Why the low bar for evidence of gods?

[idav]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

It seems to me that as soon as the subject for theism gets too complex people would sooner bang their head against a wall than talk about how complicated the idea of God can be. Thankfully we have science fiction to help broaden our minds a bit on the nature of reality, reality just isn't as mundane as people feel comfortable with. As an example, far as I can tell time dilation suggests eternity is a real thing(theoretically) which is just one step in showing something that exists that can fit a reasonable description of God.

 

[Paradox22]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?...
And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

It sounds like its you that is setting the bar high. There is no reason someone should have to prove that a god exists in order for it to be the the basis of their world view or the guidance of some of their behavior. Why does it matter that a mother cannot prove that her religion is true? Are you suggesting she disbelieve in any religion until she can prove it to the satisfaction of every other person in the world? She shouldn't worship because the matter is not settled? When she tells her daughter that she shouldn't get an abortion, she cannot say that her religious beliefs tell her that it is wrong?
NOTE: These are just examples. I am not suggesting that any religion is true or that abortion is wrong.

 

[Paradox22]

You may not be able to convince me that the Red Wings are the best NHL team ever, but you could very easily convince me that the Red Wings exist.

Imagine I tried to convince you that the Letterkenny Shamrocks (a fictional hockey team from a fiction town) was the best NHL team ever. Would you see my position as valid?

Of course I understand that you have every right to be skeptical of the truth of a religion. I'm certainly not saying any religion is true. But that is beside the point. You seem to be making a judgement that if I cannot convince you of something, I shouldn't waste my time acting as if that were true. Why does it matter that I believe in this instead of that? Am I being irrational to believe what I believe? If so, are you saying that I should live my life based on your beliefs?

 

[Truthseeker]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

The evidence is in the individuals inner experiences with scripture mostly. There is other evidence, but in the end it is the inner experience that makes the difference. The outer evidence is such that it needs the inner evidence to confirm it. The standard of objective outer evidence only doesn't work with religion. God is always going to test us to see if we believe. Believing has tremendous rewards for the believer. No one is wronged by God, hell and heaven are relative. Relative to a believer, the unbeliever is in hell, but that is only because the reward for the believer is so great. There is justice and mercy for everybody, it's just that the mercy is greater for the believer.

 

[Scott C.]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

I believe that God makes himself known to people in ways that you do not accept. He speaks to the heart, the soul, and the mind. It's hard to compare that evidence to evidence that one's spouse exists. The fact that I devote as much or more of myself to God than even to my spouse is evidence of my personal assurance that God lives. There is no way I could possibly explain or convince many that the communication from God to me is real. I have learned after several years on this site that that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Truthseeker]

There is no bar. 'God' is a concept that we either accept or reject based on faith, and on the results of our acting on that faith, not on any "evidence". There isn't any evidence. There is only possibility.

The standard for having faith is inner evidence. Do you agree?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

It has been a proven fact, that it wouldn't matter how much evidence there is, unto which there is evidence in the supportive of Christ Jesus
But yet it's the Same O, Same O, thing with Atheists, can you prove this or that.
It doesn't matter how much evidence to a Atheist you will have, They will still refuse to accept the evidence provided.

You can produce all the evidence that the Bridge is out, but Atheist will still refuse the evidence that the bridge is out, even when they walk across and fall through.
All the while yelling back to you, You have No evidence the bridge is out, where's your evidence.

 

[Truthseeker]

Of course I understand that you have every right to be skeptical of the truth of a religion. I'm certainly not saying any religion is true. But that is beside the point. You seem to be making a judgement that if I cannot convince you of something, I shouldn't waste my time acting as if that were true. Why does it matter that I believe in this instead of that? Am I being irrational to believe what I believe? If so, are you saying that I should live my life based on your beliefs?

Do you agree with me that it is the inner subjective evidence that makes the difference? While there is outer evidence, it is the inner evidence that makes the difference.

 

[PureX]

The standard for having faith is inner evidence. Do you agree?

What is "inner evidence"? Faith either works, or it doesn't. Is that what you mean; that it works for us? If so, then I agree.

A lot of people confuse faith with pretense: the pretense of knowing that God is this or that, and that God does this or that, and that God wants this or that. But faith is not pretending that we know all these things. It's trusting that the God that we hope exists, does exist, enough to act in accord with that hope. And then (hopefully) the positive results of that action, in our lives, will become our justification for having hoped in God and acted on it. And as justification for our continuing to do so.

 

[Truthseeker]

What is "inner evidence"? Faith either works, or it doesn't. Is that what you mean; that it works for us? If so, then I agree.

A lot of people confuse faith with pretense: the pretense of knowing that God is this or that, and that God does this or that, and that God wants this or that. But faith in not pretending that we know all these things. It's trusting that the God that we hope exists, does exist, enough to act in accord with that hope. And then (hopefully) the positive results of that action, in our lives, will becomes our justification for having hoped in God and acted on it. And as justification for our continuing to do so.

What I am talking about is the evidence for why we have faith in the first place. What makes the difference is the inner subjective reaction to scripture, not the outer objective evidence. Of course when we have faith the faith has got to work for us too to maintain that belief.

 

[QuestioningMind]

There is no bar. 'God' is a concept that we either accept or reject based on faith, and on the results of our acting on that faith, not on any "evidence". There isn't any evidence. There is only possibility.

Why would you believe anything without evidence? And since virtually anything is 'possible' it means that you'd have to believe in virtually everything, even diametrically opposed concepts. Sounds like a terribly unreliable means of determining truth.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

Because if you have no verifiable evidence you have no choice but to set the bar as low as possible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe that God makes himself known to people in ways that you do not accept. He speaks to the heart, the soul, and the mind.

I'll accept absolutely any evidence that can be shown to be a reliable pathway to truth. Heck... I'll give a fair bit of weight to evidence when there's even a strong indication that it's a reliable pathway to truth.

It's hard to compare that evidence to evidence that one's spouse exists.

Can we compare it to anything that reasonably establishes the existence of anything else?

The fact that I devote as much or more of myself to God than even to my spouse is evidence of my personal assurance that God lives.

Yes: I understand that you're sincerely certain; what I don't understand is why - without fail - people who have this sincere certainty can't explain why they're certain like they would be able to do for any other belief where they're certain based on a proper justification.

There is no way I could possibly explain or convince many that the communication from God to me is real. I have learned after several years on this site that that ain't gonna happen.

In any other context, when someone can't give a good explanation for how they justify their position, I would take this as a sign that their position probably isn't justified. Is there any reason I shouldn't do this when theists tell me they can't give a good explanation for their belief?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are creating a straw man by leaving out (on purpose?) the effects of selection on the evolution and origin of species.



Again, it's not chance alone that's involved in evolution. It's chance plus selection.

I'm curious, Guy. Do you always make such intellectually sloppy arguments? If so, that's practically trolling because you are quite obviously too smart to do so by accident. Then again, I seldom read your posts because I'm almost always disappointed in their intellectual standards. Serious question: Are your posts always so sloppy? Or just the few I read?

clearly you must be intellectually superior, because people who make a point of continually declaring that, must be right!


evolution? there are lots of threads about that.. this one is about evidence for god(s)-

So I'm assuming this is just a rare lapse, in your otherwise superior intellectual standards

 

[Paradox22]

I'm not sure why you put it terms of a bar and then opine that it is set low. God likes holiness and from this holiness flows justice and righteousness.

The other weird thing I wanted to talk with you about was:

Funny picture. We all need a reminder once in awhile, not to take ourselves TOO seriously.
Thanks!

I think he is ready to explode because he likes the cute Young Earth Creationist sitting next to him.

 

[Sunstone]

clearly you must be intellectually superior, because people who make a point of continually declaring that, must be right!

I wasn't presuming to know more than that your own posts are often so intellectually sloppy. Of course, it's sloppy to accuse me of anything more than that.

evolution? there are lots of threads about that.. this one is about evidence for god(s)-

So I'm assuming this is just a rare lapse, in your otherwise superior intellectual standards

My mistake. I assumed when you referenced "ID", the notion of a designer, and so forth, that you might be including evolution in all of that. Looks like I made a mistake.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

It seems if you want something bad enough you might well lower your standards to get it.

 

[PureX]

Why would you believe anything without evidence?

For the positive value derived from doing so.

And since virtually anything is 'possible' it means that you'd have to believe in virtually everything, even diametrically opposed concepts. Sounds like a terribly unreliable means of determining truth.

Only those that are likely, and are likely to effect us, matter to us. Only those that pose an effect bear reasonable consideration.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The other weird thing I wanted to talk with you about was:

I'm trying hard to resist the temptation to just dismiss theists in general as irrational loons. The best way I see to not go down that road is to talk through the things that are pushing me to that conclusion. Do you have any better ideas?

 

[Skwim]

The old analogy- rocks on the deserted island beach spelling 'help', you deduce an intelligent agent despite there being no direct evidence, because the mere possibility clears the bar far better than the random action of the waves.

i.e. you would have to actively rule out ID here to a practically impossible degree before chance actually becomes the more probable explanation, and we simply don't have any basis to do that for God

And perhaps we and our world are the last gasps of a long dead being. Your god is gone.

.

.

 

[sayak83]

It has been a proven fact, that it wouldn't matter how much evidence there is, unto which there is evidence in the supportive of Christ Jesus
But yet it's the Same O, Same O, thing with Atheists, can you prove this or that.
It doesn't matter how much evidence to a Atheist you will have, They will still refuse to accept the evidence provided.

You can produce all the evidence that the Bridge is out, but Atheist will still refuse the evidence that the bridge is out, even when they walk across and fall through.
All the while yelling back to you, You have No evidence the bridge is out, where's your evidence.

I don't think you have any however since from the Bible prophecy thread fiasco, it's unclear to most if you understand the concept of evidence at all.