On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:07:00 -0700, Midjis <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>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.
Okay, I AM assuming - that all the atheists who said they'd become
theists if objective evidence of the objective existence of a god
> There is wild variation in regard to the standard of proof that would
be accepted
"Objective evidence" doesn't allow for "wild variation". It does,
however, eliminate all the crap that's been presented over the past
10,000 years or so.
> - 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.
Atheists are, for the most part, rational - which is what makes them
atheists. If objective evidence is presented, they accept it. To not
accept reality is irrational, and rational people are not irrational
people.
>> >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.
Which is totally irrelevant to the claim that atheists won't accept
objective evidence of a god.
> It's not
>real, scientific evolutionary theory that they're railing against:
>it's 'evolution', whatever it means to them.
You don't understand either 'evolution' or 'theories of evolution'. An
evolutionary theory isn't necessarily a theory ABOUT evolution.
> 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.
But theists WILL look at objective evidence of a god - if anyone ever
presents one.
>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.
Atheism is most often caused by "reason".
>There would certainly
>be those who for whatever reason could not bring themselves to change
>their views, and would instead explain away the evidence
You don't explain away objective evidence, you explain away
assertions. Objective evidence just *is*.
> - just as the
>more determined Face on Mars advocates explained away the MGS images.
That's evidence that there's a surface feature on Mars looks like a
face. So? No one tried to explain that it didn't.
>It would be pointless to use an objective, scientific definition of
>evolution if I'm discussing the views of fundamentalists
We're discussing whether atheists would accept objective evidence of a
god. Whether theists accept evolution or not isn't really relevant.
>> 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 know so - because I know what 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' mean.
That an omniscient omnipotent god is impossible is irrelevant.
>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
Then the god in question isn't omnipotent. You can't have it both
ways - that he can do anything, but he can't make every atheist accept
his existence.
>> You can't 'recognize evidence' that doesn't objectively exist.
>Oh, of course you can.
Not lexically. You can imagine it. You can assert it. But you can't
'recognize' it.
> 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.
That's not recognizing it. Anyone can assert anything. Anyone can
believe anything. But you can only 'recognize' something that
actually exists.
>> 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.
There's no evidence of non-existence. There IS evidence of existence.
>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's not what I said, though. I said that if something DOES
objectively exist, there's objective evidence of that existence.
>That makes
>sense. It does not follow that because we cannot see evidence for a
>thing's existence, so the thing cannot exist.
Again - you're turning what I said around.
However, if someone claims that a god objectively exists, he's
claiming that he HAS objective evidence. (That's what "objectively
exists" means - that the claimant has seen the objective evidence.)
>All our methods of measuring and testing are confined within the
>bounds of our universe as we see it.
Since, for all intents and purposes, that's all that exists.
>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.
Since it's defined as being impossible (an omniscient creator of the
universe that grants free will is impossible, since atem****al
omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive), the possibility is
ruled out. (Impossible things can't exist - that's what the word
means.)
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?
When
has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not
obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"
- Richard Dawkins
|
