On 14 Oct, 04:12, Al Klein <ruk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Okay, I AM assuming - that all the atheists who said they'd become
> theists if objective evidence of the objective existence of a god
Precisely. And despite the ease with which some people bandy around
their demands for 'objective evidence', I think that if the situation
arose you'd see precisely how difficult it is to establish something
objectively. There would, I am very certain, be a great deal of
effort put into explaining away what was seen before some people would
accept that they'd seen God.
> "Objective evidence" doesn't allow for "wild variation".
Perhaps not, viewed objectively. But as I said, it's a matter of
getting everyone to recognise and accept what they're seeing. In
other words, even objective evidence has to be viewed through
subjective perceptions.
> It does,
> however, eliminate all the crap that's been presented over the past
> 10,000 years or so.
Not really, no. Most of the 'crap', as you've pointed out, doesn't
present objective evidence, and doesn't require it. And in some cases
there is objective evidence that denies *some* of the 'crap' - as in
the case of Genesis Creation. But for the most part there is simply
no evidence to sup****t the 'crap'. And as we've discussed already,
absence of evidence... Well, you know the rest. What we have, if we
look solely at the evidence we've got, is 'no reason to believe'.
> Atheists are, for the most part, rational - which is what makes them
> atheists. If objective evidence is presented, they accept it.
In most cases, I'm sure. But you apply generous credit in such a
blanket definition. A rational atheist is one who finds no reason to
believe. A rational atheist is one who, as it might be, would oppose
the imposition of religion-based laws, and so on. But some atheists
go further, and demand the denial of self-expression to those who do
not conform to their viewpoint. That is not rational. Those people
are driven by other things. Some by hate. Some by simple mistrust -
which is the first step on the path to hate. Some - many - by fear.
Which also leads to hate.
Again, this is not all atheists I'm talking about. Not even most, or
many. But some. And those atheists, I'm pretty confident, would not
merely accept it as objective evidence. They wouldn't be able to -
any more than the religious zealots amongst us would accept any
objective evidence you might care to offer that there is no God.
> To not accept reality is irrational, and rational people are not
irrational
> people.
And tall people are not short people. I think that last goes without
saying. But as for reality, well, as I said, the objective has to be
viewed through subjective eyes. And even then, can we be entirely
sure that the objective is indeed what we're seeing?
> >> >After all, there is plenty of objective evidence for evolution
> >> Like the fact that it occurs.
> >That's because [fundamentalists] don't know or care what [evolution]
really is.
>
> Which is totally irrelevant to the claim that atheists won't accept
> objective evidence of a god.
Is it? But what does an atheist think of when someone says 'god'? I
know from experience that some atheists have tended to assume that my
gods are all a bearded father figure sitting in the sky looking down
at His creation and threatening to send me to Hell.
> > 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.
That's why I didn't SAY 'an evolutionary theory'. I said
'evolutionary theory. As in 'the Theory of Evolution'. I've asked
you already to do me the courtesy of not lumping me in with Bible
creationists. If you insist on doing so then you'll only reinforce my
point about certain atheists being unwilling or unable to distinguish
between 'religion' and 'fundamentalist Christianity'.
For the record I understand evolution as well as a non-expert could be
expected to.
> But theists WILL look at objective evidence of a god - if anyone ever
> presents one.
Theists? They already have all the evidence they need. I suspect you
mean atheist. And again, in most cases I'm sure you're right.
> Atheism is most often caused by "reason".
See comments above.
> You don't explain away objective evidence, you explain away
> assertions. Objective evidence just *is*.
Indeed. But there was objective evidence of gravity long before
anyone ever looked at it and defined it as a force of nature. There
was objective evidence of the Sun as a giant ball of light while
people were convinced it was a god's chariot. Objective evidence
might well be, but objective perception isn't.
> 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.
Are you serious? Are you aware of the controversy over that image?
If not, then please say so, because we need to find a better example.
In that case, you should be aware that an image taken of Mars in the
70s had a feature on it that looked a lot like a face. NASA -
inexplicably, in view of the conspiracists' later claims that they
were trying to cover it up - first pointed it out and said "doesn't
this look like a face"? A whole industry swiftly built up, with
thousands of people writing millions of words, mostly drawing
conclusions about the aliens who built the Face. 'Rational' people
vainly attempted to make them see that it was just a rock formation
and some odd sunlight.
A lot of people invested a lot of time in the idea that that Face was
an artificial structure. And when a later probe with a better camera
showed us that it wasn't, most people accepted it. But some didn't.
They continue to insist to this day that the later images are faked -
all part of NASA's evil conspiracy to cover up the Truth.
Because some people, if they're invested in something, won't accept
'objective' evidence - because they don't have an objective perception
to see it through. Call it irrational - it is - but it's true. And
it's why I firmly believe that even in the light of 'objective'
evidence of the existence of gods, there will still be atheists
claiming it's all a theist trick, and accusing their erstwhile kin of
terrible, weak-willed betrayal.
> We're discussing whether atheists would accept objective evidence of a
> god. Whether theists accept evolution or not isn't really relevant.
It's relevant, inasmuch as it highlights the same failing: a
willingness to see what one wishes to see, and explain away what one
doesn't. But this isn't an atheist failing, or a theist failing: it's
a human one.
> I know so - because I know what 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' mean.
> That an omniscient omnipotent god is impossible is irrelevant.
Okay, I'll concede that such a being would be ABLE to do this.
Perhaps I should have asked what reason we have to assume that 'he'
would? It is, after all, the crux of many of Bill's arguments: that
'God' is a jealous god and would want to crush belief in anyone else.
I realise that that's because Bill also assumes that 'religion' equals
'Christianity', and so judges the whole thing on his expectations of
the Christian God. But assuming we're not talking solely about the
Christian God, why would an omni-everything god concern itself with
proving its existence to us? Why would we assume we have such great
im****tance in such a vast universe?
> >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.
See above. Also, a thought occurs that we're assuming that any true
god must be omnipotent. This is no doubt because of the tendency to
make 'Christianity' and 'religion' mean the same thing. So I'm
interested: why do we assume that a god must be an omnipotent being?
After all, the Greeks and the Romans had, say, a god of the oceans,
who had no authority over things on land, or in space, but only those
things in the ocean domain.
> >> 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.
For 'lexically', read 'semantically'. Or possibly 'pedantically'.
You're better than this, Al.
> >> 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.
Precisely. Though it's worth mentioning again that seeing no evidence
of something does not mean that such evidence does not exist - only
that we have not seen it. It follows, therefore, that the most honest
position is to say "I have no reason to believe, because I see no
evidence". "X does not exist because I see no evidence for it" is a
step further, and relies on an assumption.
> That's not what I said, though. I said that if something DOES
> objectively exist, there's objective evidence of that existence.
But not evidence that we can necessarily see at any given moment, and
that's my point. Saying there is no sign of any evidence for a thing
means one can say there is no reason to believe in it. A claim that
the thing does not exist because one cannot see evidence for it is a
little more precarious.
> Again - you're turning what I said around.
If so, then we have no argument. The question is whether you
subscribe to the approach that there is no reason to believe in the
thing, or whether you would claim that the lack of evidence means the
thing does not/cannot exist.
> 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.)
Mm. True. And I'm fine with your objection, as far as it goes: that
you don't see this evidence and therefore have no reason to believe.
But as I said, there're a lot of assumptions in extending that to the
insistence that the thing does not exist.
We can easily dismiss those who hear voices as being mentally ill, of
course. But just as an aside: if a real live god chose to speak into
the mind of one person, and for whatever reason (even perhaps
malicious reasons) did not speak to anyone else, or perhaps used a
selection of false voices, that person would still be dismissed as
insane - even though the god who spoke to him was real.
> >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.
Yes - 'for all intents and purposes'. We don't KNOW that it's all
that exists. We don't even really know what it is. And of course,
closer to home, we don't even really know that what we're seeing is
what's there at all. The 'true' laws of physics outside the bounds of
that universe - or even perhaps elsewhere in it - might be very
strange indeed; even assuming there IS a universe. Am I really
sitting here typing this message? Are you a real person I'm speaking
to? I can't know. 'Cogito ergo sum' is logical, after a fa****on -
but it's still based on assumption. DO I think? What is *I*? What
does 'I am' actually MEAN?
As I said, we can go with the discoveries of science and logic,
because they seem to give us a pretty good way to deal with what
appears to be here. But it's worth bearing in mind that science isn't
omniscient, either - and as a strong science advocate believe me it
takes a LOT to make me say something like that.
> >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.)
Okay - so you you've ruled out That Particular God to *your*
satisfaction. Now go find a follower of That Particular God and rule
it out for them. Use your 'objective evidence of non-existence' to
make them believe as you do. I'll be interested to see how well it
works.
>From a Christian point of view, of course, atem****al omniscience
(*knowing* all things) and free will aren't particularly exclusive, so
long as God didn't decide for us what we were going to do. His simply
knowing what choice we're going to make doesn't affect our making of
it, or our will to choose. And besides, this is without taking into
account the centuries of dispute over what 'free will' actually means.
|
