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
31-01-2014, 05:44 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2014 07:49 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 04:25 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I would propose that existence is the best evidence you can obtain for the possibility of a creator.
And i would precisely propose that the existence is the best evidence AGAINST a creator with seemingly chaotic and random universe we have i think its safe to conclude that there is no sentient alien being who popped everything into existence.
Quote:atheism shows a lack of consideration and the desire for soft targets.
"Atheism" is nothing but a lack of belief if you don't believe in God or Gods you're an "A"theist.
Quote:Unless you assert the potentially false premise of naturalism
pfft HA HA FALSE ?? Wtf do you mean by "potentially false" premise ? natural world is the ONLY world we can observe and interact with thus it is the ONLY logical premise you can ever have.
Quote:logic does nothing of the sort.
Lack of evidence = No God

And Occam's Razor cuts off the idea of God altogether as it makes too many baseless assumptions.

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes IndianAtheist's post
31-01-2014, 06:29 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
I'm coming to this thread after 22 pages so I don't know if this has been said yet but a good start would be actually having some evidence. The question is worded in such a way that it implies that there is already evidence for a creator and that atheists have so far rejected it. But assuming we have a higher standard of evidence than people who could also claim Gandalf exists, there has not yet been any evidence of any kind for a creator.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 07:36 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2014 08:24 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 03:56 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Yes, I should pretend that the riddle of existence is about to be answered. What exactly are you doing in aid of keeping the doors open (AKA constant cognitive questioning) and why is this of any benefit to anyone?

I would love to hear why you think I have no position. I criticise other people's positions as I disagree, if this makes you sad or angry, life is always going to a struggle for you.

What is of "benefit" to someone (Utilitarianism) is irrelevant. You don't get to make up shit because you find it useful or convenient.

You actually have no coherently intelligent position on anything. Life is not a "struggle" for me. Yet even MORE bullshit projection. As such, what you disagree with, is irrelevant, as your pathetic position is not worked out in any intelligent way. All you do is CONSTANTLY project the OLD, same old hackneyed TRIPE onto others you don't know, as you NEED to, to maintain YOUR OWN cognitive closure. I get impatient with bullshit. You have nothing BUT bullshit.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post
31-01-2014, 08:06 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Bucky has the Ball Smile

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 08:50 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 03:43 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

... and yet despite applying different labels to yourself and espousing somewhat different epistemology you seem to share the lack of belief. You seem to have come to the conclusion that you don't currently have a god belief.

Am I correct in my understanding based on your comments in the other thread? If so, how do you come by your lack of belief?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
31-01-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 01:41 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Who says there's any such thing as objective moral values?

There is such a thing as accepted moral values. But objective?

The idea of "objective moral values" is an apologetic construction designed to buttress the argument for God. We recognize there is no such thing as "objective moral values," especially when tied to a God, when we observe that no God (or god) holds values that we today accept as moral. Not the gods of Greece. They're a mess. Egypt? Please. Islam? Values, yes. Moral, no. Christianity and Judaism? Are you out of your bleeping mind? Yahweh is a moral monster.

The notion that "God" gives us a basis for objective moral values presumes the existence of objective moral values. Moral values are not objective. They are developed and passed on from one generation to the next. They rely on man to make observations and draw conclusions.

If the existence of God gives us a basis for objective moral values, then I demand to know where this list of objective moral values is located and where it is connected by evidence to any God.

I am quoting TwoCultSurvivor, but really this a response to everyone else who posted on page 18 about this.

You guys all seem to have entirely missed what I was saying and my use of the term "objective moral values". I am particularly stunned by the responses especially because they came when I was talking specifically about the reasons why someone would want to look for evidence of the existence of a non-interventionist creator. And, then I get a bunch of responses about a plethora of interventionist Gods (Christian, Muslim, etc). Seriously, did you guys even read my post before responding?!

Objective moral values can exist without needing to be written down in a book. My personal conception of "objective moral values" is that they exist and that we have the capacity to figure out what those are through our intelligence/reason and the evidence. We may disagree in some circumstance as to what those objective moral values are in any given situation, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there is a moral right answer.

If you don't agree with me, fine, and if you don't agree with the existence of a deity in the first place (IndianAtheist), fine, but the point of the post was not to argue about those things. The point of the post was simply to answer the question that was asked of me, as to why anyone would want to look for evidence of a non-interventionist creator.

Oh, and don't think that I haven't noticed the fact that no one has even tried to come up with an answer to the question I posed to you guys (ie. What evidence would an atheist require to believe in the existence of a non-interventionist creator (or alternatively, a creator who didn't want to spoon-feed the world the answer to the question of his existence)?). I guess it is easier to bash my beliefs than to think about the rational basis for your own. Nice attempted dodge!

(30-01-2014 02:06 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 10:35 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  as probably my most core belief if that the creator gave me intelligence and reason
...

I quick overview of the mechanism and process for that occurrence would be useful.

Thanks.

I can wait. Take your time.

I would classify myself as a classical deist, here's a definition if it helps:

A classical deist believes that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a first-cause creator who has intelligence and will. That creator created the universe with purpose. Although, that creator does not intervene in the universe, he does care about his creation. Includes a belief in an afterlife.

Essentially, think of the creator as the perfect watch maker. Once the watch maker puts the watch together, the watch runs on its own without the need for further intervention. The watch maker can check that watch at 2pm and he knows it will say 2pm. He doesn't need to continually tinker with the watch, because that fact that the watch will display at 2pm at that time was an inevitable result of the initial conditions with which the watch was created.

The universe is obviously much more complicated than a watch, but that's ok because any being capable of creating such a universe would also be much more powerful than a watch maker. Also, any being capable of creating a working universe (ie. one that doesn't collapse in on itself and ends up actually resulting in the evolution of life) is likely also to be incredibly intelligent. In fact, the margin for error for those initial conditions to result in a universe that could sustain life is so incomprehensibly small that the creator must be incomprehensibly intelligent (or incomprehensibly lucky) to have created a universe that could produce life.

If we work from that basis, it also seems likely that a creator that intelligent must have intended for life to exist on this rock flying through the cosmos approximately 6 billion years after he set everything in motion (due to the unbelievably precise initial conditions required to result in that outcome). He also would know that the human race would evolve to have the level of intelligence that we have evolved to possess.

In that way, I propose that the creator gave humankind intelligence and reason intentionally. I would also assume that a creator like that would not give humankind intelligence and reason, and then expect us to base our beliefs on blind faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 12:18 PM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2014 09:52 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
edit : total waste of time.
All this shit has been debunked countless times, countless places.
Notlookingforanswers has no basic education in any relevant topic.
Moral values were 100% produced by Evolution. There no question about that.
The rest is a "god of the gaps" presuppositionalist exercise.
How life probably developed is known to science, (and multiple scenarios have been proposed). Obviously this ignorant dude has no background in the relevant subjects.

(31-01-2014 12:11 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  If we work from that basis, it also seems likely that a creator that intelligent must have intended for life to exist on this rock flying through the cosmos approximately 6 billion years after he set everything in motion (due to the unbelievably precise initial conditions required to result in that outcome). He also would know that the human race would evolve to have the level of intelligence that we have evolved to possess.

Actually if you had any level of science education you would know that's the LEAST likely scenario.
Let us know when YOU have a Nobel.



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
31-01-2014, 12:28 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
So your basic argument is that humans exist therefore we must have been created.

I would suggest that given the incredible length of time required and the flawed nature of that creators creation, it is not much of a watch maker or human maker. I might ask also about some of the sub-species such as Neanderthal who are genetically very similar to modern man but were physically very different. Did this creator throw them away as a flawed part of the design.

You have created the sort of circular argument that drives most atheists crazy. One cannot argue against a belief that posits its own truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 12:11 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Oh, and don't think that I haven't noticed the fact that no one has even tried to come up with an answer to the question I posed to you guys (ie. What evidence would an atheist require to believe in the existence of a non-interventionist creator (or alternatively, a creator who didn't want to spoon-feed the world the answer to the question of his existence)?). I guess it is easier to bash my beliefs than to think about the rational basis for your own. Nice attempted dodge!

Well, since you went to the trouble of using bold font...

"I don't know" is much preferred to your assumptions and wishful thinking. You should try it, instead of making up what you think a creator of all space and time would be like. And you are making it up.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like guitar_nut's post
31-01-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 12:11 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  You guys all seem to have entirely missed what I was saying and my use of the term "objective moral values". I am particularly stunned by the responses especially because they came when I was talking specifically about the reasons why someone would want to look for evidence of the existence of a non-interventionist creator. And, then I get a bunch of responses about a plethora of interventionist Gods (Christian, Muslim, etc). Seriously, did you guys even read my post before responding?!

When multiple people express what you see as misunderstanding you, consider the possibility that you didn't communicate it well, rather than assuming everyone else is an idiot.

There are two problems:
1. What does "objective moral values" even mean?
2. How could a noninterventionist god communicate such values?

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: