Rehash god/proof debate

[Valjean]

Isn't a naturalistic view of the world as unevidenced as a theistic view.
It could be argued that if atheism (non belief) is from birth. then there is no evidence for it and none needed. I imagine many atheists say that.

The "naturalistic" world, if I understand your meaning correctly, is extremely well evidenced. The supernatural would, on the other hand, is not.

But of course atheism (lack of belief) is really a naturalistic view and that one is a belief,,,,,,,,,,,,,,with no evidence except for hypotheses of a naturalistic science.

Atheism isn't a view. It's a lack of view.
We're all born atheist; all born without any beliefs about anything. Our various theologies and religions are taught to us later.
Atheism is the epistemic default. It needs no evidential support.

 

[Brian2]

The "naturalistic" world, if I understand your meaning correctly, is extremely well evidenced. The supernatural would, on the other hand, is not.

The supernatural events are less in evidence.

Atheism isn't a view. It's a lack of view.
We're all born atheist; all born without any beliefs about anything. Our various theologies and religions are taught to us later.
Atheism is the epistemic default. It needs no evidential support.

Atheists along with theists have made a decision at some point about the evidence for the supernatural.
In that way both are chosen. The lack of belief becomes a conscious decision.

 

[Brian2]

James Fodor has dealt with Habermas' assertions here:

It is a long video, but I doubt that will be a problem if you're really interested in the truth.

7 Hours is a long video. It would have to be interesting to go that long, however luckily for me I have no audio on my computer at the moment. The message is that there is no audio device installed and I can't even get to someone with computer knowledge in this Covid lockdown.
I would say that I do not know exactly what all of Gary Habermas decisions are in relation to NDEs but if the evidence he speaks about in other videos is true, consciousness outside the body seems to be the evidence and not something that has to be determined.

 

[Brian2]

Such as?

Such as some people having NDEs reporting OBEs which can be confirmed with verifiable events.

 

[Brian2]

What evidence?
All you have given so far are just anecdotes, hearsay and testimony.
That's not evidence. Those are just claims. Claims that are in need of evidence.

If you want evidence for the claims in some cases that evidence is provided in verification of the events claimed to have been witnessed.
But I have not studied the claims or the verifications, I'm just going on anecdotal evidence. It's a shame we all have to do that sort of thing at times in what we accept to be true.

 

[Brian2]

Thank you.

The reason for that is simple. Whenever people call things "miracles", what they really mean is "we don't understand it / can't explain it, therefor god"

Cliché argument from ignorance.

Raising the dead and healing the lamb, blind and leprous and calming storms with a command are still seen as miracles however.

No.

There was a time where lightning was a "miracle".
Now it's explained as just a discharge.

Again, whenever people call things a "miracle", they always refer to things that they can't explain.

Whenever things labeled as "miracles" are explained, they stop being "miracles".

So the timing of a natural event would be explained as a coincidence.

1. to call it "the miracle of life" doesn't make it a miracle.

2. to say that instead it's just something unexplained, is not an argument from ignorance. It's just being honest.

3. and again we see here the confirmation that "miracles" are just arguments from ignorance. Abiogenesis is currently "unexplained", so you call it a "miracle". Once abiogenesis is solved, it will be explained. And then it will again no longer be called a "miracle", as it is explained then.

As such, to paraphrase Neil DeGrass Tyson somewhat "if that is what you call a 'miracle', then 'miracles' are ever receding pockets of scientific ignorance."

He was talking about "god" then in the "god of the gaps" idea. But it works fine here to for your "miracles of the gaps".



Do you even know what an argument from ignorance is?
Saying "it's unexplained / we don't know", is not an argument from ignorance............................................

To say "it's unexplained / it can be explained naturally and we will know one day" is an argument from ignorance.

 

[Brian2]

I guess that could be, off course. But nobody has ever demonstrated it to be so.

I thought I demonstrated it in the last post but I may have misinterpreted what happened.

As I said, every "argument" that has ever been presented to me was found to be flawed.
Why would I have to pick one? You're the one who thinks these arguments are valid.

I did not say I thought the arguments are valid. Some arguments for God aren't very good at all imo.
You are the one making the claim that they are all logically flawed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Such as some people having NDEs reporting OBEs which can be confirmed with verifiable events.

Please point us all to a proper study that verifies such events.
No anecdotes, no hearsay, no mere claims.

Instead, actual properly documented studies with a control group.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you want evidence for the claims in some cases that evidence is provided in verification of the events claimed to have been witnessed.
But I have not studied the claims or the verifications, I'm just going on anecdotal evidence. It's a shame we all have to do that sort of thing at times in what we accept to be true.

So you have nothing. All you have is hearsay, anecdotes and mere claims.
And you believe them, simply because they confirm your a priori beliefs.

Which is exactly what I said previously.

Thanks for confirming it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Raising the dead and healing the lamb, blind and leprous and calming storms with a command are still seen as miracles however.

And magic. Don't forget magic.

More religious legends, myths, claims, anecdotes, hearsay, ...
Nothing of substance. Just claims.

So the timing of a natural event would be explained as a coincidence.

What makes you think that the "timing" of any natural event requires any "special" explanation in the first place?

It's raining outside. Does it require any special explanation that it is raining now instead of yesterday?
Boom, I just saw lightning followed by thunder. Does it require any "special" explanation that this lightning happened just now instead of 30 minutes ago?

I have no clue what your point is or what you are trying to imply.

To say "it's unexplained / it can be explained naturally and we will know one day" is an argument from ignorance.

No, it's not.
Please read up on what an argument from ignorance is, because it sounds like you don't have a clue.......

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are the one making the claim that they are all logically flawed.

And I'll happily defend that claim. But don't ask me to list every argument that was ever presented to me.
If you think there are those that aren't flawed, present them and I'll be happy to try and tear them a new one.

 

[Magical Wand]

7 Hours is a long video. It would have to be interesting to go that long, however luckily for me I have no audio on my computer at the moment. The message is that there is no audio device installed and I can't even get to someone with computer knowledge in this Covid lockdown.
I would say that I do not know exactly what all of Gary Habermas decisions are in relation to NDEs but if the evidence he speaks about in other videos is true, consciousness outside the body seems to be the evidence and not something that has to be determined.

 

[Valjean]

The supernatural events are less in evidence.



Atheists along with theists have made a decision at some point about the evidence for the supernatural.
In that way both are chosen. The lack of belief becomes a conscious decision.

Atheism is not a decision. Religion is a decision. Atheism is a lack of decision; a persistence of the original blank slate.

 

[Muffled]

What is truth?

I believe the truth is whatever God says it is.

 

[Muffled]

Why do you believe this is not fiction?
Did he? Evidence, please.
Don't all religious leaders and politicians claim truth?

I believe the evidence is that is not claiming to be fiction and in fact claims to be the word of God.

I did say that and that should be evidence enough.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I believe the truth is whatever God says it is.

Fair enough. I don't agree.

 

[Valjean]

I believe the evidence is that is not claiming to be fiction and in fact claims to be the word of God.

A claim is not evidence -- particularly when there are a thousand, competing claims.
Evidence is what would resolve the completing claims.
[/quote]I did say that and that should be evidence enough.[/QUOTE]Evidence is detectable, testable, and predictive. Unless evidence is empirically falsifiable, it's not evidence.

I believe the truth is whatever God says it is.

And how do we know what God says it is? We don't even know He exists.
If he and his word were evidenced, there would be general, worldwide agreement, like there is with science. n'est-ce pas?
I'm not seeing a single, world religion....

 

[lukethethird]

Something CT made me think....

What proof do nonbelievers (to whom this question is appropriate) want for god?

Why wouldn't proof be how it chances a person's life and not something explained objectively?

If something changed your life profoundly, would you use logic to verify your experiences, or?

Why would a nonbeliever want proof for god?

 

[Brian2]

Please point us all to a proper study that verifies such events.
No anecdotes, no hearsay, no mere claims.

Instead, actual properly documented studies with a control group.

I think the study below is a "proper" study. I doubt that it has control groups and I'm not sure how studies on NDE could have control groups.
World's largest near death experiences study | University of Southampton

 

[Brian2]

And magic. Don't forget magic.

More religious legends, myths, claims, anecdotes, hearsay, ...
Nothing of substance. Just claims.

Nothing of substance if you don't want to believe it.
All history is anecdotes and hearsay and the gospels are no different except that they are confirmed miracle accounts by others who wrote other gospels.
And yes of course the writers and collectors of the information (eg Luke) were Christians or got the information from Christians who witnessed them, as anyone who confirmed the accounts would be Christian.
That is not good, Christians writing about it means bias and lies.
And of course it is no good if a non Christian writes about it because they got their information from Christians and weren't there to see anything.
The historicity of the gospels cannot be contradicted unless you do not want to believe them, then anything they say is hearsay and lies.

What makes you think that the "timing" of any natural event requires any "special" explanation in the first place?

It's raining outside. Does it require any special explanation that it is raining now instead of yesterday?
Boom, I just saw lightning followed by thunder. Does it require any "special" explanation that this lightning happened just now instead of 30 minutes ago?

I have no clue what your point is or what you are trying to imply.

Timing is neglected when people want to show that miracles were none other than natural events. The plagues of Egypt for example. They happened just when Moses said they would and stopped when he said they would. Timing is important to confirm the hand of God sometimes.

No, it's not.
Please read up on what an argument from ignorance is, because it sounds like you don't have a clue.......

From this site: Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
"Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true."

To say "it's unexplained / it can be explained naturally and we will know one day" is an argument from ignorance.