What is the best argument for an atheist?

[Willamena]

That, my friend, is not Empirical Evidence. That is Subjective Evidence.

How is it not empirical, though?

"Empirical" means that it's observed. Whether by one person or many, that it's observed is what makes it empirical. It stands in contrast to the likes of theoretical, mathematical or philosophical evidence.

 

[jonman122]

How is it not empirical, though?

"Empirical" means that it's observed. Whether by one person or many, that it's observed is what makes it empirical.

Empirical research is research that derives its data by means of direct observation or experiment, such research is used to answer a question or test a hypothesis. <-- stole from wikipedia

empirical in this case means that it is observed and repeatable by others, not just yourself.

definition of empirical:

• 1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
  2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
• Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

 

[Willamena]

Empirical research is research that derives its data by means of direct observation or experiment, such research is used to answer a question or test a hypothesis. <-- stole from wikipedia

empirical in this case means that it is observed and repeatable by others, not just yourself.

What if you're the only person left on earth? Does it cease to be empirical?

 

[linwood]

How is it not empirical, though?

"Empirical" means that it's observed. Whether by one person or many, that it's observed is what makes it empirical. It stands in contrast to the likes of theoretical, mathematical or philosophical evidence.

Not quite.
Empirical means it`s "verifiable" by observation.

A single persons observations are hardly verifiable.

 

[linwood]

What if you're the only person left on earth? Does it cease to be empirical?

It ceases to matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see why you would need science for something like that though. Maybe its just me and other people see it differently.

How about if you widen it out to the more general "rational inquiry"?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well actually its Objective, subjective is just how you see it if you don't have objective evidence.

Objective evidence is demonstrable, not circumstantial. It can be tested, measured, repeated and be physically observed by others.
In science, all Empirical Evidence is Objective.

What many believers describe as evidence of God is the very definition of Subjective Evidence.
"I see God in Creation.", "Design is evident", "I can feel God working in my life."

 

[waitasec]

i thought faith was believing in things unseen..
hebrews 1:1 now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

 

[tumbleweed41]

i thought faith was believing in things unseen..
hebrews 1:1 now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Exactly. So why is it so many believers feel the need to validate their faith with 'proof of God'?

I think it is because when confronted by someone who requires evidence in order to accept a thing as true, they forget the basis of faith and fumble around with their personal definitions of 'evidence' in a feeble attempt to justify their faith.

Perhaps this is why Gloone is so upset about the Atheist argument of "prove it".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i thought faith was believing in things unseen..
hebrews 1:1 now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

In the context of that verse (it's 11:1, BTW, not 1:1), I think this is more about taking God's word for it when He tells you something, not believing in God despite never encountering Him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly. So why is it so many believers feel the need to validate their faith with 'proof of God'?

Like I touched on in my reply to waitasec, I think that most of the times that the term "faith" is used in the Bible, the author is talking about trust in God, not belief that God exists. When they talk about "the evidence of things unseen", I think they're talking about trusting that Christ will fulfil his promise of saving humanity (or some chosen portion of humanity, depending on your interpretation), not believing in God despite a lack of evidence.

I think it is because when confronted by someone who requires evidence in order to accept a thing as true, they forget the basis of faith and fumble around with their personal definitions of 'evidence' in a feeble attempt to justify their faith.

Perhaps this is why Gloone is so upset about the Atheist argument of "prove it".

How is anything but evidence a rational basis for a belief about objective reality?

If we're applying the label "God" to some concept that's only in our own heads or to some sort of metaphor, fine... in those sorts of cases, we wouldn't need evidence. But if you're talking about God actually, physically existing, I don't see at all what the problem would be with demanding some sort of rational basis for inferring that God really does exist.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If we're applying the label "God" to some concept that's only in our own heads or to some sort of metaphor, fine... in those sorts of cases, we wouldn't need evidence. But if you're talking about God actually, physically existing, I don't see at all what the problem would be with demanding some sort of rational basis for inferring that God really does exist.

I agree.
I see ALL evidence for God as being highly subjective. And that makes most concepts of God hard to prove to someone who does not see things exactly as you do.

 

[Willamena]

We have gone from absolute skepticism - you can't prove reality IS reality - to now you can't define existence.

Well, you can't.

That's the point. Existence is axiomatic.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't see why you would need science for something like that though. Maybe its just me and other people see it differently.

You don't know why you would science to learn about the natural world? You don't think science does a good job of that? The stars, rocks, organisms, chemicals, forces and particles that make up the physical world? What method do you rely on?

 

[Autodidact]

How can you prove that.... I think faith requires a lot of empirical evidence but it is only viewed by the observer, not so much anyone else.

Then it's not empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is available to all observers.

 

[waitasec]

In the context of that verse (it's 11:1, BTW, not 1:1), I think this is more about taking God's word for it when He tells you something, not believing in God despite never encountering Him.

oops...thank you

but when taking gods word for it, isn't that believing in something unseen?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

oops...thank you

but when taking gods word for it, isn't that believing in something unseen?

In the sense that you're trusting that God will keep his word, yes. You're considering God to be trustworthy.

In the sense that you're believing that God exists without evidence, no. You're hearing him speak (or have other sure knowledge of what he's said), so you know full well that he exists.

Edit: this passage isn't about believing in a God that doesn't give any sign of his existence. It's about hearing God's promise that he has made a place for you in Heaven and responding by trusting him instead of saying "show me".

 

[Willamena]

You don't know why you would science to learn about the natural world? You don't think science does a good job of that? The stars, rocks, organisms, chemicals, forces and particles that make up the physical world? What method do you rely on?

Does the toddler winging his way across the grass need to know velocities? Does the 10-year old pumping the merri-go-round for his friend need to calculate the torque? Science is entirely irrelevant to learning about the natural world (there's a reason why it's reserved for schooling years).

 

[tumbleweed41]

Does the toddler winging his way across the grass need to know velocities? Does the 10-year old pumping the merri-go-round for his friend need to calculate the torque? Science is entirely irrelevant to learning about the natural world (there's a reason why it's reserved for schooling years).

It is relevant to learning about the natural world. It is irrelevant to simply living in it.
I do not need to know about aerodynamics and lift to be a passenger in a 747. But I expect the engineer of that 747 to understand it completely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does the toddler winging his way across the grass need to know velocities? Does the 10-year old pumping the merri-go-round for his friend need to calculate the torque? Science is entirely irrelevant to learning about the natural world (there's a reason why it's reserved for schooling years).

They don't need to be able to do the calculations or know the terminology, but knowing something about the way the world works is a prerequisite for living in it, IMO.

I remember the most fascinating scientific experiment I ever witnessed: I was out in the garden with a friend's two-year-old son. He had a small flower that he had picked from the lawn. He proceeded to go over to the patio table, sit underneath, and push the flower through the hole in the middle of the table.

Then, he got me to lift him up so he could see. To his delight, the flower had passed through the hole and was sitting on the table. He grabbed the flower, had me put him down, sat under the table and repeated the experiment several times (getting me to hold him up each time).

After a while, he stopped. I could see him thinking. Eventually, he came over to me and had me hold him up so he could drop the flower in from the top. I put him down and he rushed under the table to see whether the flower was there. It was - he was ecstatically happy.

Without realizing it, Alex had engaged in science: he had made repeated observations (i.e. seeing that a flower can pass through a hole upward), and based on them, he came up with a prediction (i.e. that a flower can pass through a hole downward, too) and tested it.

Admittedly, testing how a hole works is a bit more basic than what we usually think of when we say "science", but it's definitely within science's scope.

Kids do this constantly. Usually not as systematically as Alex, but they're always coming up with predictions about the way the world works and testing them. That's science.