"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

[leibowde84]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

I think this is an amazing quote, and it pretty much sums up why atheism (being without a belief in the existence of God or gods is the meaning I'm using here) is not only reasonable, but easily defended.

Many people claim that personal experience qualifies as evidence when it comes to God, but personal experience is often flawed and misleading (hallucinations, dreams, seemingly miraculous events, etc. are unreliable without verification). It is also unverifiable. So, how can something that is unreliable and unverifiable be considered evidence?

Others claim that God is necessary because God provides an explanation for things that are currently unexplained by science. But, obviously, that is a "God of the gaps" argument or an "argument from ignorance". It isn't nearly enough to just say "God is responsible" without providing verifiable evidence that it is true. We used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. It made perfect sense in regards to how we saw the sun rise and set each day from our perspective. But, that experience and logic turned out to be completely wrong. So, how can what merely makes sense to us be used as evidence?

So, beyond personal experience and what merely makes sense to us individually, is there any evidence for God that does not require an argument from ignorance or other logical fallacies?

 

[YmirGF]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

I think this is an amazing quote, and it pretty much sums up why atheism (being without a belief in the existence of God or gods is the meaning I'm using here) is not only reasonable, but easily defended.

Many people claim that personal experience qualifies as evidence when it comes to God, but personal experience is often flawed and misleading (hallucinations, dreams, seemingly miraculous events, etc. are unreliable without verification). It is also unverifiable. So, how can something that is unreliable and unverifiable be considered evidence?

Others claim that God is necessary because God provides an explanation for things that are currently unexplained by science. But, obviously, that is a "God of the gaps" argument or an "argument from ignorance". It isn't nearly enough to just say "God is responsible" without providing verifiable evidence that it is true. We used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. It made perfect sense in regards to how we saw the sun rise and set each day from our perspective. But, that experience and logic turned out to be completely wrong. So, how can what merely makes sense to us be used as evidence?

So, beyond personal experience and what merely makes sense to us individually, is there any evidence for God that does not require an argument from ignorance or other logical fallacies?

Nice to see an "eyes wide open" Christian.

So, beyond personal experience and what merely makes sense to us individually, is there any evidence for God that does not require an argument from ignorance or other logical fallacies?

I don't think so hence all the appeals to authority of infallible doctrines and persons.

 

[Deidre]

I've often felt, if a person believes in God, then why does he/she care to prove that belief to someone else? Just accept the experience or faith for what it brings to you, personally. If you are a believer, or don't believe...it should all be based on what you believe to be true, not if others agree with you or not. Just my thoughts.

 

[leibowde84]

I've often felt, if a person believes in God, then why does he/she care to prove that belief to someone else? Just accept the experience or faith for what it brings to you, personally. If you are a believer, or don't believe...it should all be based on what you believe to be true, not if others agree with you or not. Just my thoughts.

I agree. The OP is directed at those who are critical of atheism and atheists as being unreasonable, evil, sinful, illogical, etc.

 

[bobhikes]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

I think this is an amazing quote, and it pretty much sums up why atheism (being without a belief in the existence of God or gods is the meaning I'm using here) is not only reasonable, but easily defended.

Many people claim that personal experience qualifies as evidence when it comes to God, but personal experience is often flawed and misleading (hallucinations, dreams, seemingly miraculous events, etc. are unreliable without verification). It is also unverifiable. So, how can something that is unreliable and unverifiable be considered evidence?

Others claim that God is necessary because God provides an explanation for things that are currently unexplained by science. But, obviously, that is a "God of the gaps" argument or an "argument from ignorance". It isn't nearly enough to just say "God is responsible" without providing verifiable evidence that it is true. We used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. It made perfect sense in regards to how we saw the sun rise and set each day from our perspective. But, that experience and logic turned out to be completely wrong. So, how can what merely makes sense to us be used as evidence?

So, beyond personal experience and what merely makes sense to us individually, is there any evidence for God that does not require an argument from ignorance or other logical fallacies?

Dismissed I have no evidence that you exist. You are as real as a pink polka dotted unicorn. I can only use personal experience to defend your existence. In fact even if we meet in person, I can only know you as a physical object all that you tell me or show me could be lies.

Logical theory of God
There has never been a time when nothing existed(Supported by several scientific theories). It is probable that this universe came into being at the time of the big bang( Supported by several scientific theories). If things always existed then a thing or things caused an action that created this universe among this or these things a God(has defined as a creator of the universe) is a valid option.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

You see a gambler play 5 royal flushes in a row at 5 different tables and leave the casino

looking back at the video there is ZERO EVIDENCE he cheated

and of course with the card dispenser, you have indisputable evidence of a mechanism fully capable of producing this result by pure chance


which do you think more likely?

why?

 

[leibowde84]

Dismissed I have no evidence that you exist. You are as real as a pink polka dotted unicorn. I can only use personal experience to defend your existence. In fact even if we meet in person, I can only know you as a physical object all that you tell me or show me could be lies.

Logical theory of God
There has never been a time when nothing existed(Supported by several scientific theories). It is probable that this universe came into being at the time of the big bang( Supported by several scientific theories). If things always existed then a thing or things caused an action that created this universe among this or these things a God(has defined as a creator of the universe) is a valid option.

But, this isn't evidence for God. It is merely evidence that God's existence is a possibility.

 

[leibowde84]

You see a gambler play 5 royal flushes in a row at 5 different tables and leave the casino

looking back at the video there is ZERO EVIDENCE he cheated

and of course with the card dispenser, you have indisputable evidence of a mechanism fully capable of producing this result by pure chance


which do you think more likely?

why?

There is evidence in this scenario that the man cheated. It is called statistical likelihood. It is more likely that the man cheated somehow (although it could be mere luck).

With God, there is no likelihood either way. The eye is often used as an example of God's necessity, but that is completely unreasonable. We know very well how the eye developed into what we, as humans, have. It makes perfect sense without need for any supernatural intervention. And, the eye being flawed/far from perfect in many ways seems to point to a God not being necessary at all.

There is no evidence that God is necessary or more likely because God is not defined well. Let's say, hypothetically, that life is too complex to have appeared naturally (this has been proven false, but just for the sake of argument). Does that make God more likely? Of course not. Maybe God was responsible, maybe something we haven't discovered yet was responsible. We just don't know? Thus, life's complexity isn't evidence for God. It is merely evidence that we have an incomplete understanding of life and its history.

 

[Nakosis]

I've often felt, if a person believes in God, then why does he/she care to prove that belief to someone else? Just accept the experience or faith for what it brings to you, personally. If you are a believer, or don't believe...it should all be based on what you believe to be true, not if others agree with you or not. Just my thoughts.

I kind of liked Druidism. You are surrounded by nature spirits. The river, a tree, the wind. All these spirits you can touch, interact with. You walk through the forest bare foot and perceive your connection with the earth. It's all very nature oriented. The rituals are kind of mystical, a little magical.

Whether real or not we experience the reality of what we believe. This is our life to live and if we find value in our belief then why not go through life experiencing it as we wish?

It's only a problem IMO when folks insist/expect others to accept their personal beliefs.

I've no problem with a Christian who has a personal relationship with Jesus as long as they don't insist I have one too.

 

[bobhikes]

But, this isn't evidence for God. It is merely evidence that God's existence is a possibility.

It is also not an argument from ignorance or logical fallacy. What evidence does science have for the creation of the universe and do you also have problems with their theories or do you have an acceptable theory without material evidence.

Do you support Dark matter or Dark energy as they are theories based off of experience only.

 

[Nakosis]

Logical theory of God
There has never been a time when nothing existed(Supported by several scientific theories). It is probable that this universe came into being at the time of the big bang( Supported by several scientific theories). If things always existed then a thing or things caused an action that created this universe among this or these things a God(has defined as a creator of the universe) is a valid option.

You define God as the unknown property which created the universe. That could be anything from natural forces to alien scientists.

All you're saying is that it is logical that some unknown property created the universe. Calling it God does nothing to further define it really.

However, there's a lot implied by the word God, such as sentience. If you want to call this unknown property God, I suppose that is up to you, just don't conflate your definition with some religious idealism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've often felt, if a person believes in God, then why does he/she care to prove that belief to someone else?

It's that nutty go out into the world and proclaim the Gospel directive. (Or similar)

Should be setting by their own example, not annoyingly pestering people

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is evidence in this scenario that the man cheated. It is called statistical likelihood. It is more likely that the man cheated somehow (although it could be mere luck).

Exactly. It's not that chance is impossible, it's not that 5 royal flushes is any less likely than any other combination of 25 cards

it's that the significance of the result makes other explanations less improbable

With God, there is no likelihood either way.

No analogy is perfect, and this one is flawed in two fundamental ways

#1 - it grants you a chance mechanism as an absolute given, with a 100% proven capability of producing this exact result. There is no such equivalent for random universe creating machines beyond philosophical speculation

#2 - It presents a scenario that does everything possible to guard AGAINST intelligent design being involved in the result. We know of no such inter-cosmological security force, actively preventing creative dabbling in universe design

Yet despite being heavily biased towards an unguided mechanism, you choose ID, because of the pure power of explanation of creative intelligence- with the name 'God' removed from the question in this case..

The eye is often used as an example of God's necessity, but that is completely unreasonable.

It's one good argument among many- accidentally blundering upon a fully functional eye is mathematically problematic- like the multiple royal flushes- while half an eye is utterly useless if not detrimental to natural selection- a component cannot be 'naturally selected' for a future benefit- and this is where I think some anthropomorphism plays a role:

We are so used to enacting every action in view of some future pay-off, it's deceptively difficult to entirely remove this in a thought experiment. But the mathematical algorithms of ToE are objective, and when implemented in computer models, they do not produce the results we imagine in our heads

There is no evidence that God is necessary or more likely because God is not defined well. Let's say, hypothetically, that life is too complex to have appeared naturally (this has been proven false, but just for the sake of argument). Does that make God more likely? Of course not. Maybe God was responsible, maybe something we haven't discovered yet was responsible. We just don't know? Thus, life's complexity isn't evidence for God. It is merely evidence that we have an incomplete understanding of life and its history.

I'm defining him as an intelligent, purposeful creator of the universe- as opposed to a spontaneous, unguided creator of the universe- yes both have subdivisions from there on..

On complexity- it's one of those semantic things, but arguably a random pile of bricks is far more 'complex' than a neat wall using those same bricks- right?

just like a royal flush is a simpler, less 'complex' sequence of cards to describe than most.

But as in that same analogy, it's the specific functionality of the result that presents other possible explanations- i.e motive

 

[Milton Platt]

I've often felt, if a person believes in God, then why does he/she care to prove that belief to someone else? Just accept the experience or faith for what it brings to you, personally. If you are a believer, or don't believe...it should all be based on what you believe to be true, not if others agree with you or not. Just my thoughts.

I'm an atheist and I find your position very refreshing. Thank you. The world would be a much more peaceful place if theists did not constantly proselytize and try to insert their beliefs into governmental policy and science classrooms.

 

[bobhikes]

You define God as the unknown property which created the universe. That could be anything from natural forces to alien scientists.

All you're saying is that it is logical that some unknown property created the universe. Calling it God does nothing to further define it really.

However, there's a lot implied by the word God, such as sentience. If you want to call this unknown property God, I suppose that is up to you, just don't conflate your definition with some religious idealism.

Yep all I'm saying is that an unknown property created the universe and by logical definition that property could be God. It would be great if atheists also didn't conflate the religious definitions of God with the possibility of God.

 

[LuisDantas]

I've often felt, if a person believes in God, then why does he/she care to prove that belief to someone else? Just accept the experience or faith for what it brings to you, personally. If you are a believer, or don't believe...it should all be based on what you believe to be true, not if others agree with you or not. Just my thoughts.

There is something to be said for the motivational appeal of sharing concepts and hopes with other people.

That is not a justification for theistic belief IMO, but I acknowledge that for many people it has appeal. I just don't understand why so much reliance on belief as opposed to the language and the ideas themselves.

 

[columbus]

Exactly. It's not that chance is impossible, it's not that 5 royal flushes is any less likely than any other combination of 25 cards

Getting five royal flushes in a row is a breeze. Provided the player can keep or discard each card as it is dealt.
That's how Evolution works. The staggering majority of individual organisms don't reproduce. The ones who do are the only ones who matter from an evolutionary standpoint. Even the tiniest of differences will result in changes to the species, eventually. Particularly if the environment is also changing and different characteristics result in successful reproduction over time.
Tom

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yep all I'm saying is that an unknown property created the universe and by logical definition that property could be God. It would be great if atheists also didn't conflate the religious definitions of God with the possibility of God.

Problem is there simply is no possibility. Just conjectures.

At least in a sense of any supernatural sky daddy's.

Now If it's a naturalised creation, say from an "advanced" being by which all this came about, who can even say? Still, its quite a stretch go that route, as you would need a basis upon which to begin to even first establish that a possibility exists in the first place by finding or discovering supporting evidence's that point in that direction.

I don't see any as it stands.

 

[Milton Platt]

Dismissed I have no evidence that you exist. You are as real as a pink polka dotted unicorn. I can only use personal experience to defend your existence. In fact even if we meet in person, I can only know you as a physical object all that you tell me or show me could be lies.

Logical theory of God
There has never been a time when nothing existed(Supported by several scientific theories). It is probable that this universe came into being at the time of the big bang( Supported by several scientific theories). If things always existed then a thing or things caused an action that created this universe among this or these things a God(has defined as a creator of the universe) is a valid option.

Are you saying that this assertion is equal to a scientific theory or are you using the word theory in the colloquial sense? The possibility of a god does not support the belief that there is one. It is possible that a unicorn created the universe as well, but I reject that assertion as well for the same reason....no evidence.

 

[bobhikes]

Problem is there simply is no possibility. Just conjectures.

At least in a sense of any supernatural sky daddy's.

Now If it's a naturalised creation, say from an "advanced" being by which all this came about, who can even say? Still, its quite a stretch go that route, as you would need a basis upon which to begin to even first establish that a possibility exists in the first place by finding or discovering supporting evidence's that point in that direction.

I don't see any as it stands.

Yet you gave an example of your own and then denied it.