Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Reason
142 Answers
If an atheist is asked why he has no belief in a supernatural God, he will usually offer a rational reason, but if a believer is asked why he believes in a supernatural god, he has no rational reason at all. How can anyone believe anything without reason?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
When I want a word defined I turn to Chambers Dictionary or other reliable source. Normally these are esoteric words unfamiliar to myself or most, thus requiring clarification. I must confess that the words "God" and "evidence" have never had me reaching for said volume. Must have something to do with my religious upbringing, as I would never dream of asking a fellow ABer to explain the obvious.
We're going to have to stick with supernatural until we agree on its meaning, naomi. The definition I gave came from jomifl's helpful suggestion:
http://
"Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
So, in your opinion naomi, do any supernatural entities currently exist?
http://
"Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
So, in your opinion naomi, do any supernatural entities currently exist?
Ellipsis - “...That's not to say that I don't believe in the possibility of a God. I'm saying 'I don't know'. Are you saying I'm wrong and that you DO know?...”
Sorry to go back to this earlier post of yours but I think it warrants a little more thought than I initially gave it.
If you believe in the possibility of a God then what you're saying is that you're ignoring rationality, reason and logic and simply hedging your bets. Here's a hypothetical situation. Imagine you're a juror in a murder trial. The barrister for the defence presents the following case..
“Members of the jury. My client is not guilty of murder. Even though it has been proven beyond doubt that my client plunged the knife into the victim's head thereby causing his death, my client is not guilty of the crime. Even though the whole event was captured on CCTV and seventeen independent witnesses described my client as having murdered the victim, my client is not guilty of murder. Even though my client was captured and arrested immediately after the event with the murder weapon in his hand and the blood of the victim on his person, my client is not guilty of murder. You may be asking why? The answer is simple yet fantastic. It is also true. My client is not guilty of murder since my client's body was not in his control at the time of the murder. His body at that time was under the control of an alien entity called Xenu. My client's consciousness at that time was inhabiting an alien's body on another planet while he attempted to save the Earth from certain destruction. Once my client had ensured the safety of the Earth, he returned to his real body whereupon he discovered that he had been falsely accused of murdering the victim. I put it to you that my client is wholly innocent of these charges.”
Listening to that utter twaddle, I think it's fair to say that you'd conclude that the accused was guilty of murder. But if we are to follow your rationale, you would conclude that there is a possibility that the accused's story is true since it cannot be disproved. Since the accused's story can neither be proved true or false, would you find him guilty or innocent?
If you find my hypothetical murderer guilty then you are being logical and rational. If you conclude that there is a possibility that he may be telling the truth and therefore innocent, you're disregarding rationality, logic and reason and are instead arriving at a conclusion based on nothing more than a personal need to believe in the possibility of the impossible.
Sorry to go back to this earlier post of yours but I think it warrants a little more thought than I initially gave it.
If you believe in the possibility of a God then what you're saying is that you're ignoring rationality, reason and logic and simply hedging your bets. Here's a hypothetical situation. Imagine you're a juror in a murder trial. The barrister for the defence presents the following case..
“Members of the jury. My client is not guilty of murder. Even though it has been proven beyond doubt that my client plunged the knife into the victim's head thereby causing his death, my client is not guilty of the crime. Even though the whole event was captured on CCTV and seventeen independent witnesses described my client as having murdered the victim, my client is not guilty of murder. Even though my client was captured and arrested immediately after the event with the murder weapon in his hand and the blood of the victim on his person, my client is not guilty of murder. You may be asking why? The answer is simple yet fantastic. It is also true. My client is not guilty of murder since my client's body was not in his control at the time of the murder. His body at that time was under the control of an alien entity called Xenu. My client's consciousness at that time was inhabiting an alien's body on another planet while he attempted to save the Earth from certain destruction. Once my client had ensured the safety of the Earth, he returned to his real body whereupon he discovered that he had been falsely accused of murdering the victim. I put it to you that my client is wholly innocent of these charges.”
Listening to that utter twaddle, I think it's fair to say that you'd conclude that the accused was guilty of murder. But if we are to follow your rationale, you would conclude that there is a possibility that the accused's story is true since it cannot be disproved. Since the accused's story can neither be proved true or false, would you find him guilty or innocent?
If you find my hypothetical murderer guilty then you are being logical and rational. If you conclude that there is a possibility that he may be telling the truth and therefore innocent, you're disregarding rationality, logic and reason and are instead arriving at a conclusion based on nothing more than a personal need to believe in the possibility of the impossible.
birdie, excuse me if I disregard your late night straw man argument while I attempt to answer the OP.
naomi, thanks for the clarification on "supernatural". On to "evidence" then ...
evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Happy with that?
naomi, thanks for the clarification on "supernatural". On to "evidence" then ...
evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Happy with that?
OK, then 50 years ago, did we have evidence that the (at-the-time-unproposed) Higgs boson existed? No. But it did exist (it seems). So the lack of evidence, in and of itself, does not prove the non-existence of something.
I agree that we have no evidence of a God - no evidence that we recognise as evidence, at least.
But let's move on. What evidence would you accept for the existence of a supernatural entity? What would be the standard that you would apply to that evidence? E.g. would you insist that the evidence was gathered using the scientific method?
I agree that we have no evidence of a God - no evidence that we recognise as evidence, at least.
But let's move on. What evidence would you accept for the existence of a supernatural entity? What would be the standard that you would apply to that evidence? E.g. would you insist that the evidence was gathered using the scientific method?
I understand your argument ellipsis, re the Higgs boson, as it's one I've used myself. Take it back 1000 years instead of 50 and we had evidence of alot less than just the Higgs boson.
That didn't mean it wasn't real - it was real alright, and just sitting there waiting for our technology to advance enough to be able to detect evidence of it.
That's fine when you're talking about something like sub-atomic particles or radio waves or the planet Neptune.
The trouble is when you try and apply that to something like a deity, it comes unstuck, because there's a difference between god and those things. God supposedly has a purpose and a meaning. He's a benign intelligence following some kind of plan, and not just a physical property of the universe that we can't explain yet.
He created us for some purpose that we don't understand fully.
When you factor that in, it starts to make no sense. His stubborn absence, the contradictions, the paradoxes, the evil and stupidity he allows to be perpetrated in his name, the apparent meaninglessness of whatever this plan might be. The obvious fictional nature of most of his authorised documentation.
All of this begins to amount to evidence of his non-existence as opposed to just a lack of evidence that he exists.
That didn't mean it wasn't real - it was real alright, and just sitting there waiting for our technology to advance enough to be able to detect evidence of it.
That's fine when you're talking about something like sub-atomic particles or radio waves or the planet Neptune.
The trouble is when you try and apply that to something like a deity, it comes unstuck, because there's a difference between god and those things. God supposedly has a purpose and a meaning. He's a benign intelligence following some kind of plan, and not just a physical property of the universe that we can't explain yet.
He created us for some purpose that we don't understand fully.
When you factor that in, it starts to make no sense. His stubborn absence, the contradictions, the paradoxes, the evil and stupidity he allows to be perpetrated in his name, the apparent meaninglessness of whatever this plan might be. The obvious fictional nature of most of his authorised documentation.
All of this begins to amount to evidence of his non-existence as opposed to just a lack of evidence that he exists.
Ellipsis, Your correlation between that which conforms to the laws of physics and the supernatural is flawed. The concept of the Higgs boson was never deemed ‘supernatural’. The very fact that something is considered to be supernatural means that it doesn’t conform to those laws. It exists outside of them. I would like to see scientific evidence of an entity that is genuinely omnipotent, and knows the secrets of all hearts. Added to that, I would like to evidence of, say, a man rising from the dead, or indeed blowing on to a clay model of a bird, and that model springing to life. The real world and the supernatural world cannot be confused. If something can be explained rationally in scientific terms, it is not supernatural.
Are we to get your definition of God?
Are we to get your definition of God?
The evidence towards the science that underlies the Higgs Boson has been steadily growing since man first contemplated the structure underlying the nature of matter.
By contrast the nature of what is designated as "God" by some has been relentlessly driven to increasingly obtuse circumstances such that it now appears quite ridiculous to anyone with a basic knowledge of science and rational thought.
Progress in science is achieved by proposing ideas that fit the observations then suggesting lines of enquiry that will help determine how well the hypothesis fits the reality. These tests are used to reject or refine the hypothesis.
Religion presumes the nature of reality. When the observations conflict it responds by first denying the observation and when this becomes ridiculous, tries to reinterpret their dogma to reconcile the difference, ultimately proposing that the match between the dogma and science is the basis for proof of a divine source of the dogma.
By contrast the nature of what is designated as "God" by some has been relentlessly driven to increasingly obtuse circumstances such that it now appears quite ridiculous to anyone with a basic knowledge of science and rational thought.
Progress in science is achieved by proposing ideas that fit the observations then suggesting lines of enquiry that will help determine how well the hypothesis fits the reality. These tests are used to reject or refine the hypothesis.
Religion presumes the nature of reality. When the observations conflict it responds by first denying the observation and when this becomes ridiculous, tries to reinterpret their dogma to reconcile the difference, ultimately proposing that the match between the dogma and science is the basis for proof of a divine source of the dogma.
@Ellipsis
You take the view that agnosticism is the only rational stance to take when considering whether or not there is a supernatural entity, AKA god.You suggest that agnosticism - the position that the presence or absence of a supernatural deity are both equally valid- and whats more, you assert that because of Mans feeble intellect and reasoning capabilities, we will never be able to comprehend gods presence or absence.
This doesn't add up. A supernatural deity, the one about which we routinely debate, the one described by most of the major religions, has actions attributed to them. They created and designed the universe, for example, and the evidence we have is derived from the bible - but that evidence is demonstrably false - we do not live in a geocentric universe, with a solid vault of the heavens.
God supposedly performs miracles - again, often used by the faithful as evidence of gods existence - unyet none of these miracles can be shown to be genuinely miraculous - and by that, I mean genuinely unable to explain the event by a purely natural mechanism. The alleged miracle is either poorly documented, the witnesses implausible inconsistent or vague or the actual miracle itself flat out wrong - sewage overflow being the actual cause of a "weeping" statue declared by the church where it happened as a miracle, for example.
Creation of the Universe- With the Higgs Boson, we now have more evidence that the standard model of particle physics is broadly correct, and using tools like the Hubble Telescope, we can see back to virtually the beginning of the big bang. We have corroborating evidence of the big bang, with the detection of cosmic microwave background radiation, and furthe evidence and observation supporting the purely natural, governed- by- the -laws -of- physics events that formed and shaped the universe. No miraculous creation needed or evidenced..
Prayer - Again, beleivers often cite answered prayers as evidence of god - but then why does god hate amputees? Now there would be a genuine miracle - an amputee to regain a missing limb overnight!
So, one the one hand, we have the proposition of a purely naturalistic universe, for which we have lots and lots of evidence, with all events and actions explainable through application of the various scientific laws. On the other hand, in support of a supernatural being, we have, ermm a book that has been edited revised redacted and falsely attributed, and the faith of believers.The 2 propositions are simply not equally valid.
So this is not about being unable to judge between 2 propositions of equal validity. This is about rejecting the proposition that relies on myth, make believe and faith and saying that until some empirical, genuinely supernatural unexplainable- by- a -natural- model event happens, we should adopt an atheist viewpoint - no belief in god.
Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim of those of faith relating to a supernatural, onmipotent, omniscient, intercessory being is extraordinary - but they can offer no evidence- indeed, they wear their lack of evidence as a badge of pride!
I would reject entirely your assertion that man has a feeble intellect or reasoning / logical skills.And even if we cannot explain exactly by natural means an event using currently available knowledge or science, that does not mean that in 10,20, 50 years time we will not. Man evolves, like the rest of creation, rather to the chagrin of the faithheads.
You take the view that agnosticism is the only rational stance to take when considering whether or not there is a supernatural entity, AKA god.You suggest that agnosticism - the position that the presence or absence of a supernatural deity are both equally valid- and whats more, you assert that because of Mans feeble intellect and reasoning capabilities, we will never be able to comprehend gods presence or absence.
This doesn't add up. A supernatural deity, the one about which we routinely debate, the one described by most of the major religions, has actions attributed to them. They created and designed the universe, for example, and the evidence we have is derived from the bible - but that evidence is demonstrably false - we do not live in a geocentric universe, with a solid vault of the heavens.
God supposedly performs miracles - again, often used by the faithful as evidence of gods existence - unyet none of these miracles can be shown to be genuinely miraculous - and by that, I mean genuinely unable to explain the event by a purely natural mechanism. The alleged miracle is either poorly documented, the witnesses implausible inconsistent or vague or the actual miracle itself flat out wrong - sewage overflow being the actual cause of a "weeping" statue declared by the church where it happened as a miracle, for example.
Creation of the Universe- With the Higgs Boson, we now have more evidence that the standard model of particle physics is broadly correct, and using tools like the Hubble Telescope, we can see back to virtually the beginning of the big bang. We have corroborating evidence of the big bang, with the detection of cosmic microwave background radiation, and furthe evidence and observation supporting the purely natural, governed- by- the -laws -of- physics events that formed and shaped the universe. No miraculous creation needed or evidenced..
Prayer - Again, beleivers often cite answered prayers as evidence of god - but then why does god hate amputees? Now there would be a genuine miracle - an amputee to regain a missing limb overnight!
So, one the one hand, we have the proposition of a purely naturalistic universe, for which we have lots and lots of evidence, with all events and actions explainable through application of the various scientific laws. On the other hand, in support of a supernatural being, we have, ermm a book that has been edited revised redacted and falsely attributed, and the faith of believers.The 2 propositions are simply not equally valid.
So this is not about being unable to judge between 2 propositions of equal validity. This is about rejecting the proposition that relies on myth, make believe and faith and saying that until some empirical, genuinely supernatural unexplainable- by- a -natural- model event happens, we should adopt an atheist viewpoint - no belief in god.
Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim of those of faith relating to a supernatural, onmipotent, omniscient, intercessory being is extraordinary - but they can offer no evidence- indeed, they wear their lack of evidence as a badge of pride!
I would reject entirely your assertion that man has a feeble intellect or reasoning / logical skills.And even if we cannot explain exactly by natural means an event using currently available knowledge or science, that does not mean that in 10,20, 50 years time we will not. Man evolves, like the rest of creation, rather to the chagrin of the faithheads.
naomi, I didn't "correlate" anything. I think ludwig understood what I was getting at better. To be clear, I was using the Higgs boson - since it happened to be recent - to demonstrate something that Jake referred to earlier, namely "argument from ignorance", or "absence of evidence" vs "evidence of absence".
Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence. Whether absence of evidence of a God amounts to evidence of absence of a God (i.e. evidence of no God) is always going to produce a subjective response. ludwig, for example, says that it "begins to amount to evidence of his non-existence" - I find that a bit strong but, even if I agree fully with it, does "begins to amount" equate to "proof"? I think not. Others may disagree.
On to the OP then. It is written:
> If an atheist is asked why he has no belief in a supernatural God, he will usually offer a rational reason, but if a believer is asked why he believes in a supernatural god, he has no rational reason at all.
Having explored some of the meanings of the words you have used, I would say that you have poisoned the well with your question. You've set it up in such a way that it's impossible for the answer to be, rationally, anything other than something that agrees with your atheistic worldview. The question could be rewritten as:
If an atheist is asked why he has no belief in something that is impossible, he will usually offer a rational reason, but if a believer is asked why he believes in something that is impossible, he has no rational reason at all.
Talk about stating the obvious. Do you enjoy theist-baiting? I pity any theist that steps into that trap.
The problem I have with atheists is that they can be as fervent as believers, and use many of the same lame logical constructs (well-poisoning and argument from ignorance/incredulity high among them). LazyGun wrote earlier:
> The certainty of the faithful in declaring the thoughts of others wrong! never ceases to amuse me.
I agree with that. But replace "faithful" with "atheist" in the above, and I agree with that too!
Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence. Whether absence of evidence of a God amounts to evidence of absence of a God (i.e. evidence of no God) is always going to produce a subjective response. ludwig, for example, says that it "begins to amount to evidence of his non-existence" - I find that a bit strong but, even if I agree fully with it, does "begins to amount" equate to "proof"? I think not. Others may disagree.
On to the OP then. It is written:
> If an atheist is asked why he has no belief in a supernatural God, he will usually offer a rational reason, but if a believer is asked why he believes in a supernatural god, he has no rational reason at all.
Having explored some of the meanings of the words you have used, I would say that you have poisoned the well with your question. You've set it up in such a way that it's impossible for the answer to be, rationally, anything other than something that agrees with your atheistic worldview. The question could be rewritten as:
If an atheist is asked why he has no belief in something that is impossible, he will usually offer a rational reason, but if a believer is asked why he believes in something that is impossible, he has no rational reason at all.
Talk about stating the obvious. Do you enjoy theist-baiting? I pity any theist that steps into that trap.
The problem I have with atheists is that they can be as fervent as believers, and use many of the same lame logical constructs (well-poisoning and argument from ignorance/incredulity high among them). LazyGun wrote earlier:
> The certainty of the faithful in declaring the thoughts of others wrong! never ceases to amuse me.
I agree with that. But replace "faithful" with "atheist" in the above, and I agree with that too!
Mankind has managed to come up with an understanding of the Universe that allows technologies that would be wholly inconceivable to people in the not too distant past.
Our scientists have of the most complex machine ever, using superconducting magnets and electric fields to imbue the kinetic energy of a high speed train into what amounts to the hydrogen atoms that would be contained in a volume equivalent to the size of a small grain of sand. Then smash them together and observe what comes out.
This machine has confirmed what theoretical scientists had imagined half a century ago based on their observations of reality and the search for a consistent explanation of the mechanisms that underlie it.
We build technologies that allows us to sit in front of a screen and communicate almost instantly with people from all over the world.
How is this a feeble mind?
The feeble mind is one that which considers supernatural deities as a necessary component of our existence.
Our scientists have of the most complex machine ever, using superconducting magnets and electric fields to imbue the kinetic energy of a high speed train into what amounts to the hydrogen atoms that would be contained in a volume equivalent to the size of a small grain of sand. Then smash them together and observe what comes out.
This machine has confirmed what theoretical scientists had imagined half a century ago based on their observations of reality and the search for a consistent explanation of the mechanisms that underlie it.
We build technologies that allows us to sit in front of a screen and communicate almost instantly with people from all over the world.
How is this a feeble mind?
The feeble mind is one that which considers supernatural deities as a necessary component of our existence.
Ellipsis //> The certainty of the faithful in declaring the thoughts of others wrong! never ceases to amuse me.
I agree with that. But replace "faithful" with "atheist" in the above, and I agree with that too! //
The point being made was that theists simply respond with "Wrong" and "No" without offering the slightest comment let alone evidence to support their position.
Atheists offer detailed rational constructs to support their position.
As said earlier, this debate is not a matter of weighing up two equally likely hypotheses. It is detailed coherent, rational model of reality up against an arbitrary irrational and self-contradictory philosophy dreamed up by ignorant men over two thousand years ago.
We can understand the efforts of those ancient men to make sense of their environment with very little to go on but for a modern person to adopt these primitive musings in the face of science is really quite bizarre.
I agree with that. But replace "faithful" with "atheist" in the above, and I agree with that too! //
The point being made was that theists simply respond with "Wrong" and "No" without offering the slightest comment let alone evidence to support their position.
Atheists offer detailed rational constructs to support their position.
As said earlier, this debate is not a matter of weighing up two equally likely hypotheses. It is detailed coherent, rational model of reality up against an arbitrary irrational and self-contradictory philosophy dreamed up by ignorant men over two thousand years ago.
We can understand the efforts of those ancient men to make sense of their environment with very little to go on but for a modern person to adopt these primitive musings in the face of science is really quite bizarre.
Ellipsis //Talk about stating the obvious. Do you enjoy theist-baiting? I pity any theist that steps into that trap. //
Absolutely. Theists have dominated the planet for millennia and the time has come for the demolition of their influence.
Once baited they expose the ridiculous precepts of their philosophy. By simply posting they display their profound ignorance and do more to destroy the foundations of their faith than any atheist could ever hope to.
Absolutely. Theists have dominated the planet for millennia and the time has come for the demolition of their influence.
Once baited they expose the ridiculous precepts of their philosophy. By simply posting they display their profound ignorance and do more to destroy the foundations of their faith than any atheist could ever hope to.
