On 13 Oct, 19:20, Al Klein <ruk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> You present objective evidence of the objective existence of a god -
> >> any god - and there'll be very few atheists left.
>
> >I wouldn't make assumptions on that score.
>
> It's not an assumption - I'm merely compressing a few decades worth of
> statements BY atheists into one sentence.
It is an assumption. There is wild variation in regard to the
standard of proof that would be accepted - and in the case of some,
whose atheism is perhaps not based merely on a lack of belief but on
an active opposition to the very concept and a contempt for those who
*do* believe, I cannot imagine any evidence being accepted, for
reasons I've stated.
> >After all, there is plenty of objective evidence for evolution
>
> Like the fact that it occurs.
Yes, just like that.
> >yet it is still rejected by some Christian fundamentalists.
>
> The fundamentalist distortion that they call evolution is rejected by
> fundamentalists - and by scientists. Fundamentalists don't reject
> evolution, they just claim that what science defines the word to mean
> isn't what it means.
That's because they don't know or care what it really is. It's not
real, scientific evolutionary theory that they're railing against:
it's 'evolution', whatever it means to them. They're not going to sit
and listen to a lecture on evolutionary concepts so that they can
check and make sure they're rejecting it based on the correct
information. That's precisely my point: they aren't going to *****s
the subject objectively because they don't feel objective about it.
Similarly, there are no doubt many millions of atheists who, if
presented with *objective* evidence for the existence of God or gods,
would, as you say, accept the idea. Under those cir***stances it
would be reasonable to do so, and unreasonable not to. But
unfortunately, not all atheists are reasonable. There would certainly
be those who for whatever reason could not bring themselves to change
their views, and would instead explain away the evidence - just as the
more determined Face on Mars advocates explained away the MGS images.
> No, it's rooted in stupidity. No biologist, atheist or
> fundamentalist, rejects the process science calls 'evolution'. You're
> using the fundamentalist definition of the word, and scientists will
> tell you that this form of 'evolution' (monkeys turning into men, fish
> turning into birds) can't happen.
They won't have to tell me that, because I already know. Don't rush
to lump me in with the anti-evolutionists just because you don't agree
with the point I'm making.
It would be pointless to use an objective, scientific definition of
evolution if I'm discussing the views of fundamentalists, because, as
I said above, they aren't interested in making sure they're rejecting
the *right* definition: it's the word, and what it means to *them*,
that they loath so much. It's nothing to do with whether it's good
science or not - they only know they have to destroy it.
> >And it's not just the religious, either. Take our friendly resident
> >conspiracy theorists: the 9/11 'Truth' movement, or those determined
> >that the British royal family had Diana killed.
>
> They're all opinions, since not all the facts have been released.
Haven't they? Why do you say so? What facts about 9/11 do you think
have been withheld? What facts about Diana have been withheld? The
conspiracy theorists tell us that evidence has been suppressed; but is
that because they know it *has*, or is it because it's evidence that
would - if it were ever released - supposedly prove their favoured
conspiracy theory?
> All known facts about evolution have 'been released'. No facts about
any
> god have ever been released - because there aren't any.
Again, you'll notice you get no argument from me on this point.
> If there are alternate explanations, sure. However, if an omniscient
> omnipotent god exists, he'd be able to appear in such manner that
> there are no alternate explanations.
Do you think so? I'm not so sure. Given that, biologically speaking,
our very perception of the universe around us is dependent on the
proper operation of the complicated squishy gubbins inside our skulls,
I wouldn't be too quick to decide that any experience couldn't
possibly have any alternative explanation - especially if it's
something so incredibly out of the ordinary as the actual revelation
of a god.
> You can't 'recognize evidence' that doesn't objectively exist.
Oh, of course you can. If people couldn't do that, then we'd live in
a hive, and everyone would be in agreement about everything. The
reason we *have* discussions, debates, arguments, fights and wars is
because we all see things in different ways. People see evidence for
the superiority of their own position, or their own group or
community, even when there's no such objective evidence to sup****t
that view.
> If there's a god that objectively exists, there's objective evidence
> of that existence.
Your argument here is sailing rather close to trying to prove
something's non-existence - which is notoriously difficult to do. It
is logical and rational to say that because there is no evidence for a
thing there is therefore no cause to accept its existence. That makes
sense. It does not follow that because we cannot see evidence for a
thing's existence, so the thing cannot exist.
All our methods of measuring and testing are confined within the
bounds of our universe as we see it. If I am to be entirely honest
and precise, I can make no firm declarations about what is and what
isn't. I do not even know what the nature of the universe is. What
is real, and what is illusion? I can't truly know. I can see the
measurements and observations provided by scientists and explorers;
and I can accept their conclusions and their models because I have no
specific reason not to do so. But even then, they are as much subject
to the limitations of human perception and reason as I am. I have to
take what they say on at least a little trust - not necessarily trust
in their honesty, but trust in their existence; in their intepretation
of their results; in the operation of the principles on which their
experiments are based.
There is always the possibility that what we see is only a tiny
fraction of what exists, and that our view of the universe could well
be entirely wrong.
You might assume this to be an attempt to argue for the existence of
God. It's not. I simply can't rule out 100% the possibility that the
Abramic God exists. All I can say is that I see no reason why I
personally should recognise Him, and so I don't. But I do acknowledge
that I don't get to make that decision for anyone but me, and that
none of us can know with 100% objective certainty that we're right
about anything.
> Again - if you have any, post it.
I wouldn't try to do so even if I thought I could. I *don't* consider
religion an objective thing, any more than I consider me an objective
thing; so there's no reason for me to try to persuade you of the
existence or non-existence of any particular god.
|
