What evidence?

[po18guy]

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”.

A: You are standing on it!

 

[Russell_SA]

You don’t make those kinds of statements, eh?

Critiquing the arguments about someone else’s presentation about the deity. Such as A + B = deity. I was commenting on the A+B part of their presentation by showing them that A + B = imagined deity as well. It was an attempt to show that their argument can not distinguish between the two. There still may actually be a deity, but their argument doesn’t seem to show how people can distinguish between the two. Sorry for having to point out that, but it seemed obvious to me and I assumed to everyone else as well.

 

[Russell_SA]

The “New Atheism” in perfect microcosm. Very well done again, Gorgias.

Critiquing the arguments about someone else’s presentation about the deity. Such as A + B = deity. I was commenting on the A+B part of their presentation by showing them that A + B = imagined deity as well. It was an attempt to show that their argument can not distinguish between the two. There still may actually be a deity, but their argument doesn’t seem to show how people can distinguish between the two. Sorry for having to point out that, but it seemed obvious to me and I assumed to everyone else as well.

If I present the argument that cars exist by a bad argument, does that tell you anything at all about the actual truth of the existence of cars? You can also respond with what I said, that argument makes the ideas of cars existing as no different than an imagined idea about cars. Cars may still actually exist, but that bad argument wasn’t a pathway to finding that out.

 

[commenter5]

I doubt you would get the atheist to accept that belief in an afterlife is anything other than an obvious emotional desire not to die.

 

[Gorgias]

There still may actually be a deity, but their argument doesn’t seem to show how people can distinguish between the two. Sorry for having to point out that, but it seemed obvious to me and I assumed to everyone else as well.

When you say “the deity seems like a literary figure, not a real being”, it’s not a ‘critique’ so much as a personal conclusion. Sorry for having to point that out, but it seemed obvious to me.

If I present the argument that cars exist by a bad argument, does that tell you anything at all about the actual truth of the existence of cars?

No. But when you close the argument with “cars don’t exist in reality”, we kind of get the idea that this is what you really think, regardless how fervently you claim otherwise. Maybe you mis-spoke; maybe what you claim you believe is what you really believe. I’m gonna take a page out of your book: I can’t reach a conclusion – I can only go by the evidence you provide.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Fair enough. Yet, the objections to claims about Christ are that there isn’t any physical evidence (which flies in the face of what would be reasonable to ask about other historical figures in antiquity). You’re in our court – but you’re asking for “your” 21st standards of evidence. It’s a non-starter.

Don’t change the goalposts. I am talking about here and how. Not some 2000 years old mythology.

Nah, it ain’t. Don’t conflate the claims. The claim of a Eucharistic miracle isn’t a claim for the reality of the Eucharist.

Again, you can’t have it both ways. Either there is a miracle of transubstantiation, even when there is no change, or the miracle only occurs when the bread actually changes to meat? No matter how hard you try, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Who made the claim that “love itself” is equivalent to “explain everything to me”?

Is God too busy? Not just to me, to everyone who needs enlightenment. The old phrase “blessed are the ones who don’t see and yet believe” is just another cop-out.

Yep. I remember saying the same thing about my parents when I was a teen: “they don’t care”; “they don’t love me”; “they’re just bums.” I got over that as I matured…

That only tells me something about you and your parents, not God. (Sorry!) In my whole life my parents always answered me when I asked something, or asked for something, and they always explained why my questions cannot be fulfilled - when that was the case (pretty much all the time, since we were quite poor). The “silence of God” is the most damaging problem, even worse than the “problem of evil”.

Not really. Intercessory prayer says, “God, you know what I want; if it’s your will, please give it to me. If not, please help me trust that you have my highest good in mind for me.”

Come on. That “qualifier” of “if it be thy will” is simply a preventive cop-out. Not that it is being explicitly uttered. At the beginning of every soccer game with Mexican Chicharito in the team, he gets down on his knees in the middle of the pitch, raises his hand in a spectacularly show-off fashion toward the sky and prays. Every time he scores (and he is pretty good) he raises his arms again, giving thanks for the divine help.

Somehow, the millions of prayers for alleviating the hunger and illnesses in Africa go unheeded. Presumably it is more important to help the Mexican team to score a goal, than it is to stop the famine in Africa.

relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/thank-you-jesus-atheist-meme.jpg

Not true. There’s just no objective empirical method.

Really? What would it be? I am interested in your method.

 

[Gorgias]

Don’t change the goalposts. I am talking about here and how. Not some 2000 years old mythology.

When you said “physical realm”, it seemed you were talking about things that were, well… in the physical realm – like Jesus, or the assertions of God’s interactions that we assert happened in antiquity. No goalpost change.

You weren’t asking for “physical realm” in the context of God’s existence, were you? I thought we already agreed that He’s not physical.

Again, you can’t have it both ways. Either there is a miracle of transubstantiation, even when there is no change, or the miracle only occurs when the bread actually changes to meat? No matter how hard you try, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

No. You’re misunderstanding the claim. Let’s start over.

Catholics claim that the Eucharist is truly Christ, substantially present in a sacramental mode. We do not claim that every Eucharist is physically, observably flesh or blood. So, the Eucharist occurs in a way that isn’t physical.

On the other hand, there are claims of “Eucharistic miracles” in which actual, observable flesh and blood is present. These are not claims that ‘prove’ the Eucharist, theologically speaking. If we want to evaluate these sorts of claims, then we would want to demonstrate that it’s actual flesh and blood. However, that would still not get us where you claim it would get us: it would only demonstrate the presence of human matter. One would never be able to conclude “since there is flesh and blood, then empirically it’s a miracle.” (That’s the whole point: a miracle, by definition, is a physical event that is unexplainable by ordinary means.)

So, I’m not trying any sleight of hand. We make claims about the Eucharist that are not empirically verifiable (since they’re not claims about physical matter, per se). On the other hand, when folks make claims about ‘Eucharistic miracles’, we really can ask for empirical observation… but that would only ID matter, not cause.

Is God too busy?

Again, that’s non-responsive to the question “demonstrate why God must or should act in the way you demand He acts.”

Not just to me, to everyone who needs enlightenment.

There’s one commonality among these cases of “everyone who needs enlightenment”: they’re telling God “do it my way, man.” For those who do not make that demand, the problem disappears. (That would imply that the problem isn’t God’s, but the persons’.)

The old phrase “blessed are the ones who don’t see and yet believe” is just another cop-out.

Actually, that’s a direct quote of Jesus from the Gospels. So… I’m gonna go with “not a cop-out.”

In my whole life my parents always answered me when I asked something, or asked for something, and they always explained why my questions cannot be fulfilled - when that was the case

Oh. So, what you’re telling me is that this isn’t an objective consideration – it’s you projecting your personal experience on the rest of the world.

The “silence of God” is the most damaging problem

For those who feel entitled, I can see how that would be a shock to the system. For those who don’t feel entitled, it can be pretty difficult to understand the perspective “I should get it because I asked for it.”

Come on. That “qualifier” of “if it be thy will” is simply a preventive cop-out.

No; it’s actually what the Church teaches. You can scoff at it, but you don’t get to tell us “no, you don’t really believe what you say you believe.”

Not that it is being explicitly uttered.

Dang. And here I was sure that’s how I prayed! I’m so glad you corrected my misunderstanding of what I actually pray!

Somehow, the millions of prayers for alleviating the hunger and illnesses in Africa go unheeded. Presumably it is more important to help the Mexican team to score a goal, than it is to stop the famine in Africa.

You’re on a roll today, VL. Maybe we can pick up conversation again when the hyperbole and snark clears…

Really? What would it be? I am interested in your method.

We can talk about philosophical discourse and logical inference.

 

[laylow]

This is old, but still very neat and definitely gives some indication…newsweek.com/proof-heaven-doctors-experience-afterlife-65327

 

[minkymurph]

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”.

Let’s be honest - it’s highly unlikely anything I would post would be sufficiently good.

Things for which there is only testimonial evidence may be true. The crime of rape in terms of the intention element of the crime is an example, and the main reason why it is so difficult to secure a conviction. A ‘not guilty’ verdict does not necessarily mean the jury did not believe the complainant.

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.”

This doesn’t wash for me. I don’t see it can be said someone who believes only one God exists can properly be categorized as atheist. I don’t do word play arguments as a general rule.

 

[tonyrey]

This is old, but still very neat and definitely gives some indication…newsweek.com/proof-heaven-doctors-experience-afterlife-65327

It’s good to be reminded of a neuroscientist’s experience which is not easily explained away by dogmatic atheists…

 

[minkymurph]

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.

It probably should.

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.

Well now your not going to tell me people don’t tell porkies on the internet?

I would agree it’s not a big deal if the facts are false - because no one really cares.

I would agree Christianity is of course more major than porkying on the net.

In my view Christianity is based on belief, not facts. Belief and facts are not the same thing.

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.

If the only thing that would convince an atheist there is a God is a visible manifestation - I personally cannot provide this evidence. Aside from a visible manifestation I don’t know what evidence would be considered sufficient. Fixing the world perhaps - can’t provide that evidence either so on the evidence front I’m pretty much a failure.

I have heard people say they like debating. I wonder if this is in fact true? Do they in fact like debating, or do they like winning debates - proving others wrong? In terms of the latter, lots of people believe they have won debates, but they may be the only person who believes this. Their opponent may think they have won. Observers may also think the opponent has one. The reason is we are all readily persuaded by our own arguments and those we favour over others. A neutral arbiter would be a better person to decide who wins a debate, but if they decide against us they would of course be wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

I doubt you would get the atheist to accept that belief in an afterlife is anything other than an obvious emotional desire not to die.

Not all atheists are so deeply entrenched in such a negative attitude to life!

 

[Bradski]

If the only thing that would convince an atheist there is a God is a visible manifestation - I personally cannot provide this evidence. Aside from a visible manifestation I don’t know what evidence would be considered sufficient.

Some people claim that that even if God personally appeared to an atheist, they still wouldn’t believe because they have a cop out in that they would claim they may bee hallucinating. That is, what they were experiencing was not actually happening.

But then, I might not be sitting here typing this. I might be an avatar for some spotty alien adolescent playing a computer game in a galaxy far, far away. But I have to live as if what I experience is real. So if God did come over for a chat, on the assumption that the experience was as real as this moment is right now, then what are my options?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Things for which there is only testimonial evidence may be true.

Of course they may be true.

A ‘not guilty’ verdict does not necessarily mean the jury did not believe the complainant.

Exactly. All it means that jury found the evidence insufficient.

I don’t see it can be said someone who believes only one God exists can properly be categorized as atheist. I don’t do word play arguments as a general rule.

You misunderstood. The point is that you (personally) do not believe in the existence of Zeus or Thor or Shiva or Ra, or any of the thousands of gods humans invented during the millennia. Therefore you are an atheist vis-a-vis those gods. You do not believe in the existence of those gods, therefore you are an atheist in that respect. There is no difference between those gods and the God of Christianity. Of course you will deny this, but there is no evidence for any of them. The “generic” atheist simply disbelieves in one more god.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

There’s one commonality among these cases of “everyone who needs enlightenment”: they’re telling God “do it my way, man.”

Why are you surprised? If I would use a language you are not familiar with, your first response would be: “do it my way, man.” - use a language I can understand. And if I would “shun” all your attempts to communicate, then you could justly contend that I don’t care. And on top that, if I would hide in some far-away, inaccessible place, and all your attempts to communicate would be fruitless, then you could justly conclude that I simply don’t exist.

Oh. So, what you’re telling me is that this isn’t an objective consideration – it’s you projecting your personal experience on the rest of the world.

You started it. You said that your parents refused to accommodate you and you were upset about it. I simply told you that a loving parent communicates with their children. Not just mine, but every loving parent behaves like that.

Dang. And here I was sure that’s how I prayed! I’m so glad you corrected my misunderstanding of what I actually pray!

Do you speak for all the believers? On the “Prayer Intentions” forum I have never seen this “if it be thy will”.

We can talk about philosophical discourse and logical inference.

Well, yes. But I am afraid that even if you could bring up something beyond the tired old five ways, you could never get to the God of Christianity, only to some faceless, deistic god. For that step you would need actual, physical proof. And since God is alleged to have assumed human form, that would not be impossible. Just don’t waste my time with referring to Jesus. Yes, the proper way is to do it my way, on my terms. If God does not care, he can stay away.

 

[reggieM]

You misunderstood. The point is that you (personally) do not believe in the existence of Zeus or Thor or Shiva or Ra, or any of the thousands of gods humans invented during the millennia. Therefore you are an atheist vis-a-vis those gods. You do not believe in the existence of those gods, therefore you are an atheist in that respect. There is no difference between those gods and the God of Christianity. Of course you will deny this, but there is no evidence for any of them. The “generic” atheist simply disbelieves in one more god.

This argument goes around quite often in atheist circles and usually nobody bothers to deal with it much because what is the purpose? To show that “we’re all atheists”? Clearly, that’s wrong. We are not atheists and you are one.
But I think the point at issue is the way you want to draw equivalency between any sort or manner of god and the God we proclaim and believe in. If you can honestly say that “there is no difference” between Zeus and the Blessed Trinity (including the 2nd person, Jesus Christ), then that says a lot. I would call it, as I did elsewhere, a lack of sincerity and interest in the topic. Just try to be fair-minded about it – take some time to survey the literature on Christianity and compare it with the theological literature on Zeus. You don’t find a difference?

But beyond that, we would look at this differently also. If we look at all of what is called “god”, including the minority figures - there are characteristics that are similar. What we would often say, in Catholicism, we have the best of all religions’ understanding of God. So, if Zeus is powerful and expresses power over nature – the True God is powerful also and is the creator of nature. So, we are not atheistic with regards to Zeus. It is merely that the true God transcends what the pagan religion taught.

So, we actually accept the principles found in that pagan religion - we are not atheistic to them. The same is true for Islam. We are not “atheistic with regards to Allah” but we find characteristics of Allah in the Blessed Trinity – but much more besides.

So, it’s a false scenario to present theists as if they are “rejecting gods” and supposedly being atheistic as a result. No, we see other gods as possessing partial truth and some error. In the same way, we are not “atheistic” with regards to the Jewish religion, we merely find it’s fulfillment in Catholicism.

So, this argument that equates all gods and then claims that theist reject them all but one is shallow and trivial.

 

[minkymurph]

Of course they may be true.

Exactly. All it means that jury found the evidence insufficient.

You misunderstood. The point is that you (personally) do not believe in the existence of Zeus or Thor or Shiva or Ra, or any of the thousands of gods humans invented during the millennia. Therefore you are an atheist vis-a-vis those gods. You do not believe in the existence of those gods, therefore you are an atheist in that respect. There is no difference between those gods and the God of Christianity. Of course you will deny this, but there is no evidence for any of them. The “generic” atheist simply disbelieves in one more god.

How do you know I Don’t believe they exist?

 

[Vonsalza]

Some people claim that that even if God personally appeared to an atheist, they still wouldn’t believe because they have a cop out in that they would claim they may bee hallucinating.

Yeah. Richard Dawkins actually said that.

 

[Bradski]

Yeah. Richard Dawkins actually said that.

I believe he was commenting on a one-off ‘hearing voices in my head’ experience. Those are very common indeed and if it was just a single episode, then I would borrow Mr. Occam’s razor and assume it was a mental aberration (then go and get myself checked out). Just the same as if you heard a voice purporting to be from Shiva.

I was being overly trite in using the term ‘come over for a chat’. I was talking more of a long term experience. But how long? I dunno. God would. My door is always open. In fact, I’ll be free tonight after the game. If you see Him, let Him know (although Him being omniscient, I guess he’d already know).

 

[Gorgias]

Why are you surprised? If I would use a language you are not familiar with, your first response would be: “do it my way, man.” - use a language I can understand.

Last time I checked, the Bible and the Church’s teachings are in English. It’s not “I don’t understand” that’s your complaint – it’s “I don’t like the way you choose to communicate.” World of difference there, VL…

And if I would “shun” all your attempts to communicate, then you could justly contend that I don’t care.

No shunning here – God has communicated with us. You’re just complaining that you don’t like the media or the means.

You started it. You said that your parents refused to accommodate you and you were upset about it.

Huh? I’m not the one who’s upset here… I’m cool with the way my God has communicated with me. You’re the one who seems bent out of shape that God doesn’t accommodate your whims.

I simply told you that a loving parent communicates with their children. Not just mine, but every loving parent behaves like that.

God has communicated with his children. You’re the one who says “I don’t like the way he’s done it, and therefore, that proves he hates me.” That just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, outside of teenage angst culture.

Do you speak for all the believers?

No. So… why are you claiming that you do?

On the “Prayer Intentions” forum I have never seen this “if it be thy will”.

You’re just not paying attention, then. Besides which, take a look at all the intentions that include the Lord’s Prayer… you know, the one that says “thy will be done”?

Well, yes.

Thank you. Can we dispose of the tired old “there’s no method” claim, then?

But I am afraid that even if you could bring up something beyond the tired old five ways, you could never get to the God of Christianity, only to some faceless, deistic god. For that step you would need actual, physical proof.

And there we go. Even after agreeing that empirical methods cannot prove the existence of a purely spiritual God, we’re back to “well, ok… but you need to provide physical proof.” So much for rationality…

Yes, the proper way is to do it my way, on my terms.

If it weren’t obvious that you’re hurting, I’d respond with sarcasm. As it is, I’ll offer my wishes (and prayers) that you find peace.