What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 03:26 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 02:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Such as in the practical application, how vague.
You want me to be more specific? Very well then. The scientific method is an integral part of the philosophies I have mentioned earlier in this thread and it has proven itself to be the most effective tool we currently have for gathering knowledge about our universe in a reliable and objective manner. Every scientific discovery, every new invention, every technological development is further evidence to support the view that pragmatism, and with that, empiricism and methodological naturalism are useful in practical applications.

Of course, that is not to say that other epistemological philosophies don't have their own uses. Rationalism, for instance, can be useful in theoretical areas such as in mathematics

I don't see how pragmatism would be useful in regard to addressing the possible existence of a deity, as it appears you will need to apply either empiricism or rationalism to ultimately rationalise your perspective in this instance.

I'm a rationalist but don't deny, in fact I endorse it, that an empirical approach towards our understanding of the universe and our physical reality is the best method we have. It's when we transcend this use of the empirical approach towards empiricism is where, I deviate towards rationalism.

(30-01-2014 03:26 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 02:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I don't think anyone is in the position to assess a suitable epistemology for anyone else.
As it happens, I have never attempted to do anything remotely similar. I have repeatedly stressed the point that I am merely stating my own assessment, in fact.

I never said you did. I realise that you're applying your own assessment, that's what everyone does. It's inherent and as such, does not need to be stated. Much like your assessment of my assessment, and so on.

(30-01-2014 03:26 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 02:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Your comment implies otherwise.
No, it doesn't. You see, it's quite easy to make blanket assertions without ever substantiating them; anyone can do it.
Everyone does do it, I'm unsure why you believe you've absolved yourself from this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 04:25 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 04:24 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 02:47 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you don't know what the evidence is,stating that the lack of evidence is an invalid premise
That's not an invalid premise -_- what's the evidence? some ancient books and some asinine superstitious myths? that's the best "evidence" i've encountered on the subject of GAWD.
I would propose that existence is the best evidence you can obtain for the possibility of a creator. Depending on the bible etc to conclude atheism shows a lack of consideration and the desire for soft targets.

Quote:Logic dictates that there is a lack of evidence for any God.
Unless you assert the potentially false premise of naturalism, logic does nothing of the sort. I would be interested to see how you can justify this without having a leap of faith in something.


Quote:You're free to assume that God Exists and parrot nonsensical "personal testimonies" but that IS NOT evidence for God. that is bullshit and i can see right through that.
Yes people are free to believe that. How is this relevant to what we're discussing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 09:17 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 02:47 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you don't know what the evidence is, stating that the lack of evidence is an invalid premise, as you don't know what you're lacking.

As I've stated earlier, which I believe you ignored (correct me if I'm wrong), if you believe that your God is all powerful, all knowing, everywhere and anywhere, etc... etc... then pointing out that we don't know of any evidence is a valid point. If he can do anything and knows everything, then he would not be limited by human intelligence. After all, you believe he designed it right?
I remember someone comparing God to a programmer, the universe as a program and humans as the subject in said program. So I'll use this analogy to, once again, explain my concept:
Any good programmer can make the subjects of his program do whatever he wants. He is never limited by the script in which he made. He can always edit or revise any parameters (aka our "intellect") as he chooses.
Now, in order for it to be "perfect", he wouldn't need to edit or revise anything. So he would've preprogrammed a "back door" so to speak to where he undeniable.
So the fact that no one person can wholly agree on everything in the Bible, or if there is actually any evidence at all, shows that your version of God is not real.

It's hard to address a perspective I don't hold. I don't dismiss the concept of a creator, the biblical god is something I don't believe in or rather the religion is something I don't believe to be true.

I see no reason to believe that the human faculties possess the ability to accurately assess the existence or non-existence of a creator. And unless it's proven that we possess these abilities, or a self referential system is plausible I won't depend on an incomplete or unobtainable evidence to rationalise my view. The best tools we possess to assess the existing physical around us, will never transcend into a foundation for a position which appears to be common amongst atheists. So why should I be expected to hold that evidence is relevant in this discussion?

Given the variation and highly subjective nature of what would be deemed to be acceptable evidence, I have no idea why this dependence on the lack of evidence results in a lack of belief. I would have more respect for a position, which claims there is no god as x. The philosophical pretence of holding a lack of belief ultimately means nothing, as appears as a semantic dodge to the unconverted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 04:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 09:17 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  As I've stated earlier, which I believe you ignored (correct me if I'm wrong), if you believe that your God is all powerful, all knowing, everywhere and anywhere, etc... etc... then pointing out that we don't know of any evidence is a valid point. If he can do anything and knows everything, then he would not be limited by human intelligence. After all, you believe he designed it right?
I remember someone comparing God to a programmer, the universe as a program and humans as the subject in said program. So I'll use this analogy to, once again, explain my concept:
Any good programmer can make the subjects of his program do whatever he wants. He is never limited by the script in which he made. He can always edit or revise any parameters (aka our "intellect") as he chooses.
Now, in order for it to be "perfect", he wouldn't need to edit or revise anything. So he would've preprogrammed a "back door" so to speak to where he undeniable.
So the fact that no one person can wholly agree on everything in the Bible, or if there is actually any evidence at all, shows that your version of God is not real.

It's hard to address a perspective I don't hold. I don't dismiss the concept of a creator, the biblical god is something I don't believe in or rather the religion is something I don't believe to be true.

I see no reason to believe that the human faculties possess the ability to accurately assess the existence or non-existence of a creator. And unless it's proven that we possess these abilities, or a self referential system is plausible I won't depend on an incomplete or unobtainable evidence to rationalise my view. The best tools we possess to assess the existing physical around us, will never transcend into a foundation for a position which appears to be common amongst atheists. So why should I be expected to hold that evidence is relevant in this discussion?

Given the variation and highly subjective nature of what would be deemed to be acceptable evidence, I have no idea why this dependence on the lack of evidence results in a lack of belief. I would have more respect for a position, which claims there is no god as x. The philosophical pretence of holding a lack of belief ultimately means nothing, as appears as a semantic dodge to the unconverted.

My reply only held the assumption that your God (whatever interpretation) was all all powerful, all knowing, etc...

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 05:14 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2014 05:18 PM by Chas.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 04:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 09:17 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  As I've stated earlier, which I believe you ignored (correct me if I'm wrong), if you believe that your God is all powerful, all knowing, everywhere and anywhere, etc... etc... then pointing out that we don't know of any evidence is a valid point. If he can do anything and knows everything, then he would not be limited by human intelligence. After all, you believe he designed it right?
I remember someone comparing God to a programmer, the universe as a program and humans as the subject in said program. So I'll use this analogy to, once again, explain my concept:
Any good programmer can make the subjects of his program do whatever he wants. He is never limited by the script in which he made. He can always edit or revise any parameters (aka our "intellect") as he chooses.
Now, in order for it to be "perfect", he wouldn't need to edit or revise anything. So he would've preprogrammed a "back door" so to speak to where he undeniable.
So the fact that no one person can wholly agree on everything in the Bible, or if there is actually any evidence at all, shows that your version of God is not real.

It's hard to address a perspective I don't hold. I don't dismiss the concept of a creator, the biblical god is something I don't believe in or rather the religion is something I don't believe to be true.

I see no reason to believe that the human faculties possess the ability to accurately assess the existence or non-existence of a creator. And unless it's proven that we possess these abilities, or a self referential system is plausible I won't depend on an incomplete or unobtainable evidence to rationalise my view. The best tools we possess to assess the existing physical around us, will never transcend into a foundation for a position which appears to be common amongst atheists. So why should I be expected to hold that evidence is relevant in this discussion?

Given the variation and highly subjective nature of what would be deemed to be acceptable evidence, I have no idea why this dependence on the lack of evidence results in a lack of belief. I would have more respect for a position, which claims there is no god as x. The philosophical pretence of holding a lack of belief ultimately means nothing, as appears as a semantic dodge to the unconverted.

You keep expressing that same view, that lack of evidence is not a basis for non-belief.

Believe me, we've heard you. I don't believe you have convinced anyone here that that position is correct.

And, yes, unintelligent people seem to see it as a 'dodge'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 05:18 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2014 05:23 PM by Brownshirt.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 05:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 04:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  It's hard to address a perspective I don't hold. I don't dismiss the concept of a creator, the biblical god is something I don't believe in or rather the religion is something I don't believe to be true.

I see no reason to believe that the human faculties possess the ability to accurately assess the existence or non-existence of a creator. And unless it's proven that we possess these abilities, or a self referential system is plausible I won't depend on an incomplete or unobtainable evidence to rationalise my view. The best tools we possess to assess the existing physical around us, will never transcend into a foundation for a position which appears to be common amongst atheists. So why should I be expected to hold that evidence is relevant in this discussion?

Given the variation and highly subjective nature of what would be deemed to be acceptable evidence, I have no idea why this dependence on the lack of evidence results in a lack of belief. I would have more respect for a position, which claims there is no god as x. The philosophical pretence of holding a lack of belief ultimately means nothing, as appears as a semantic dodge to the unconverted.

You keep expressing that same view, that lack of evidence is not a basis for non-belief.

Believe me, we've heard you. I don't believe you have convinced anyone here that that position is correct.

There's as much chance that I convince you, as you convince me.

So intelligent people believe that it's not a dodge,
you believe it's not a dodge
therefore you're intelligent.

You say nothing each time, you're similar to tourette's without the occasional "fuck" chucked in there.

Given your position consists of "cannot see" > "not believe", I wouldn't call this Harvard material.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 05:21 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 04:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I see no reason to believe that the human faculties possess the ability to accurately assess the existence or non-existence of a creator. And unless it's proven that we possess these abilities, or a self referential system is plausible I won't depend on an incomplete or unobtainable evidence to rationalise my view.

...is a self referential system, really less plausible than the alternative...which would be a system of infinite references?

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 05:29 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 05:18 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 05:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  You keep expressing that same view, that lack of evidence is not a basis for non-belief.

Believe me, we've heard you. I don't believe you have convinced anyone here that that position is correct.

There's as much chance that I convince you, as you convince me.

So intelligent people believe that it's not a dodge,
you believe it's not a dodge
therefore you're intelligent.

You say nothing each time, you're similar to tourette's without the occasional "fuck" chucked in there.

Given your position consists of "cannot see" > "not believe", I wouldn't call this Harvard material.

I made no attempt in that post to convince you. The implication was that it is tedious that you keep repeating it ad nauseum.

You misrepresent my position. The position is "lack of evidence" -> "lack of belief".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 05:21 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 04:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I see no reason to believe that the human faculties possess the ability to accurately assess the existence or non-existence of a creator. And unless it's proven that we possess these abilities, or a self referential system is plausible I won't depend on an incomplete or unobtainable evidence to rationalise my view.

...is a self referential system, really less plausible than the alternative...which would be a system of infinite references?

There is one other. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 05:41 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 05:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 05:18 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Given your position consists of "cannot see" > "not believe", I wouldn't call this Harvard material.

You misrepresent my position. The position is "lack of evidence" -> "lack of belief".

There's a difference?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: