"Stop asking for evidence for God"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2014, 11:52 AM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  I recently heard this argument the other day… Help?


"If God created reality, He cannot be separate from it. He did not create this part of reality over here, but not that one over there. He created all of reality. That being the case, he cannot be separate from reality.
Now let's examine the word evidence. Evidence is evidence of "something specific" as opposed to everything else. If I give you proof that this fruit is an apple, is because its different from an orange.
If they were not separate and different, I will not be able to provide evidence of one or the other. That is how science works. It categorizes and differentiates. But you cannot separate God momentarily from reality in order to provide evidence specifically for Him as opposed to everything else. If you could be able to, then it would not be God.
God cannot be proved through the methods of science. Does this mean that that making a claim for God is unjustified ? Of course not.
There are many things that exist but cannot be proven through scientific method. A basic one is consciousness. You cannot prove consciousness. You must assume it, because you must be conscious while you do those other scientific experiments.
Another example is mathematics. You can use those cool second degree differential equations to provide some complex proofs.
But it will all be dependent on mathematical axioms, which cannot be proven but have to be assumed.
So asking for empirical evidence of God is absurd. knowledge of spirituality must come through existential ways. So when you ask for empirical evidence for the spiritual, it means you don't know what you're talking about.
This should put that silly " evidence" question to rest once and for all."



Sounds… circular.

Take the word "God" in this argument and replace it with "Allah" or " Yahweh" or "Frank" and see if it still makes sense.

Or, maybe the reality is humans make up gods and falsely believe in them.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
20-08-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
The entire 'argument' hinges on the presupposition that a god exists in the first place.

This is known as an unsupported assertion.

More technically, it is known as 'affirming the consequent'.

The argument is fallacious from the first word to the last.

(20-08-2014 10:20 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  then you're probably dealing with some presuppositional bullshit.


No 'probably' about it. It is definite presuppositional bullshit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Simon Moon's post
20-08-2014, 01:50 PM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
The idea of God is tied into existential reasons for believing, I think you are approaching it philosophically, that isn't necessary, approach it according to behavioural psychology.

People believe in God for a number of reasons, I can point out a few off the top of my dome but I'm sure there are others; the finality of death is comforted by the idea of continuation in some form, it helps to have a universal profoundness transcending life and death. In terms of promoting morality the philosophical development of God comes into play as a mechanism of justice to weigh the perspective "good" and "bad" of a person, and the proportionate quality of life after death as both a scare and bribe tactic.

Another reason is what I call "surreal aloneness" or "existential isolation" where even if you are in a crowded room you exist separated from it in your head, so people love the idea that we are connected on some conscious level, to each other, to everything. These are some basic reasons for the belief itself, but chalk it down to fears and desires, as humans we have a connotative perspective that provokes these impulses, so the key is not philosophy, it is discipline over impulses.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 01:57 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2014 02:02 PM by Ray Butler.)
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
Technically it is philosophical capacity that provokes the need to believe in the first place, but granted certain philosophical ideas can assist in the process of discipline, but discipline doesn't have to be absolute, nor do I think that is even possible, it just has to be adequate enough to liberate clarity of thought at will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 02:12 PM (This post was last modified: 20-08-2014 02:21 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
(20-08-2014 01:50 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  The idea of God is tied into existential reasons for believing, I think you are approaching it philosophically, that isn't necessary, approach it according to behavioural psychology.

People believe in God for a number of reasons, I can point out a few off the top of my dome but I'm sure there are others; the finality of death is comforted by the idea of continuation in some form, it helps to have a universal profoundness transcending life and death. In terms of promoting morality the philosophical development of God comes into play as a mechanism of justice to weigh the perspective "good" and "bad" of a person, and the proportionate quality of life after death as both a scare and bribe tactic.

Another reason is what I call "surreal aloneness" or "existential isolation" where even if you are in a crowded room you exist separated from it in your head, so people love the idea that we are connected on some conscious level, to each other, to everything. These are some basic reasons for the belief itself, but chalk it down to fears and desires, as humans we have a connotative perspective that provokes these impulses, so the key is not philosophy, it is discipline over impulses.

So some people find some psychological comfort or utility in the belief, is what you're saying?

I'm okay with that, so long as certain boundaries and caveats are acknowledged and respected.

Caveat: If faith comes at the cost of degrading critical thinking or reasoning capacity in general, simply by a practice of not engaging them... which it can, though it doesn't always... then there is a severe damage in utility which must be acknowledged, and weighed against any benefit.

Caveat: If it becomes difficult to maintain the belief without suffering cognitive dissonance, guilt, and other psychological consequences, then it is time to abandon that belief. It is no longer serving its purpose.

Caveat: That a belief might be comforting or useful, does not in itself make that belief true.

Boundary: Your right to psychological comfort or utility does not extend into the sphere of public policy or practice. It gives you no grounds to prevent gays from marrying, or to demand that people wishing to speak to the city council must first sit through an official prayer. It gives you no special access, standing, exemption, or protection from the government beyond what is enjoyed by all. Under no conditions is it grounds for sending one nation to war with another.

Boundary: I do not have the same psychological needs as you. I may personally find more comfort or utility in NOT believing in the same thing which you find comforting or useful to believe in. If I say stop pushing it on me, then stop pushing it on me. No means no. Recognize, also, that your CHILDREN may have different psychological needs as you. If comfort and utility are your sole reason for believing, please do a frank evaluation of whether it will serve them as well as it serves you, or if it serves them at all. Do not automatically assume that they will benefit from it the same way you believe you are benefiting from it, any more than you would assume that they would benefit from one of your prescription drugs.

Boundary: Your right to psychological comfort or utility does not amount to a carte blanche to harm others. It is not grounds for violence or discrimination against people of different beliefs, races, or... well, anyone. It is not grounds for neglecting a child's medical needs, employing abusive means of indoctrinating children, or sexually mutilating children.

If these caveats and boundaries are respected (and they can be, and often are, but sometimes aren't, and I wish there weren't people out there that make these caveats and boundaries necessary, but there are), then I can coexist with your faith, even if I might disagree with it on a factual level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
(20-08-2014 02:12 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(20-08-2014 01:50 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  The idea of God is tied into existential reasons for believing, I think you are approaching it philosophically, that isn't necessary, approach it according to behavioural psychology.

People believe in God for a number of reasons, I can point out a few off the top of my dome but I'm sure there are others; the finality of death is comforted by the idea of continuation in some form, it helps to have a universal profoundness transcending life and death. In terms of promoting morality the philosophical development of God comes into play as a mechanism of justice to weigh the perspective "good" and "bad" of a person, and the proportionate quality of life after death as both a scare and bribe tactic.

Another reason is what I call "surreal aloneness" or "existential isolation" where even if you are in a crowded room you exist separated from it in your head, so people love the idea that we are connected on some conscious level, to each other, to everything. These are some basic reasons for the belief itself, but chalk it down to fears and desires, as humans we have a connotative perspective that provokes these impulses, so the key is not philosophy, it is discipline over impulses.

So some people find some psychological comfort or utility in the belief, is what you're saying?

I'm okay with that, so long as certain boundaries and caveats are acknowledged and respected.

Caveat: If faith comes at the cost of degrading critical thinking or reasoning capacity in general, simply by a practice of not engaging them... which it can, though it doesn't always... then there is a severe damage in utility which must be acknowledged, and weighed against any benefit.

Caveat: If it becomes difficult to maintain the belief without suffering cognitive dissonance, guilt, and other psychological consequences, then it is time to abandon that belief. It is no longer serving its purpose.

Caveat: That a belief might be comforting or useful, does not in itself make that belief true.

Boundary: Your right to psychological comfort or utility does not extend into the sphere of public policy or practice. It gives you no grounds to prevent gays from marrying, or to demand that people wishing to speak to the city council must first sit through an official prayer. It gives you no special access, standing, exemption, or protection from the government beyond what is enjoyed by all.

Boundary: I do not have the same psychological needs as you. I may personally find more comfort or utility in NOT believing in the same thing which you find comforting or useful to believe in. If I say stop pushing it on me, then stop pushing it on me. No means no. Recognize, also, that your CHILDREN may have different psychological needs as you. If comfort and utility are your sole reason for believing, please do a frank evaluation of whether it will serve them as well as it serves you, or if it serves them at all. Do not automatically assume that they will benefit from it the same way you believe you are benefiting from it, any more than you would assume that they would benefit from one of your prescription drugs.

Boundary: Your right to psychological comfort or utility does not amount to a carte blanche to harm others. It is not grounds for violence or discrimination against people of different beliefs, races, or... well, anyone. It is not grounds for neglecting a child's medical needs, employing abusive means of indoctrinating of children, or sexually mutilating children.

If these caveats and boundaries are respected (and they can be, and often are, but sometimes aren't, and I wish there weren't people out there that make these caveats and boundaries necessary, but there are), then I can coexist with your faith, even if I might disagree with it.

I agree with your summary. I was more going for a Spartan approach to belief; where attaining that liberation in clarity of thought by discipline of impulses is the only justification for philosophical relevance, it is a case of quality versus quantity; the best ways to achieve that psychological state may well be too philosophically complex for a typical person, due to will and ability to process it, so more efficient options are preferable.

But in my opinion the best way also happens to be the most Spartan, and that is simply being aware of how we are being subjected to our internal impulses, and the ego to defy it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 12:09 AM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
It sounds like to me that he is trying to say that you can only prove god by believing in him because you need "faith" or non physical evidence to prove him.

That whole argument is special pleading.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 02:18 AM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
(21-08-2014 12:09 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  It sounds like to me that he is trying to say that you can only prove god by believing in him because you need "faith" or non physical evidence to prove him.

That whole argument is special pleading.

You don't need faith to believe in God. We can know God exists through the impossibility of the contrary.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 02:19 AM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
Mmmmm I think ill have some words with that salad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
21-08-2014, 03:05 AM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
(21-08-2014 02:18 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 12:09 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  It sounds like to me that he is trying to say that you can only prove god by believing in him because you need "faith" or non physical evidence to prove him.

That whole argument is special pleading.

You don't need faith to believe in God. We can know God exists through the impossibility of the contrary.

wat

Atheism is the only way to truly be free from sin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: