10 Aug 07
Someone a while back pointed out the seemingly obvious.
All religions involve faith, specifically, faith that God exists. If evidence actually existed which proved the existence of God, then there would be no need for faith, and thus, no need for religion.
Faith is the belief in things unseen.
10 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AProdigyI meant that the things you described would not have been any different had there not been a God.
Your post confuses me. You agree with me that evidence is something that implies the possibility or probibility of something, but you then state that there is no evidence of God. My previous post lists several that, by your own definition, which is the same and mine, are valid evidences of God. Could you please clarify?
A complex system is then not evidence of the existence of a sentient creator (*1) because the result (*2) would be the same under a non-sentient creation/existence. This property of indistinguishability (spelling?) between to which of two hypothesis the "evidence" pertains renders its value as evidence null.
(*1) note that non-sentient creation/existence is the non-theist hypothesis
(*2) that which you are now calling evidence
Edit - Of course, this is my personal view that stems from agreeing, in a large part, with the ignostic views of this question.
10 Aug 07
Originally posted by PalynkaSo what you are saying is that none of the evidence that I described in an earlier post are guarentees of God. And that they can all be described by a non-creationist point of view. Therefore they are not evidence of there being a God.
I meant that the things you described would not have been any different had there not been a God.
A complex system is then not evidence of the existence of a sentient creator (*1) because the result (*2) would be the same under a non-sentient creation/existence. This property of indistinguishability (spelling?) between to which of two hypothesis the "evid ...[text shortened]... onal view that stems from agreeing, in a large part, with the ignostic views of this question.
Okay, but there are two problems with this logic. First, you don't bother to give the non-creationistic explination for the complex system, which is really just a big "?". Second, if you apply this logic to the view that there is a God, then it can also be applied to the view that there isn't a God. There is no evidence, in your words, of a non-creationist existance because the result would be the same under a creationist existence.
No to be clear, I don't believe either your statement or mine that I just put up there. I am just pointing out that your argument is really a moot point.
If I say, "I'm gonna kill Bob," and I leave and go next door to Bob's house with my gun, and two minutes later a gun goes off and Bob is dead and I'm holding the gun with gun powder residue on my fingers and so on, I would be convicted of murder. If I hired you as my lawer, you would say that none of these facts matter, because if I had been kidding, gone over there to show Bob my new gun, and a gloved man tried to wrestle the gun from my hands and the gun went off and killed Bob, all the evidence would be the same.
This is true, and that is why these are only evidences, and not proofs. Although you can provide an explination showing that what they imply to be true may be untrue, they still overwhelmingly lead to the conclusiong that it is true.
This is the case with the evidences of God. You can explain them away with other theories, but they would still promote the likelyhood that they is a God.
But like you said. It really all depends on where you are coming from. If you believe in God, the idea that all this came about by chance is rediculous. If you don't, then the idea that there is a big guy upstairs may seem like a fairy tale.
10 Aug 07
Originally posted by AProdigyPerhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll take your example, say why it's different from the case in point and then address some of your points.
So what you are saying is that none of the evidence that I described in an earlier post are guarentees of God. And that they can all be described by a non-creationist point of view. Therefore they are not evidence of there being a God.
Okay, but there are two problems with this logic. First, you don't bother to give the non-creationistic explination ...[text shortened]... you don't, then the idea that there is a big guy upstairs may seem like a fairy tale.
"I'm gonna kill Bob," and I leave and go next door to Bob's house with my gun, and two minutes later a gun goes off and Bob is dead and I'm holding the gun with gun powder residue on my fingers and so on, I would be convicted of murder. If I hired you as my lawer, you would say that none of these facts matter, because if I had been kidding, gone over there to show Bob my new gun, and a gloved man tried to wrestle the gun from my hands and the gun went off and killed Bob, all the evidence would be the same.
The difference is in the likelihood of each scenario. It's very easy to see why, given the known facts (gun power, gun, etc.), the likelihood of each scenario is different. Let B be the event of finding the evidence mentioned above and A be event of you being the murderer. For obvious reasons: Prob(A|B)>P(A)>P(A|~B).
There is a clearcut case that evidence B renders the scenario A more likely (and conversely, the scenario ~A less likely). Why? Both because the P(B|A) is high and P(B|~A) is extremely low, relative to P(B).
_________________________________________________________
Now let's get back to the discussion we were having. Let A be the event of a sentient creator existing and let B be the evidence of creation/existence. My point is that, in this case, we have absolutely no non-speculative basis to determine if B renders A more likely or not. To where does the balance tip? There simply is no way of knowing. This renders the value of B as evidence for A completely null.
That things exist is not valid evidence for, nor against a sentient creator.
10 Aug 07
Originally posted by 667joeTaken generally, I really doubt that. We all hold any number of 'basic' beliefs that are taken without underlying support. Some are evident to the senses; others are self-evident (as in Pawno's example on page 1, these may be true just in virtue of definition or analytic structure); further, still others are "incorrigible" to the intellect (as in, given that the agent is genuinely entertaining it, it cannot be reasonably dismissed -- consider 'it seems to me that I am being appeared to greenly' or some such).
That which can be claimed with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.
10 Aug 07
Originally posted by 667joeIf "1 + 1 = 2" is true by definition, then how can there be any evidence in favor of its being true?
What else could 1+1 by definition be?
You asserted however, that if there is no evidence for a proposition being true, then that proposition can be dismissed without evidence.
Hence, according to you, one can dismiss without evidence the proposition that 1 + 1 = 2.
But surely this is absurd.
Hence, your assertion is false, without further qualification.
10 Aug 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaI disagree. Even if there was clear evidence or proof to everybody that God excists. Then you would still need faith. (Faith to his word, his saying). Today there are still people even scientist who really think the earth is flat!
Someone a while back pointed out the seemingly obvious.
All religions involve faith, specifically, faith that God exists. If evidence actually existed which proved the existence of God, then there would be no need for faith, and thus, no need for religion.
Faith is the belief in things unseen.
No need for religion also is a remark that I really don't understand. I am sure that we all would be much more following the bible and worshipping God if it was 100% clear to us all. (For example if god would just walk around and say hello to us all (in a littery way)). But maybe your remark was meant in a different way.
11 Aug 07
Originally posted by PalynkaI suppose that this is where I am critical of your argument. In a previous post, I mentioned one of several common arguments that point to the likelyhood of there being a god. (I understand that there are also arguments that point to the unlikelyhood of ther being a god.) Yet in your posts, you simply say we have absolutely no non-speculative basis to determine if B renders A more likely or not. Clearly, you are saying that I was wrong with my previous arguments. Unfortunately you are going to have to back them up with your own logical argument. A simple "that's not true" won't cut it...
Now let's get back to the discussion we were having. Let A be the event of a sentient creator existing and let B be the evidence of creation/existence. My point is that, in this case, we have absolutely no non-speculative basis to determine if B renders A more likely or not. To where does the balance tip? There simply is no way of knowing. This renders the v ...[text shortened]... ompletely null.
That things exist is not valid evidence for, nor against a sentient creator.
11 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AProdigyMy logical argument is that it is you who needs to explain your assertion. If you say that it points to the likelihood of there being a God, then prove it.
I suppose that this is where I am critical of your argument. In a previous post, I mentioned one of several common arguments that point to the likelyhood of there being a god. (I understand that there are also arguments that point to the unlikelyhood of ther being a god.) Yet in your posts, you simply say [b]we have absolutely no non-speculative basis to ...[text shortened]... back them up with your own logical argument. A simple "that's not true" won't cut it...[/b]
But you can't, for the simple reason that there is no way to evaluate any alternative scenarios.
11 Aug 07
Originally posted by PalynkaNope, I sufficiently provided a point and explination before. You cannot refute it without providing your own arguments. The burdon is on you, my friend.
My logical argument is that it is you who needs to explain your assertion. If you say that it points to the likelihood of there being a God, then prove it.
But you can't, for the simple reason that there is no way to evaluate any alternative scenarios.