the experience you had, we are justified in not believing you based on your testimony alone.

Smugness is irrelevant to pointing out a flaw in someone’s logic. Let me know of a better way to point out someone is unjustified in their claim for justified belief for the presentation they are making that can not be independently verified, falsified, or any other way of removing personal bias from their conclusion about reality and is, currently, indistinguishable from an imagined idea of reality.

 

[Russell_SA]

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.)

We are all going to acknowledge your beliefs, but that is all we have to do for them. If they come across as unjustified belief, then that should be pointed out and labeled as such, regardless of how the person holding them feels about that. Holding unjustified beliefs should be embarrassing only after you continued to hold them when this is pointed out. It’s fine to be wrong, in the idea that they are justified beliefs, not that your beliefs are actually wrong. You could still be correct, but since no one can know that belief is justified yet, we can’t tell if you are wrong or right. So it’s better to withhold a position on this topic till the evidence matches the claim being made. Currently, it’s coming across as no different than an imagined idea. We have to have a way to tell the difference between an imagined idea about reality and actual reality. It’s always the case to not believe someone’s claim until there is enough evidence of it. Yes we can hold beliefs in varying degrees. Such as slightly believing my neighbor has a dog, even though I’ve never seen that dog. But if I saw the actual dog, petted it, etc. Then that would be a much firmer belief and would require a lot of evidence for me to believe I was mistaken about that event. With Einstein’s mathematical proof of gravity waves, we were justified on going to look for them, but still not at all, justified in believing that they were actually part of reality yet. So I see theists may be justified in going to look for the supernatural, but still not at all justified in believing that the supernatural is actually part of reality.

Atheists are not concluding there are no other realms beyond this universe, just that the conclusion that they are actually there is not justifiable yet. There is no way we can investigate these realms so they are not part of reality yet. We have all kinds of curiosities and are fine going to look for them, even if there is no evidence of them. But we are not going to say that those realms are actually there until we actually find them.

 

[Russell_SA]

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.

Yes a conscious creature has a choice on how to establish a relationship with someone else. But both sides have to know how the other person interprets the world and adjust to that person’s level of understanding and dialog. Which is why parents talk to their infant children different than their toddlers, than when their children are adults. But this is not what this deity is doing apparently. It is acting like the person in the next school district over that has heard about the atheists and is choosing not to interact with the atheists at all. So the deity knows the atheists are there, but the atheists have no idea that this deity is at that school district getting irritated that the atheists don’t have a relationship with her. All her friends at the atheist’s school district keep handing out her number to the atheists to call, but every time we do, it’s not even an answering service or the message that the number has been disconnected, it’s just static white noise. So, it’s really on her for not having a relationship with us because she is coming across exactly no different than just no one being there at all.

 

[Russell_SA]

Non sequitur.

I disagree, Harry grew up in a world where magic was not part of his reality. Then someone came along and claimed that he was a wizard and can perform magic. The events in his life that he currently could not explain were attributed to magic, not just an “I don’t know what happened there, lets investigate it.” Then someone showed him actual magic on command, taught him how to manifest it himself, enrolled him in a magic school, etc. That level of evidence was required for Harry to shift his belief that magic is actually part of his current understanding of reality. How is this not a fair comparison to what the religious are claiming about reality and only leaving the evidence of it to personal testimony and pointing to unknown solutions about the world. Imagine if Hagrid came to Harry and told him that Harry was a wizard because of the historical record of Merlin, the claim that Hagrid believes this very strongly and was personally told this by his friend, and thay all the claims to verify Hagrids claims all failed but that was because Harry didn’t have enough faith, etc. Harry probably would just put two pence in Hagrid’s cup and send him on his way.

 

[Russell_SA]

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

Maybe, but it was used correctly here.

 

[tonyrey]

We are all going to acknowledge your beliefs, but that is all we have to do for them. If they come across as unjustified belief, then that should be pointed out and labeled as such, regardless of how the person holding them feels about that. Holding unjustified beliefs should be embarrassing only after you continued to hold them when this is pointed out. It’s fine to be wrong, in the idea that they are justified beliefs, not that your beliefs are actually wrong. You could still be correct, but since no one can know that belief is justified yet, we can’t tell if you are wrong or right. So it’s better to withhold a position on this topic till the evidence matches the claim being made. Currently, it’s coming across as no different than an imagined idea. We have to have a way to tell the difference between an imagined idea about reality and actual reality. It’s always the case to not believe someone’s claim until there is enough evidence of it. Yes we can hold beliefs in varying degrees. Such as slightly believing my neighbor has a dog, even though I’ve never seen that dog. But if I saw the actual dog, petted it, etc. Then that would be a much firmer belief and would require a lot of evidence for me to believe I was mistaken about that event. With Einstein’s mathematical proof of gravity waves, we were justified on going to look for them, but still not at all, justified in believing that they were actually part of reality yet. So I see theists may be justified in going to look for the supernatural, but still not at all justified in believing that the supernatural is actually part of reality.

Atheists are not concluding there are no other realms beyond this universe, just that the conclusion that they are actually there is not justifiable yet. There is no way we can investigate these realms so they are not part of reality yet. We have all kinds of curiosities and are fine going to look for them, even if there is no evidence of them. But we are not going to say that those realms are actually there until we actually find them.

If that is the case you should be an open-minded agnostic instead of a dogmatic atheist.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And over and over the answer is that this problem exists because God created beings with free moral agency.

That does not answer anything. From the possibility of evil it does NOT follow the actuality of evil. And God’s alleged “omnipotence” means that God can do anything and everything, except logically impossible things. Since from the “possibility of evil” the “actuality of evil” does not follow logically, God could eliminate the evil, without infringing on the free will of the agents.

To rid the world of evil would be to rid mankind of its moral agency. This is a problem for a God that desires the affirming will of beings that are free to refuse it.

To allow unnecessary or gratuitous “evil” is a sign on indifference or malevolence. There is another problem with your analysis (namely: “what is the point of moral agency”), but that needs to be examined in a different thread. I will start it one of these days.

As a related matter, just because I think something is bad doesn’t mean it’s evil.

That happens to be true. The so-called “natural evil” is an oxymoron.

 

[mkoopman]

Maybe, but it was used correctly here.

They are ganging up on you and changed tone. Did you notice? The gang of four or seven or 42, or something. Do you know of Che’s army? The rearguard of the vanguard wishes to inculcate you to the Western Hemisphere’s finest array.

Che’s geatest ptotege passed, I had has business card from the afternoon before his last evening, the party he attended was a real bomb. I had that “attendant’s” business card, also, from the same day in another par of town. There were matter and anti-matter colliding jokes and I got to hear the queers in that event.
So, after the cynics return to love bombing you and send you to Harvard what do you want to do with your life? Maybe you can harvest baby parts?
There is a third act to my play and soliloquy. I was allowed to present condolences to Che’s grand protégé’s wife. She remarried.

Ask the hard questions but something drives you to Scripture despite all your worldly knowledge about historical transmission of knowledge. Wisdom does exist and there is something in Scripture to which good literature can not move you. Your heart has a crack into which you might let God enter. After all, without moral absolutes how do you conceive of evil or good? Chaos in nature shows symmetry and power expressed across immense gaps. Perhaps this reflects an aspect of The Holy Spirit in an expression of God’s holiness that moderns need to recognize?

 

[minkymurph]

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?

Poster on CAF: I believe minkymurph exists.

minkymurph: The only evidence you have I in fact exist are posts on an internet forum.

Poster on CAF: I believe facts on your personal profile concerning you personally are true.

minkymurph: You have no evidence they are true other than my word for it, and you cannot be certain I am telling the truth or in fact even exist.

Atheist: Unless God actually manifests Himself to me personally I will not believe He exists, but even if He did I would still not believe.

Christian: What if God posted on CAF?

Atheist: It would not be God.

Christian: How do you know?

Atheist: How could I know for certain God posted?

Christian: Do you know minkymurph?

Atheist: A minkymurph posts on CAF.

Christian: Has minkymurph visibly manifested his or her self to you?

Atheist: No.

Christian: Do you believe he or she exists?

Atheist: I have no reason not to believe minkymurph exists.

Christian: Have you any evidence he or she exists other than a minkymurph posts on CAF? Has it ever occurred to you minkymurph does not in fact exist? That everything recorded on his or her personal profile is not true? Do you believe everything you read on the internet even if posted by a complete stranger you cannot be sure in fact exists?

Atheist: Answer unknown to the potentially non-existent minkymurph whose personal profile may stem from nothing more than pure imagination.

Conclusion - the atheist believes lots of things in the absence of evidence that in their view is sufficient - just not the existence of God.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Conclusion - the atheist believes lots of things in the absence of evidence that in their view is sufficient - just not the existence of God.

Pretty good post. But not sufficiently good. The atheist believes many things for which there is only testimonial “evidence”, but God is not the ONLY exception. We do not believe in the existence of “little green men”, or space aliens who came to visit on flying saucers, or the Loch Ness monster, or flame-breathing dragons, or leprechauns, and many other “things”.

Do you see why we discard the claims about all these “things”? Just look at the famous quote by Stephen Roberts: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

 

[Bradski]

Poster on CAF: I believe minkymurph exists.

minkymurph: The only evidence you have I in fact exist are posts on an internet forum.

Poster on CAF: I believe facts on your personal profile concerning you personally are true.

minkymurph: You have no evidence they are true other than my word for it, and you cannot be certain I am telling the truth or in fact even exist.

There is a correction needed to the third line. It should read: I have no reason not to believe that the facts on your personal profile are true.

I’m really not sure why someone would lie. If the facts are false, then what’s the big deal? I carry on as normal. Nothing changes. However…if I accept that Christianity is based on facts, then I am very wrong about some of the most important matters there can possibly be.

In which case I’d like some evidence for God that would be strong enough for me to be able to reject almost all my beliefs about existence itself. No small matter.

 

[tonyrey]

Pretty good post. But not sufficiently good. The atheist believes many things for which there is only testimonial “evidence”, but God is not the ONLY exception. We do not believe in the existence of “little green men”, or space aliens who came to visit on flying saucers, or the Loch Ness monster, or flame-breathing dragons, or leprechauns, and many other “things”.

Do you see why we discard the claims about all these “things”? Just look at the famous quote by Stephen Roberts: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

The atheists’ gods are Chance and Necessity! Yet in daily life they rely on their power of reason and believe they can control themselves…

 

[tonyrey]

That does not answer anything. From the possibility of evil it does NOT follow the actuality of evil. And God’s alleged “omnipotence” means that God can do anything and everything, except logically impossible things. Since from the “possibility of evil” the “actuality of evil” does not follow logically, God could eliminate the evil, without infringing on the free will of the agents.

To allow unnecessary or gratuitous “evil” is a sign on indifference or malevolence. There is another problem with your analysis (namely: “what is the point of moral agency”), but that needs to be examined in a different thread. I will start it one of these days.

That happens to be true. The so-called “natural evil” is an oxymoron.

How do you define “evil”?

 

[tonyrey]

There is a correction needed to the third line. It should read: I have no reason not to believe that the facts on your personal profile are true.

I’m really not sure why someone would lie. If the facts are false, then what’s the big deal? I carry on as normal. Nothing changes. However…if I accept that Christianity is based on facts, then I am very wrong about some of the most important matters there can possibly be.

In which case I’d like some evidence for God that would be strong enough for me to be able to reject almost all my beliefs about existence itself. No small matter.

The evidence exists in the fact that you consider yourself reasonable and capable of controlling yourself. No small matter!

 

[tonyrey]

Poster on CAF: I believe minkymurph exists.

minkymurph: The only evidence you have I in fact exist are posts on an internet forum.

Poster on CAF: I believe facts on your personal profile concerning you personally are true.

minkymurph: You have no evidence they are true other than my word for it, and you cannot be certain I am telling the truth or in fact even exist.

Atheist: Unless God actually manifests Himself to me personally I will not believe He exists, but even if He did I would still not believe.

Christian: What if God posted on CAF?

Atheist: It would not be God.

Christian: How do you know?

Atheist: How could I know for certain God posted?

Christian: Do you know minkymurph?

Atheist: A minkymurph posts on CAF.

Christian: Has minkymurph visibly manifested his or her self to you?

Atheist: No.

Christian: Do you believe he or she exists?

Atheist: I have no reason not to believe minkymurph exists.

Christian: Have you any evidence he or she exists other than a minkymurph posts on CAF? Has it ever occurred to you minkymurph does not in fact exist? That everything recorded on his or her personal profile is not true? Do you believe everything you read on the internet even if posted by a complete stranger you cannot be sure in fact exists?

Atheist: Answer unknown to the potentially non-existent minkymurph whose personal profile may stem from nothing more than pure imagination.

Conclusion - the atheist believes lots of things in the absence of evidence that in their view is sufficient - just not the existence of God.

Indisputable! Their own power of reason for a start…

 

[Gorgias]

Wow… largely away from the keyboard for a few days, and this thread has really been rolling along!

The actual event is not in question. The explanation is where the problem occurs. We are faced with the so-called boundary problem. The event occurred in the physical realm, the cause in the non-physical one.

So this only means that the request for ‘evidence’ isn’t a request in good faith, right? If we know that the meat of the request is “prove it to me”, and the realm in which that proof must exist is non-physical, then the request is really just an attempt to bait the respondent, isn’t it?

Let’s look at a specific example, the transubstantiation. The starting piece is the bread, and the wine. The ending piece is the actual body and blood of Jesus (which part?). Both are in this physical realm, but all the evidence shows that they are just bread and wine. So the claim of “miracle” is not born out by the evidence.

The claim isn’t that we’d be able to ‘prove’ anything from the physical elements of the Eucharist. Maybe that’s the source of the disconnect. Moreover, the argument for transubstantiation is a philosophical argument, not an empirical one, so there’s nothing to ‘prove’ there, either.

(Incidentally, the argument is that the Eucharist is the substance of Christ (and therefore, does not consist of ‘parts’), and that the physical appearances remain the same. Therefore, we expect that there is no change to anything that can be measured physically – the physical appearances don’t change, but metaphysically, the ‘what’ of it changes.)

The same kind of problem occurs with the so-called paranormal claims. There is really NO difference between the paranormal claims and the supernatural claims.

On the surface of it? Almost correct. In one sense, both are making claims that are not proven empirically.

However, there is one huge difference: the claims of the paranormal assert that these things are empirically measurable, so when they are not measured or sufficiently proven, we would say that their claims don’t hold up. That’s a critical difference between the two types of claims.

I never said that. I explicitly deny the claim that only empirical methods can lead to truth statements.

Fair enough. That’s how it plays out, often, in these engagements between believers and non-believers, though…

Well, we can try the angels, if you want. There are “guardian angels”, according to the mythology. They are supposed to be “guarding” us… and yet, there is no evidence.

Again, what physical evidence of a spiritual reality are you looking for?

Yes, and no. Both we, adults and God are supposed to be rational beings, while children and the mentally impaired are not. If a child does not comprehend, we can “downsize” the explanation to their level.

We can; but that does not mean that we are required to. We’re still at loggerheads: non-believers make the claim that God must do so… but fail to be responsive when asked “why?”

God could do that, but does not. If a parent does not even acknowledge the child’s request, then the child can reasonably assume that the parent does not care.

No, I don’t think that’s reasonable. Of course, the child might reach that conclusion… but it’s not a reasonable one. In fact, when a child makes that complaint, he appears merely petulant.

Sure there is a good rationale. Just look at the millions and billions of intercessory prayers (not the meditative ones) where the person asks for something tangible, and out of the ordinary. What percentage of those supplications is “fulfilled” in a positive fashion?

Yes, there are those Christians out there who treat prayer as if it’s a slot machine. It’s not. In Catholic theology, the reason for prayer isn’t “I get what I want”, but rather “I get closer to understanding God’s will for me.” That’s a difficult thing to hear, but it’s what we believe.

Ok. That is where a conversation could be interesting. You are more than welcome to offer a process. The only requirement is that it should be objective. But remember, if it happens in our realm, it is subject to the verification process.

And that’s where these discussions tend to fizzle out. We discuss the reasons why such processes cannot achieve what non-believers wish them to achieve, and then the non-believer in the discussion shrugs and says, “well, offer me a process and we can talk.” After agreeing that there is no epistemology for empirically proving non-physical claims.