"There is no evidence for the existence of God"
by Techne
This is an interesting statement. You often hear or read about this in conversations and debates surrounding the existence of God. A person may ask another person “why are you an atheist” and the atheist may reply, “purely because there is no evidence for God”.
As always, definitions play a crucial role in any debate and conversation. I cannot claim that there is no evidence for the existence of Bodwilstin if I do not have a definition for it. If someone asks me why I am an aBodwilstinist, I cannot tell that person “purely because there is no evidence for Bodwilstinist”. I do not even have a clear definition of what it is that there is no evidence of. So the “there is no evidence” line is irrational if an atheist does not have a definition of God. The most rational stance towards something for which there is no definition is agnosticism or ignosticism.
The standard classical theist view or definition of God is that if God exists then nothing can come into being or continue to happen without God creating it and sustaining it in existence. If classical theism is true it just logically follows that every contingent being that has ever existed and will ever exist is evidence for the existence of God. It does not matter if the universe has existed for infinity, if abiogenesis is true or false, if there is a multiverse or if humans had a common ancestor with other apes or not or all of the above etc. Of course, defining something does not mean it exists or that it is logically coherent. It may be that theism is false and have better other explanations for why things begin to exist and continue to exist.
For the classical theist, the existence of God can be known via reason and logic. To give an example, Aquinas’ second argument (First Cause) is a standard logical demonstration. It follows the same reasoning as mathematical proofs. The following principles are important:
1) The Principle of Causality
2) The distinction between essence and the act of existing.
3) The distinction between per accidens causes and per se causes.
1) The Principle of Causality
The traditional view is that:
1) "Whatever happens has a cause; Whatever begins to be has a cause; Whatever is contingent has a cause; Nothing occurs without a cause."2) The axiom Ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes) is a negative statement of the same principle.
3) Another way of saying it is “something can only be reduced from potentiality to actuality by something in a state of actuality” (Aquinas, a Beginner's guide, p65).
From an Aristotelian-Scholastic point of view, the empirical data from quantum mechanics pose no problem for the principle of causality. In fact, quantum physics and the Aristotelian concepts of prime matter and pure potentiality actually fit in quite nicely with the indeterminate nature of quantum physics. As explained here. In addition, some might argue that science has demonstrated that "from nothing, nothing comes" is false. Such assertions are usually based on a faulty or inadequate definition of "nothingness".
2) The distinction between essence and the act of existing.
Another principle that is important in Aquinas' second way is the distinction between something's essence and its act of existing.
Take the example of water. When you think about water you may ask "what is water"? To answer such a question is to provide the essence or nature of water. From an Aristotelian point of view, when one fully understands what water is one knows its full essence or nature. One can of course come to understand some part of the essence of water without it ever actually existing or experiencing it the moment you understand it. You can now think about the concept of water and fully understand it. However, from a Scholastic point of view, when you see a drop of water, the water is actually existing. That is, the essence of water is combined with its act of existing.
Also, material substances begin to exist. You and me for example did not exist 200 years ago. We began to exist at some instant. The same goes for a water molecule when it begins to exist in a reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. So let's use the example of water.
Before the water begins to exist you can still intellectually abstract what it is, you grasp its essence. However, the moment it begins to exist its essence and act of existence are conjoined to form a complete actual material substance. From a Scholastic point of view all actually existing material things right here right, right now are complete substances whose essence or nature are conjoined with their act of existing.
3) The distinction between per accidens causes and per se causes.
A third important principle is the distinction between accidentally ordered causes and essentially ordered causes. Accidentally ordered causes (per accidens causes) are prior in time. Essentially ordered causes (per se causes) are prior in nature.
Let's use the water example again. Hydrogen and oxygen in this case are the per accidens causes of water. They are accidentally ordered causes. Hydrogen and oxygen occurred prior to the water that came into existence as a result of these accidental causes.
Now the water in the reaction began to exist. The moment water started to be an actually existing material substance, its essence is conjoined with its act of existing. Also, whenever water is actually existing its essence is continually conjoined with its act of existing. The next question is “what causes its essence to be conjoined to its act of existing”? It can't be something that exists before it came into being. In other words, it cannot be an accidentally ordered cause. It has to be something that is also actually existing the very same moment the water exists. It thus follows that it is something that is an essentially ordered cause but is prior in nature (not time) to the water.
Aquinas’ argument using the water example can thus be summarized as follows:
1) Whenever water begins to actually exist, its essence is conjoined with its act of existing.
2) Something causes the essence of water to be conjoined to its act of existing.
3) Such a cause cannot be water itself and the cause has to be prior in nature and not prior in time (as argued above).
4) The cause may be something contingent.
5) Everything that is contingent has an essence that is distinct from its act of existing (as argued above).
6) If the cause is something that is contingent then it too needs a cause to conjoin its essence with it act of existing.
7) However, essentially ordered causes cannot go on to infinity, as there would then be no explanation for why something begins to exist.
8 ) The First Cause in an essentially ordered series of causes will have to be something whose essence is not distinct from its act of existing. Something whose essence is its act of existing. For the classical theist this is God.
Aquinas' second way gets you to something whose essence is its act of existing. Now this kind of argument is not meant to convince everyone. I think it is unreasonable to think this. In fact, I think it is unreasonable to even think that standard mathematical proofs are meant to convince everyone. Some people may be ultra-skeptics and claim nothing can be known with absolute certainty or any kind of certainty at all. Some might argue that consciousness and your intellect are illusions. Still others just don’t care.
The point is, for the classical theist, God can be known via reason and logic. Classical theism is affirmed by Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Pagans thinkers such as Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna and Plotinus respectively. Aquinas’ five ways can in principle demonstrate the existence of something that just is necessary being itself (3rd way), whose essence is its existence 2nd way), that is intelligence analogously speaking (5th way), that just is good (4th way) and is purely actual (1st way). That is what classical theists call God.
It is accepted based on the coherence of the definition of God not because there is no evidence. If a person is or was a classical theist then he accepts it or rejects it not because of the evidence. One accepts or rejects classical theism based on reason and logic.
Rational acceptance or scepticism of theism
Now there are of course the standard philosophical problems with classical theism. Alisdair McinTyre summarizes the three main problems in his book "God, Philosophy, Universities: A Selective History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition".
The first problem is associated with the view that finite contingent beings have powers of their own. For example, water has the power to dissolve salt. Humans have the power to have rational thoughts. Magnets have the power to attract or repel each other. However, if God exists then God is the cause of every change, every contingent power. This appears to be a problem for the view that humans are accountable for their actions and have their own powers (and anything else that has its own powers) to do things. So the classical theist has the problem of reconciling his view of his independent powers (and that of other things) and that of God’s unlimited power.
The second problem is associated with the various evils (natural, social and moral) associated with finite beings. If the following is correct:
1) God is unlimited in power and goodness and wills the good of every finite being.
2) Evil occurs and this entails that God is responsible for evil.
then the classical theist is faced with believing a logical contradiction.
The third problem is associated with how we can even talk meaningfully about God. Since we are contingent finite beings, all our descriptions of God e.g. God’s power, goodness, knowledge etc. are limited. We may use comparative and superlative linguistic inventions by describing power and goodness and knowledge as either more or less but we are never able to fully understand the full essence of what it actually means to have unlimited power, goodness and knowledge since we are finite, contingent beings.
The rational way, I would argue, is to engage in solving these problems. Those are examples of how one can rationally and logically accept or reject or be sceptical ofclassical theism. If such problems can be solved, again via reason and logic, then one can rationally accept classical theism. If not, one can reject it or be sceptical or be agnostic.
Now the person that claims to be an atheist “purely because there is no evidence for God” can make this claim as a result of:
1) Some strange definition or view of God which no classical theist really accepts. It would essentially be a straw man objection to view of God that theists probably don't have.
2) Having no definition of God so he has no way of even having any evidence at all anyway. But this is of course irrational. You can't rationally and logically claim there is no evidence for something which you don't even have a definition for.
3) Accepting the standard view of God and still claim there is no evidence. But this is irrational. It amounts to saying something like "I accept that the definition of the X, whereby if X exists one would expect to see boiling water. I see boiling water but I don't believe in X because there is no evidence for X". Or to put it differently, "I accept the standard view of God whereby if God exists then nothing can come into being or continue to happen without God creating it and sustaining it in existence. I exist, but I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God".
None of the above reasons for the "there is no evidence" objection really make sense from a theistic point of view. The objections appears irrational or they just miss the point completely. The next obvious question is, if you claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, what exactly are you talking about? In what way do you think it even makes sense to make such a claim? Why do you think this is not a face-palm worthy claim?
February 23rd, 2012 at 8:42 pm
The most rational stance towards something for which there is no definition is, "What are you talking about?" Being agnostic or ignostic gives the thesis a validity it doesn't deserve.
Comment by don provan — February 23, 2012 @ 8:42 pm
February 25th, 2012 at 9:45 am
Don Provan is "ignostic".
He attempts to define God out of existence by stretching his ignorance across all of known humanity, saying that his inability to define God is shared by everyone in the present, past, and future.
Of course this lack of definition does not stop Don Provan from arguing ad nauseum against the existence of the very thing that supposedly has no definition in any philosophy, theology, or any other -ology.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 25, 2012 @ 9:45 am
February 25th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Except you ignore the simple fact that people have lots of different definitions for God. Perhaps you are trying to argue that the most rational stance towards something for which there are multiple definitions is, "What are you talking about?" Of course, if that is the case, we’re also left with the simple fact that people have lots of different definitions for “science” and “evidence.” Regarding these terms, when I have asked critics “What are you talking about?,” they typically ignore the question or respond with anger.
Look, when someone says, “There is no evidence for God,” all they are really saying is “I don’t see any evidence for God.” By morphing the actual position (I personally don’t see any evidence for God) into the rhetorical stance (There is no evidence for God), the atheist is masquerading subjectivity as objectivity.
The atheist is entitled to his opinion about God’s nonexistence. But that’s all it is.
Comment by MikeGene — February 25, 2012 @ 12:07 pm
February 25th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Hi Techne,
As a piece of rhetoric the "there is no evidence for God" claim is pretty bad. It's almost as bad as saying the Christian god can't be falsified empirically and then opining about how the problem of evil proves the idea of the Christian deity is a contradiction.
Comment by Euphrates — February 25, 2012 @ 11:13 pm
February 26th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
In his book, The Universe Next Door, James W. Sire writes that the problem with philosophical naturalism is that it "places us as humans in a box. But for us to have confidence that our knowledge in a box is true, we need to stand outside the box or have some other being outside the box to provide us information… But there is nothing or no one outside the box to give us revelation and we cannot ourselves transcend the box. Ergo: epistemological nihilism."
Another example comes from the from the movie The Matrix. Neo doesn't actually know that he has been part of the Matrix until he is disconnected and ejected from the Matrix.
I think there is evidence and then there is evidence. Within the box (our universe) we can use empirical evidence that can give us reliable knowledge about many of the things within our universe. However, if we ask questions about the origin of the universe the chain of cause and effect leads us "outside the box". Logically whatever caused our universe must trascend our universe.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 26, 2012 @ 12:04 pm
February 26th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Regarding evidence for God… I will say again that the evidential approach is a loser because all evidence will be interpreted by the observer according to his/her worldview. An atheist can look at the world and see "no evidence for God" while a theist will see "overwhelming evidence for God". These arguments will go on forever!
If you want to quickly expose the irrationality of atheism, use one of the rational arguments for God.
For instance, this short exchange took place in the comments section of the UK Telegraph online article Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist (Don't bother searching for this exchange as there are currently over 240 pages of comments and it's about 40 pages in!)
I was responding to a comment by a fellow named "exbisonman" who said: "Belief in God is really just like an adult version of a child's belief in Father Christmas" and my comment was responded to by someone named "Fergus Mason".
Notice how quickly the irrationality of atheism is revealed…
Fergus Mason made no reply but rather moved on to greener pastures – arguing with folks about evidence for God!
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 26, 2012 @ 12:07 pm
February 27th, 2012 at 7:35 am
The Bodwilstin ignostic says "What are you talking about" when you talk about a Bodwilstin. He also says it is a logical fallacy to think he all of a sudden gives some sort of validity to a Bodwilstin thesis by being ignostic towards it.
Indeed, also like saying God is not good without giving a proper definition of what it means to be good.
Comment by Techne — February 27, 2012 @ 7:35 am
February 27th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Yes, when people say things, they can only state personal experience. Thanks for reminding us. A statement such as "there is no evidence for God" could be anything from a casual statement of no personal observations of God Himself to a summary of an exhaustive search and analysis for any evidence claimed to be for God based on any definition.
The point I was making was that a failure of definition is a problem with the person making a claim of existence. The rational reaction to a claim of existence with an insufficient definition is rejection until the lack of clarity is resolved not, as Techne suggested, neutrality.
But to address your main point, while it's true that there are many definitions of God, when people say there's no evidence for God, they are typically using the Christian definition of God, which comes with qualities presented in the Bible and other Christian teachings. Those qualities are missing in the definition Techne presents, leading me to suspect he's presenting evidence for a broader category. Even if he's successful, he's not really helping prove the existence of God as understood by people that say there is no evidence for God based on the typical definition.
Comment by don provan — February 27, 2012 @ 1:26 pm
February 27th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
I am an atheist because any entity that could be considered to be "God" would have to be able to violate conservation of energy. C of E is pretty much the only thing we materialists are dogmatic about. As far as we can observe, every natural thing that happens in the universe happens because potential energy can decrease, and everything happens in such a way that the energy decreases as fast as possible. A god who could do unnatural things would have to ba able to inject energy into a system, at particular places, times, and rates. A god who is omnipresent and and omniscient — attributes of the Judeo-Christian god, but not of all gods — would additionally need faster-than-light communication. Given the remarkable and consistent success of these theories in generating verifiably accurate predictions, any hypothesis of such a god would need to show, in considerable detail, where the god gets energy, and how he/she/it transmits and directs the energy. No such presentation seems to be on offer anywhere.
Bertrand Russel's formulation of the non-existence claim would take the form "For every x in the universe, x is not Bodwilstin." This can be countered only by finding an x that is Bodwilstin. Anyway, it seems strange to say that a thing has be definable in order not to exist.
Substitute "God" for "Bodwilstin" in the previous paragraph.
Comment by John Wendt — February 27, 2012 @ 4:04 pm
February 27th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
John Wendt wrote:
Good to know that you admit being dogmatic about something.
Believing in even a single dogma opens up economy-sized cans of worms for intellectually honest atheists though, doesn't it?
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 27, 2012 @ 7:43 pm
February 27th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Basically all you're saying is "I'm an atheist because I'm a materialist".
So God, by definition, is not compatible with materialism – so what? The God of classical theism by definition is outside the natural order so he would not be constrained by natural law. I don't see that as a good reason to be an atheist!
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 27, 2012 @ 8:04 pm
February 27th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
If our space-time universe is a computed reality, then this is certainly achievable conceptually. All energy/matter states are values in a vast matrix. The Creator would only need to tweak values in the matrix to achieve results within it. "Miracles."
There may be justifiable reasons for being an atheist, but materialism isn't one of them.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 27, 2012 @ 10:39 pm
February 28th, 2012 at 2:19 am
Ah, the old "if God does not create and sustain every substance according to its nature and simultaneously violate their natures while tap-dancing on his superluminal cell phone, then He is not God" fallacy.
You misunderstand. You need some sort of definition of something before claiming there is no evidence for it.
Ok: "if you claim there is no evidence for the existence of Bodwilstin, what exactly are you talking about? In what way do you think it even makes sense to make such a claim?"
Makes sense doesn't it? If you have no clear definition of it, how can you make such a claim? If the traditional definition of it is that it is the ultimate principle of reality, how can you make such a claim?
Comment by Techne — February 28, 2012 @ 2:19 am
February 28th, 2012 at 11:24 am
I did leave that door open just a sliver: Show me how "God", however defined, might be able to inject energy into a system.
The humorist James Thurber once accused a critic of "confusing my armor with its chink". An unwavering belief in conservation laws has served physics extraordinarily well over the past couple of centuries. Did I mention those very accurate and repeatable predictions that C of E can give you? Nothing in theism can do that.
Yes. And I'm a materialist because materialism works. Theism just sits there and pontificates.
I don't see that as any kind of reason to be a theist. Work your definition and show how it interacts with the world.
What if it isn't? How do you tell?
Show me how.
Why is that a fallacy? As far as we can tell, God can't do anything at all.
That's backwards. You need a definition before you can claim that there is evidence for something. Do you believe in Bodwilstin? Why or why not?
Comment by John Wendt — February 28, 2012 @ 11:24 am
February 28th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Why do you see that as a bigger problem then you injecting energy into a system?
Comment by don provan — February 28, 2012 @ 1:33 pm
February 28th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
OK, I'll take your word for it, since all I know about ignosticism is what I read in wikipedia after you mentioned it. As long as you agree that agnosticism is not a rational stance towards something for which there is no definition, I'm content that I've made my point.
Comment by don provan — February 28, 2012 @ 1:42 pm
February 28th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Hey Techne. I have also wondered whether aquinas argument from motion is at odds with human free will. It is one of the reasons I hold reservations about the argument. What exactly is the resolution to this problem? Could you maybe point me to where this issue is dealt with? Thanks.
Comment by kuartus — February 28, 2012 @ 1:58 pm
February 28th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
John Wendt wrote:
As soon as you show me how energy got injected into our universe in the first place.
That's just one worm in a small can full. You pull that worm out and say "it's only one worm, here it is!", then you have to explain why huge devices are built and lots of man-hours are spent in finding what essentially is one already-found worm.
I was unaware that the Law of the Conservation of Energy had suddenly become Miss Cleo. Quick, consult your god CofE and ask it where I can invest $200 to make a surefire $15 million in a couple of months. I need to get into that 1% and run to the Caymans before The Man brings down the hammer.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 28, 2012 @ 6:32 pm
February 28th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
When I add energy to a system, it's often by heating. If I'm in a chemistry lab, I walk over to the reagent shelf, stretch out my hand for a bottle, and take it back to my lab bench. I remove the stopper, then pick up a micropipette to dispense a quantity of the reagent into a beaker. I put a Bunsen burner under a stand, then strike a match and with the other hand turn on the gas. When the flame is steady I pick up a pair of forceps, with which I pick up the beaker and put it on the stand. Then I wait.
A couple of things to note. One is that I use my hands at almost every step. If God has hands that can manipulate a micropipette, maybe we have something.
But it may be more important to note that this is bulk energizing. Lots of molecules get more energy, so lots of bonds get broken and made. Some of the results may be interesting, some may not be. For God to create a mutation in a specific gene, He has to be able to inject energy in such a way as to guide the trajectory of a specific molecule to a specific place at a specific critical moment. This requires an extremely fine focus. It might be possible for a human to do something like that with a laser, but that too requires hands at some point, if only to get the laser from the equipment closet.
Comment by John Wendt — February 28, 2012 @ 6:36 pm
February 28th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Wendt:
Doesn't work very well at explaining the apparent purposeful arrangement and telic complexity we see everywhere.
It explains the apparent purposeful arrangement and telic complexity we see everywhere.
You see it too or you probably wouldn't be haunting ID websites.
Comment by chunkdz — February 28, 2012 @ 10:29 pm
February 28th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
But is there any such thing as an entity who has made an exhaustive search and analysis for any evidence claimed to be for God based on any definition?
Comment by MikeGene — February 28, 2012 @ 11:25 pm
February 29th, 2012 at 4:07 am
Hi John,
Would you say you are a realist in regards to energy? If so, how does that fit into your materialist ontology?
Comment by Euphrates — February 29, 2012 @ 4:07 am
February 29th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Also of interest:
"Is there evidence AGAINST the existence of God".
If there is neither evidence for nor against, then the question is perhaps outside of evidence.
Jerry Coyne argues fulfilled prophecy would be evidence FOR the existence of GOd. PZ Myers argues that whatever evidence there might be, he would argue it could controverted in the future (and PZ has thus made a statement of faith)! Coyne has a better position.
I agree with Coyne. In principle there could be evidence for God. And Dawkins hints that in principle science could offere evidence for God….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 29, 2012 @ 3:47 pm
February 29th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Salvador T. Cordova wrote:
So do I.
Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 describe many details of Jesus' punishment and crucifixion, and both were written centuries before it happened – indeed, centuries before crucifixion was a common method of execution, and definitely before nails were used in crucifixion ("they pierced my hands and feet").
Isaiah was so scarily accurate that Bible skeptics declared Isaiah to essentially be a forgery, and dated its writing to AFTER the Crucifixion. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls turned up and destroyed their argument. Science wins.
Then there is Daniel 2 & 7, the foretelling of 3 world powers that succeeded the one contemporary to Daniel – Babylon. And these chapters foreshadowing one more world power echoed in Revelation 13.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 29, 2012 @ 6:15 pm
February 29th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
It works fine for science (except for the fact that many of the assumptions science works by are not material – but then, who's keeping track – right!)
It doesn't work very well at all metaphysically. In fact it just about ties itself into knots trying to explain why things are the way they are!
Theism actually explains why the universe is the way it is rationally. Atheism can't do that.
The definition is based on the way the world works. It's not like you have to start with God and work your way down! It's just the opposite: if you start trying to rationally explain cause and effect, contingency, intentionality and the like, you'll inevitably end up in a terminus that has one of the attributes of God. When you combine the arguments, you can't help but know that there is a God. Most atheists are not willing to look into such matters though. So many think their scientism explains the world (while not even realizing that scientism can't even explain their own thoughts!)
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 29, 2012 @ 8:54 pm
March 1st, 2012 at 12:25 pm
From AOFM:
Ah, the old "The First Cause Must Be God" fallacy. If something had to be first, why not energy itself, which we can measure and experiment with, rather than a hypothetical being modeled after a Middle-Eastern patriarch?
The expenditure of money and time are part of the on-going project of figuring out how energy operates. The higher the energy in accelerators, the nearer we get to the conditions that might have existed in the Big Bang.
I can't tell whether you're trying to be cute, or whether you're ridiculing something I didn't say. Either way. it brings up the observation that physics gets its predictive power because physicists have historically limited their inquiry to those areas in which a crisp mathematical expression is possible. The result is that physics now approaches a problem from theory, predicting what the observational result of an experiment will be. Within its limits this has worked very well. Biologists historically have had to approach a problem observationally, because there wasn't any overall biological theory that could make crisp predictions. Much the same thing applied to chemistry until the atomic theory began to make prediction possible. Chemistry was tied to physics in the 1930s with the quantum theory of the chemical bond. One of the most exciting developments in biology over the last few decades is the tying of biology to chemistry, at the lowest levels. But it's turning out that there are so many reactions going on, and so many contingencies, at the genetic and ecological levels, and all inbetween, that overall predictability is limited. How does theism help?
One of your ancient manuscripts says "Ask and it shall be given unto you." You might try some experimental theism. Let us know how it works.
Comment by John Wendt — March 1, 2012 @ 12:25 pm
March 1st, 2012 at 2:12 pm
I suppose it depends on how you measure "exhaustive", but I don't know why it matters. The point is that the statement could reflect any amount of expertise, including lots and lots.
Comment by don provan — March 1, 2012 @ 2:12 pm
March 1st, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Right. For example, if "God" is not clearly defined, then there's no possibility for evidence for or against.
The question the materialist asks is, "If the question is outside evidence, then what's the point is seeking an answer?" Or, to put it another way, if God has no measurable effects, then why does it matter whether He exists or not?
As we've been saying, the problem here is whether God can be defined such that evidence can be related to Him. Traditionally, religions try to keep God a Mystery. We see an element of that here, where the burden of defining God is put on the one rejecting the concept for lack of evidence rather than the one proposing the existence of such a being.
What we can do is collect evidence of God's effects. Alas, such attempts have historically failed. That might be what PZ Myers is thinking of.
Comment by don provan — March 1, 2012 @ 2:30 pm
March 1st, 2012 at 2:53 pm
From chunkdz:
There are two important words here, one present and one absent. The word that is present is "apparent". There are a great many psychology experiments suggesting that humans have a wired-in tendency to see purpose and telicity even when it isn't there. The absent word is "yet", as in "Materialism can't yet explain what goes on in the human mind that causes us to jump to seeing purpose." There are large-scale hypotheses, but we're still working on detailed explanations as to how the brain works.
Complexity arises because atoms, particularly carbon, can combine in a great many ways. Some of those are such as to be able to act as catalysts, providing new pathways for potential energy to be released.
It's too soon to give up on materialism. Consider the sad case of Hans Driesch. Driesch was a German embryologist in the late 1800s. His experiments with embryos convinced him that the existing mechanistic theory was wrong, so he gave up and took refuge in vitalism, which is taken to need no further explanation. We now have a pretty robust materialist explanation of Driesch's results, but it took 80 years to get there.
This is a use of "explains" with which science if not familiar. The astronomer Clifford Stoll, in his book The Cuckoo's Egg tells about his PhD thesis defense. After discussion of his topic, the atmosphere of Jupiter, one of his professors asked him "Why is the sky blue?" Stoll gave the standard answer, that as sunlight passes through the earth's atmosphere, blue light is scattered in all directions, including down. The professor said, "Yes, but why?", which led Stoll into Rayleigh scattering. "Yes, but why?" This continued down to basic quantum mechanics. That's how scientific explanation works. Causality is inferred by observing. The best inferences come when we can manipulate initial conditions in an arbitrary manner. If I put a certain protein on the flank of a frog embryo at a certain stage of development, the embryo grows a spurious leg. If I don't put the protein on, the ectopic leg doesn't grow. So the enzyme is at some level a cause of the leg. By analysis of the chemistry we arrive at the explanation of how the leg grows because energy can be released by the cascade of enzyme productions.
How does theism explain apparent purpose? The OP mentioned understanding "the essence of water". How does theism eplain wetness? The extra leg? Why the sky is blue?
I originally sought out ID websites to see if ID had anything useful to say. I concluded pretty quickly that it doesn't. But to explain why it doesn't, and what an actual explanation might look like, I have to sharpen my own ideas. It's also possible that someone might come here to explore ID for himself. I want to make sure that he isn't taken in.
Comment by John Wendt — March 1, 2012 @ 2:53 pm
March 1st, 2012 at 3:01 pm
You are wrong to say that overall predictability is limited. A more correct statement would be that the 'reducto-materialist approach' is limited in it's predictablility.
A holistic systems approach has historically been limited by computational power, but thanks to Moore's Law that is changing rapidly.
But of course, materialism provides no framework for a holistic systems approach. For that we need a teleological perspective.
For 50 points can you name a philosophical framework that supports a teleological perspective and thus provides a rationale for a holistic systems approach? (Hint: you just asked how it helps)
Comment by chunkdz — March 1, 2012 @ 3:01 pm
March 1st, 2012 at 3:33 pm
From Don Provan:
That's not necessarily true. The term "gene" was defined in 1909 as "the unit of heredity". In the intervening century biologists, chemists, and physicists have shown that in general there's no such thing as a "unit" of heredity. A team of philosophers of science wrote
But even if we still don't have an unambiguous definition of "gene", the actions of trying to figure out what it is have been enormously fruitful in coming to a better understanding of genetics and developmental biology.
Attempts to figure out how God works have enabled science to dispense with the concept entirely.
Comment by John Wendt — March 1, 2012 @ 3:33 pm
March 1st, 2012 at 5:00 pm
From Daniel Smith:
Examples of such assumptions would help.
Granted that there are large areas that remain ill-explored, including things like the human brain, the origin of life, and ultra-high-energy physics. Also granted that scientists have sometimes tried too hard to eplain things that really ought to wait for further research.
Metaphysics can sometimes be what Paul Krugman calls an "intuition pump", but you have to be able to build something solid underneath it. To quote Karnap:
Daniel again:
And doesn't try. Acquinas says things like
But atoms, however contrary and discordant, fall into "harmonious order" if potential energy of their electrons can decrease. An organism develops by a complex sequence of chemical reactions. The entirety is not well understood – yet! — but it doesn't help at all to give up and say "God did it, by methods and for reasons that we cannot necessarily be able to understand".
Sure. Like Acquinas. He tends to start with something like "It seems that…" and proceeds "To the contrary, the authority of Scripture suffices." Your brand of rationalism always ends up with the ancient manuscripts.
Explain rationally why we don't see medical miracles like an amputee growing a new limb.
Comment by John Wendt — March 1, 2012 @ 5:00 pm
March 1st, 2012 at 5:28 pm
You don’t? Let’s see. You complain about lack of definitions, yet have no problem proposing the existence of undefined entities when it suits you.
Your point is becoming increasingly muddled. Just what type of entity has “expertise” when it comes to looking for evidence of God?
Comment by MikeGene — March 1, 2012 @ 5:28 pm
March 1st, 2012 at 6:12 pm
From chunkdz:
Wishful thinking. Systems biology takes a holistic approach. But you can't be holistic until you have been very thoroughly reductionist.
Teology comes from decreasing potential energy, no matter what your perspective.
Comment by John Wendt — March 1, 2012 @ 6:12 pm
March 1st, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Wendt:
Systems biology IS a teleological approach. Not sure what you mean by "very thoroughly reductionist". Does that mean that you can't utilize systems biology until you have run down every single reductionist dead end? I know a few systems biologists who would disagree with you. (The two approaches are not mutually exclusive.)
So you sharpen your own ideas by talking with people that have nothing useful to say? Lol! I suppose you also sharpen your geography skills by hanging out with flat-earthers?
Thanks for providing one more demonstration of why atheists are considered untrustworthy by an overwhelming majority of Americans.
Comment by chunkdz — March 1, 2012 @ 6:39 pm
March 1st, 2012 at 8:56 pm
The assumption that we live in a rational universe.
The assumption that natural laws hold even when we aren't observing.
The assumption that you are not just a brain in a vat.
There are a LOT more I could list but I think you get the picture.
Karnap raises a strawman argument. Metaphysical arguments are often based on indisputable and easily verified concepts (change occurs, some things are contingent, many things are predictable, etc.) Because of this, a metaphysical argument is NOT a scientific hypothesis subject to verification. That is a category error.
Only that's not what Aquinas is doing here. It doesn't matter that you can explain the process – it's the fact that there's nothing that explains why these things work together for goals or ends beyond themselves. Why does one carbon atom become a rock and another a human? Is there something unique about the carbon atoms that make up humans as opposed to those that make up rocks?
IOW – why does nature exhibit intentionality?
How much do you know about Aquinas? You don't spell his name correctly so I'm guessing – not much. He has much to say about a LOT of topics. He made five fairly famous proofs of the existence of God. None of them begin with "It seems that…" and none of them end with "the authority of Scripture suffices." Those kinds of statements are reserved for his arguments about theological matters – which are for Christians who already know God exists.
We don't see it because it isn't happening. Is that rational enough for you? Are you expecting something like this to happen? Explain rationally why evolution hasn't produced this in humans.
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 1, 2012 @ 8:56 pm
March 1st, 2012 at 9:24 pm
John Wendt wrote:
Because for energy to be first, the Steady State model must be pulled back out of Aristotle's skeletal fingers, dusted off, and put back on the mantle, right after we take the shiny Big Bang model off of it, smash it into numerous pieces, and sweep it out the back door.
Or we can keep the Big Bang model and make up new unobservable, immeasurable, intangible entities that explain the origin and existence of our universe.
If you believe the latter, your atheism is weak.
Ask yourself: why would we need to know the conditions of the Big Bang? What mysteries are we solving with this huge effort and expense?
If the objective is to disprove the existence of an imaginary Bronze-Age Middle-Eastern sky-daddy, don't they know they could save several million boatloads of money and centuries of man-hours by enlisting guys like you to preach the UnWord?
Well hell, I thought I was supposed to be all amazed and excited about the predictive POWAH of CONSERVATION HALLELUJAH AMENS!
It turns out it's math. Sometimes not even very good math. Here I was thinking you had something substantial to BELIEVE BRUTHA BELIEVE considering you were all dogmatic and everything.
I guess it doesn't take much dogma to get an atheist to genuflect and prostrate himself.
At least it provides an excuse to genuflect and prostrate yourself, and to go preach to the unbelieving masses. Whereas the atheist has no excuse, and yet many, like yourself, do it anyway.
Like I said, economy-sized cans of worms, my believing non-believer friend.
It really wasn't mine, but I appreciate the compliment. Unless you happen to be insulting my age with your "ancient" comment.
As far as experimentation goes, the fact that there is enough order and regularity in the universe to actually perform experiments of any kind gives me great comfort, and:
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 1, 2012 @ 9:24 pm
March 2nd, 2012 at 1:06 am
Except create and sustain everything that begins to exist and continues to exist whenever it exists.
It's pretty straight forward. You can't claim anything about something for which you don't have a proper and coherent definition. I can't claim anything about Bodwilstin so I would be agnostic (claims about its existence or evidence is unknown or unknowable) and ignostic (I cannot say anything about is without a sufficient definition of Bodwilten).
Agnosticism is a rational stance towards something for which there is no clear definition. Any claims about its existence or evidence is unknown or unknowable.
Hi Kuartus, I am gathering my thoughts on this point as well. Oderberg in his article "Whatever is Changing is Being Changed by Something Else": A Reappraisal of Premise One of the First Way" touches on this subject very briefly. For what its worth, I am also reading about the topic from the book cited in the thread about "accidents".
Comment by Techne — March 2, 2012 @ 1:06 am
March 2nd, 2012 at 1:30 am
John Wendt I am interested, Would you agree with the following descriptions of matter and energy:
1) Both matter and energy are homogeneous and of the same nature. It is only distinguished by quantitative differences. These quantitative differences may include differences in size, shape, mass, spin, tension (string theory), joules, motion etc.
2) Matter and energy do not act for an end. It has no intrinsic finality or goal-directedness.
3) At the fundamental level matter and energy have no conscious activity. 4) All change is described as the arrangement and rearrangement of matter and energy.
5) Matter and energy has no will.
And would you agree with the statement that "Everything is nothing but matter and energy in motion"?
Comment by Techne — March 2, 2012 @ 1:30 am
March 2nd, 2012 at 8:46 am
I don't know if it is or it isn't (although I think it explains a lot.) I'm giving you a concept that illustrates a relation of a creator to the creation, and how "energy" could be "injected."
The same way a programmer can do it with a computer. Imagine that particles are analogous to pixels on a computer display. And imagine they dance around according to "laws" that have been programmed into the computer by the programmer. Normally they follow the "laws" but the programmer can tweak the system at any time, which could look like an injection of "energy" to an observer within Pixel Land. An observer in Pixel Land has no idea what's going on behind the scenes. He just sees the normal law-like process occurring in his display world. And then, pow, new particles and energy out of nowhere. But it's not really nowhere, it's just being "injected" from a place absolutely out of the view of Pixel Land.
Of course, the physical reality we're dealing with in our own "Pixel Land" is vastly more complicated, but a plausible analogous relation is conceivable between a creator and space-time, if space-time is a computed system.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 2, 2012 @ 8:46 am
March 2nd, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Ah, Mike. Always nice to have a pointless conversation with you.
1. I didn't complain about a lack of definitions, the OP complained about a lack of definitions.
2. Yes, it doesn't matter because my point is equally valid whether we take your definition of "exhaustive" as being an unattainable extreme or my definition which was a synonym for "very thorough".
3. I accepted your definition without argument, so we are not talking about something undefined.
4. My point doesn't depend on the existence of anything specific.
I'm not sure why you keep saying "entity" when we are clearly talking about humans. And I have no idea why you think there's any kind of logical problem with asserting that some human could be an expert in the concept of God and the evidence presented for His existence.
It's remarkable how many objections you can come up with to the stunningly obvious observation that some people's opinions have more value than others.
Comment by don provan — March 2, 2012 @ 1:51 pm
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Your original statement was about things with no definition. Remember?
The point is that "unknown or unknowable" is an unwarranted step up from "undefined".
Naturally if you're going to backpedal to "no clear definition", then agnosticism would be reasonable as long as there is a sufficient definition.
Comment by don provan — March 2, 2012 @ 2:18 pm
March 3rd, 2012 at 11:43 am
You proposed the existence of an entity who has made an exhaustive search and analysis for any evidence claimed to be for God based on any definition. This proposal is loaded with undefined terms (terms which can have multiple meanings). You chose one – exhaustive. In your mind, I have defined the term “exhaustive” as “an unattainable extreme.” Here are my mere three contributions to this thread:
http://telicthoughts.com/there...
http://telicthoughts.com/there...
http://telicthoughts.com/there...
In none of them do I define “exhaustive” as an unattainable extreme. I simply asked is there any such thing as an entity who has made an exhaustive search and analysis for any evidence claimed to be for God based on any definition? You don’t seem to want to answer that question.
Okay, so as a start, you define exhaustive as “very thorough.” But what does that mean? What is the difference between very thorough and thorough? Is there a way to objectively determine if this “search” for “evidence” of God has been thorough?
Human infants are human too, but I don’t see how they would qualify as any type of expert.
Just as I never defined “exhaustive,” neither do I propose any kind of logical problem (Why am I reminded of this?). I simply asked just what type of entity has “expertise” when it comes to looking for evidence of God? You didn’t answer.
Whether some people's opinions have more value than others is itself dependent on personal opinion and values. People tend to value opinions that line up with theirs. So when it comes to God’s existence, just whose opinion is supposed to be most valuable?
Comment by MikeGene — March 3, 2012 @ 11:43 am
March 5th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
From Techne:
1-5 are a pretty good characterization of my approach to the world. "Matter in motion" is a bit glib ,a hangover from a time when quantum field theory wasn't available, but it's more right than wrong.
Comment by John Wendt — March 5, 2012 @ 2:21 pm
March 5th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Regarding the statement that there is no evidence for the existance of God.
There are so many ways to refute this statement that that I scarely know where to begin:
1) First, one cannot prove the absence of something. So his assertion that there in not afterlife, no heaven, no God are not provable at best.
2) Second, the assertion that the universe came out of nothing (natural outgrowth of no creator) requires way more faith (in some physis limited intelligence) then would it take to believe in a creator. Let's see how long you have to wait outside a junk yard before the pieces of junk spontaneously come together to form anything useful. Entropy moves in the direction of things deteriorating not creating new useful things. All empirical evidences support that a creator exist
3)If there is no creator and everything evolved, why is there a startling absence of transition species. We do not see any evidence that one species evolved into another. We do see species that have changes in their adaption to the environment but they are fundamentally the same. IE, Mastodon, the woolly Mammoth and the Elephant. And pray tell what creature did a Mastodon evolve from? And why do every animal creature seem to have all of it features that make it viable at once?
4)Man down thru the ages have acknowledged the present of a God of the Universe. The bible (Solomon) says that a fool says there is no God.
Voltare claimed this and when he died his house was made into a bible study facility.
One of science's discoveries is that the Universe is expanding. BUT THE BIBLE SAYS THAT GOD STRECHES OUT THE HEAVENS LIKE A CURTAIN. So if God did not write this through the agency of man how did ancient man know or write that? In otherwords how did God (or Man) Know thousands of years ago that the universe was expanding!
5)There is Historical evidence (written by Josephus and 20 others) of the existence of the man/God Jesus Christ.
6) The bible says that at the time that Paul was preaching the resurrected Christ that of the 500 witnesses to Christ after his resurrection, more than half of them still walked the earth at the time of his preaching.
7)Resurrection is a de facto proof of life after death.
8)Also nearly all of Jesus disciples were killed all confessing the Lord Jesus till their death. Why would they die for a lie?
9)When unbelievers opens his eyes on the other side, there will stand Jesus with the nail prints in his hand, asking why them why they did not believe in him.
10)God shows the way to heaven. There were two thieves on the crosses on either side of Jesus. One of them said to Jesus come down off that cross and save yourself and then save me. The other said you and I deserve what we are getting (crucifixion) but this man has done nothing amiss. Then he turned to Christ Jesus and Lord remember me when you come in to your kingdom.
The Bible says that if you will CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH THE LORD JESUS AND BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART THAT GOD HAS RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD YOUR WILL BE SAVED.
If you examine what the one thief said, he must have thought Jesus was going to be resurrected because Jesus was at that moment on the Cross about to die, and he turn to Jesus and said LORD. HE MET THE REQUIIREMENT OF ROMANS 10:9 AND JESUS SAID TO HIM that THIS DAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE. GOD TOOK THE ONE THIEF WHO BELIEVED TO HEAVEN (OR SAID HE WOULD) BASED ON HIS BELIEF)
11) Christ could have called a legion of angels to take him off the Cross but he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement for our peasce as upon him and by his stripes we are healed
12) I dare one person to prove any statement in the bible in error (except for a few copy mistakes from the original manuscript) with absolute proof.
Comment by jjg777 — March 5, 2012 @ 2:22 pm
March 5th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
John Wendt:
First, John informs us about his dogamaticism: “C of E is pretty much the only thing we materialists are dogmatic about.” But then two sentences later, he backtracks: “A god who could do unnatural things would have to….” Shouldn’t John be arguing that it would be impossible for God to “do unnatural things” because it would violate the C of E?
Perhaps he contradicts himself for rhetorical purposes: “any hypothesis of such a god would need to show, in considerable detail, where the god gets energy, and how he/she/it transmits and directs the energy. No such presentation seems to be on offer anywhere.”
This is the old mind game where people posture as, “I’d believe it if only there was evidence.”
Sorry, John, but for your “no such presentation” case to have any merit, you would have to demonstrate the following assumption to be true:
If God did do an unnatural thing, human beings in the year 2012 would be able to show, in considerable detail, where God got the energy, and how he/she/it transmits and directs the energy.
So get to it.
Comment by MikeGene — March 5, 2012 @ 3:44 pm
March 5th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
gomphotheres
Comment by Guts — March 5, 2012 @ 4:14 pm
March 6th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
MikeGene,
Oh, sorry, my mistake. I thought you were doubting the existence of such a person because such an exhaustive search was impossible. Now I understand that you don't have any problem believing someone could be that much of an expert.
I didn't realize that your only concern was my personal knowledge. The answer to your question is that I don't know if anyone's done such a thorough investigation.
Anything else?
Comment by don provan — March 6, 2012 @ 12:05 pm
March 6th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Interesting question. What do you think?
Comment by don provan — March 6, 2012 @ 6:51 pm
March 6th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Mine! (obviously!)
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 6, 2012 @ 8:20 pm
March 7th, 2012 at 8:30 am
Don,
You’re the one who asserted “the stunningly obvious observation that some people's opinions have more value than others,” so I posed the question to you thinking you might want to answer.
As for me, I value opinions that I can trust. I can do this if I know and respect a person. Since we can’t truly know people from reading their arguments, I look for a track record of intellectual honesty. The more evidence of intellectual honesty, the more I will value that opinion.
Comment by MikeGene — March 7, 2012 @ 8:30 am
March 7th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
That sounds like a good answer. So to evaluate the statement, "There is no evidence for the existence of God," one would need to consider the speaker's intellectual honesty. One couldn't just write off the statement categorically by saying,
Agreed?
Comment by don provan — March 7, 2012 @ 12:41 pm
March 7th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
No. Noting that when someone says, “There is no evidence for God,” all they are really saying is “I don’t see any evidence for God” is not some “write off.” It follows from understanding that evidence is interpreted data and as such ultimately relies on subjectivity. We detect data with our senses(objective); we detect evidence with our minds (subjective). One’s mans evidence is another man’s anomaly. This is easy to see if you simply ask the person (who makes the “no evidence” claim) what type of data they would count as evidence. In the rare cases where the question is answered instead of ignored, what is being demanded is some type of gap.
The subjective element is also on clear display even when it comes to demands for a Gap. For example, it is quite significant that scientist/atheists like Coyne, Dawkins, and Myers can’t agree on a foundational point. Myers and Dawkins say that even if a 30ft Jesus stood in front of them and yelled "I exist!" they would not count that as evidence. Coyne says he would. These scientists are incapable of reaching consensus about what would count as evidence precisely because the answer to that question is so deeply subjective.
The accurate and intellectually honest way to state the matter would be either to say “In my opinion, there is no evidence for God” or “I don’t see any evidence for God.” How can anyone, with any intellectual honesty, go beyond such claims and insist that their subjective perceptions and interpretations of the world must be shared by all other minds?
And then there is experience. After over ten years of searching the internet, I have yet to encounter someone who both a) insists “there is no evidence for God” such that theists are supposed to agree and b) whose writings would successfully satisfy most of the criteria for intellectual honesty that I cite. On the contrary, I have always noticed a strong correlation between insisting “there is no evidence for God” (as if it was an objective truth) and closed-minded extremism. And that makes sense when you think about it, as a “there is no evidence for God” position would create a mental inertia to maintain that position with disconfirmation bias.
Comment by MikeGene — March 7, 2012 @ 2:38 pm
March 7th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
MikeGene,
You start by denying the requirement to evaluate intellectual honesty in this case, but then the rest of your post is, in fact, your evaluation of the intellectual honesty of specific people you have encountered. Then you present your conclusion as if it can be applied categorically rather than saying what it really is: your opinion.
So I assume you'd also agree that the accurate and intellectually honest way to state the contrary position would be, "In my opinion, there is evidence for God," or "I see evidence for God," and that it would be intellectually dishonest to go beyond that and say that God exists. Right?
Personally, I think it's kind of silly to say that it's intellectually dishonest to say anything without premising it with "In my opinion" since, as we all agree, anything anyone ever says is always technically their opinion. In my opinion.
Comment by don provan — March 7, 2012 @ 3:22 pm
March 8th, 2012 at 12:24 am
Don,
No. I explained that noting that when someone says, “There is no evidence for God,” all they are really saying is “I don’t see any evidence for God” is not some “write off.” I was pointing out the premise behind your cross-examination was flawed. When it comes to evaluating intellectual honesty, I’m the guy who came up with the checklist to help.
Of course it is my opinion. And it is one that is highly informed by extensive experience. And I can note that the entirety of my opinion remains completely intact. You have not shown that I am wrong in noting that when someone claims“There is no evidence for God,” all they are really saying is “I don’t see any evidence for God.” You have offered no alternative explanation for the inability of Coyne and Myers to agree about what only happens to be the very foundation of their positions – what would count as evidence for God. You have not shown it to be intellectually honest to insist that one’s subjective perceptions and interpretations of the world must be shared by all other minds. And you have not provided any example of someone who both insists “there is no evidence for God” (such that theists are supposed to agree) and whose writings would successfully satisfy most of the criteria for intellectual honesty that I cite.
Sure. I’m always willing to admit that my belief in God is, intellectually speaking, an opinion. After all, I’m not the one who thinks faith is a dreaded eevil. And I certainly don’t go around trying to convince atheists that God exists.
But I’ll go a step further. Criterion # 2 of intellectual honesty is “Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist.” I publicly acknowledge that atheism is a reasonable alternative viewpoint.
Can you reciprocate and acknowledge that theism is a reasonable alternative viewpoint?
I don’t think it is silly at all to say “I don’t see any evidence for God” instead of “There is no evidence for God.” It’s not only much more accurate, but it also brings more clarity to the table. Of course, if the person wants to demonize theists as stupid and delusional, I suppose an intellectually honest approach to things would get in the way.
Comment by MikeGene — March 8, 2012 @ 12:24 am
March 8th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
That's all I ask. When you used the phrase "the atheist is masquerading subjectivity as objectivity," you made it sound that an atheist's statement of belief was inherently dishonest unless they start with "In my opinion". Thank-you for clearing that up.
Of course. What made you think I'm not a theist myself?
Comment by don provan — March 8, 2012 @ 2:14 pm
March 8th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
SMCATSROFLMFO!!!!
(spit my coffee at the screen, rolling on floor laughing my fanny off!!!!)
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 8, 2012 @ 8:56 pm
March 9th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Don,
Whether that masking is "inherently dishonest" or not depends on whether it is intentional. It’s common for people to so thoroughly convince themselves of their position (through confirmation and disconfirmation bias, propped up by selective social networking) that they can truly confuse their subjectivity for objectivity. They would be mistaken, not dishonest. Unfortunately, the Gnu Leaders nurture and encourage this error through their constant misuse of science as an authority on this issue. But that is a secondary concern. The primary point is to realize that when someone says “There is no evidence for God,” they are simply asserting that they personally do not see any evidence for God.
Are you a theist?
Comment by MikeGene — March 9, 2012 @ 10:04 am
March 10th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Atheism: Just a subjective opinion
Comment by MikeGene — March 10, 2012 @ 4:06 pm
March 11th, 2012 at 5:12 am
It can be taken one step further. Given the philosophical commitments typical to modern atheism (i.e. atomism, nominalism, relativism and etc.), when the atheist states "all knowledge is opinion" they are not only making a statement regarding the epistemic limitations of man, but also their belief in a cosmos that is not wholly intelligible.
Thus is the irony of the New Atheist rhetorical smokescreen of abandoning religion in order to further understand the universe.
Comment by Euphrates — March 11, 2012 @ 5:12 am
March 13th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
To the New Atheist, religion induces an assurance of absolute knowledge where none exists. Thus arguing to reject religion is consistent with an assertion of limited of knowledge.
If you take it as a given that religious knowledge transcends the limits of human knowledge, then you will disagree with them, of course. But their rejection of your assumption doesn't make their conclusions ironic.
Comment by don provan — March 13, 2012 @ 12:57 pm
March 14th, 2012 at 5:58 am
New Atheism: helping people to understand there's nothing to understand.
Comment by Euphrates — March 14, 2012 @ 5:58 am
March 14th, 2012 at 10:09 am
Lol!
Comment by chunkdz — March 14, 2012 @ 10:09 am
March 14th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
I don't understand. What makes you say New Atheists think there's nothing to understand? I would characterize their position as being that religions stand in the way of understanding what there is to understand.
Comment by don provan — March 14, 2012 @ 2:27 pm
March 14th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Provan:
Gnus are irrational, not retarded. Haven't met a Gnu yet who thinks religion posed an impediment to the writing of Principia.
Comment by chunkdz — March 14, 2012 @ 5:16 pm
March 15th, 2012 at 11:54 am
What's your point? Are you suggesting that New Atheists think religions encourage understanding? Would my point have been clearer if I had used "hinder" instead of "stand in the way", thus making it more obvious that an exception wouldn't be a contradiction?
I have to think about that. How can you tell what someone's mental abilities are if he's irrational?
Comment by don provan — March 15, 2012 @ 11:54 am
March 15th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
You're missing the point. Instead of worrying about what I am, consider what you think I've said that isn't consistent with someone critically evaluating arguments for a position that he supports. In this particular case, I've merely argued that Mike's claim of dishonesty is unwarranted, a position I feel I've supported without any requirement at all for whether there's actually is or isn't evidence for God. You can't even imagine a theist making that argument?
Comment by don provan — March 15, 2012 @ 12:06 pm
March 15th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Provan:
No, I was just showing you that you are wrong. Did you think that creating a strawman would change that?
Lol! Arguably the most important scientific treatise in the history of mankind was written for the exact purpose of understanding God and Don Provan says "that's just an exception".
Folks, did I not just say New Atheists are irrational? Do not doubt me on this.
Comment by chunkdz — March 15, 2012 @ 2:10 pm
March 15th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
don provan wrote:
Are you a theist?
MikeGene asked you this question and you ignored it. A theist can easily and unequivocally answer the question. Here, let me show you how it's done.
"angryoldfatman, are you a theist?"
Yes.
I can even answer the converse.
"angryoldfatman, are you an atheist?"
No.
See? It's really easy when you don't tie yourself up into uselessly rhetorical knots.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 15, 2012 @ 4:07 pm
March 15th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Yes, I did, as my opinions are singularly uninteresting.
The question I asked Mike first, which he also ignored, is much more interesting: why did he think I wasn't a theist? My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that I can view the opposition's statements as honest discussion while he insists on seeing them as nefarious posturing.
Comment by don provan — March 15, 2012 @ 5:37 pm
March 15th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
I can't even imagine you as a theist!
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 15, 2012 @ 6:57 pm
March 15th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Yes, but why? Is it because a theist would be incapable of understanding and presenting the atheist case?
The feeling I get is that people here want to label me as an atheist because that allows them to dismiss anything I say without having to bother considering it. MikeGene, for example, wants to believe I am fundamentally incapable of understanding and appreciating the theist position despite my having given him no reason to think that.
Comment by don provan — March 15, 2012 @ 7:30 pm
March 15th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Don:
Once again, you are confused. Can you please quote me when I am making this “claim of dishonesty.”
You have a long history of criticizing, nitpicking, and naysaying others that extends at least 6 years. So while you enjoy criticizing, nitpicking, and naysaying others, you become quickly uncomfortable and silent when it comes to your own views. Odd?
Can you quote me where I “insist on seeing them as nefarious posturing.”
Look Don, there is no need for such a convoluted explanation that is specific to my supposed short-comings. As you can see, the skepticism about you as a theist is universal around here and follows from our years of experience with you. You have a long history of criticizing, nitpicking, and naysaying theistic views and positions and a history of defending Gnuism. Heck, you even went so far as to defend Dawkins extremist anti-religious views that equate a religious upbringing with child abuse. Are you suggesting it is unreasonable for people to assume you are an atheist given this history over the years? And if you are a theist, given that you keep it so secret, is it reasonable to expect others to have detected you are a theist?
This is silly. People assume you are an atheist because of your history. And the only thing you have ever brought for consideration over all these years (that I can recall) are your criticisms, nitpicks, and naysaying. So you seem to be upset that people might not consider your constant stream of negativity when at the same time you hide your own views from criticism. Don’t you think it hypocritical to complain people are looking for ways to ignore your criticisms when you safely hide your own views from reciprocal criticism?
Can you quote me where I said you are “fundamentally incapable of understanding and appreciating the theist position?”
Comment by MikeGene — March 15, 2012 @ 8:32 pm
March 15th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
don provan wrote:
He just answered. Here's my answer: a theist can and does answer the question "are you a theist?". You can't.
To head off the sperg-out: that's not to say it's physically impossible for you to do so, it's just that you're too emotionally invested in refusing to do so, for whatever reason, and that refusal has gotten to the point of being silly. Like clowns-in-a-clown-car level silly.
Once again, let me show you how easy it is.
"angryoldfatman, are you a theist?"
Yes.
Here, let me answer the question as if I was someone who thought my theism was not a relevant point in the discussion.
"angryoldfatman, are you a theist?"
Yes, but that has no relevance to the issue at hand. The issue is blah blah blah.
See? Easy peasy.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 15, 2012 @ 10:32 pm
March 15th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Provan whining about being labelled as an atheist, well that is hilarious.
And hypocritical. Don writes:
Bold is my emphasis.
Notice how no such claim was made in the post Trollvan is responding to? Yet Don tells me that "religious knowledge" (whatever that means) "transcending" an epistemic human limitation just is my view. Truly, my view is quite simply that the abandonment of the forms and final causes renders modern atheism irrational – hardly any appeal to mysticism there. Of course, Don has no idea what my view is and has constructed a strawman (in this case he has chosen to use the Fideist Fundie strawman, a new atheist favourite).
Comment by Euphrates — March 15, 2012 @ 11:04 pm
March 16th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
MikeGene,
This passage the kind of statement I took as indicating that you were questioning honesty. Since that's not the case, then I guess there's no point in continuing our conversation because I'm obviously incapable of understanding you.
Comment by don provan — March 16, 2012 @ 2:58 pm
March 16th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Don, what does it say about your honesty that you continually find yourself regurgitating up strawman after strawman after strawman after strawman?
If you were simply playing Devil's advocate for the past 6 years you should have been able to make a judgement by now that regurgitated strawmen are about all the Gnus have to offer, since that's about all you seem to offer.
[Oh, except for that great
argument about religion being an impediment to science except for when it actually helps science make epic, landmark achievements. That was all you, baby! 
]
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2012 @ 4:31 pm
March 16th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Don,
I see your problem now – you are confusing intellectual honesty with honesty. They are not the same thing. Julian Sanchez did a nice job if of distinguishing them:
Did you get that? “I was always honest: I would not knowingly assert factual falsehoods. But I was often intellectually dishonest,”
You really should take 2-3 minutes and read my essay on intellectual honesty. You’ll find that my position is a) exceedingly rational and b) does not entail me accusing atheists of being dishonest.
Comment by MikeGene — March 16, 2012 @ 4:38 pm
March 16th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
No it's because you always – without fail – take the atheistic position in every discussion.
That's not it at all. If you make powerful arguments for atheism, the arguments themselves will be wrestled with. The problem is – you don't. Then you hide behind a cloak of self-delusional "impartiality" (even though you always take the side of atheism – without fail – every time.)
Oh so now you know what Mike Gene wants to believe?
Other than the fact that you've never once argued even a little bit in favor of a theist position – ever – on this website. Of course you could prove me wrong by providing some quotes to show your alleged impartiality…
I'll wait…
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 16, 2012 @ 9:07 pm
March 17th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Daniel Smith wrote:
Not only that, but if he's supposedly feigning atheism, he's also feigning every single point of ignorance about theism in general and Christianity in particular exhibited by practically every atheist with whom I've interacted.
I don't think Don's that good of an actor. If he was, he should take a picture of himself with his Oscar and put it up on Facebook for us.
As it is, his Randian atheism is about as subtle as one of Dagny Taggart's locomotives. Not surprising, since Objectivism is a favorite philosophical hugbox for spergoids.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 17, 2012 @ 5:52 pm
April 22nd, 2012 at 4:51 pm
I just wanted to drop a quick line in response to the claims made by a materialist in regards to conservation of energy.
1. If c of e is a prescriptive law it would require a law-giver. That I think even the most ignorant of atheist would admit. If it's not prescriptive then wedts objection fails. So if c of e is indeed a universal law that hints at order within the universe (which it obviously does) then the law itself is evidence against materialism.
2. He also assumes that the universe as a whole abides by c of e. That is not a scientific discovery but a pre-scientific assumption. The c of e law is in regards to energy within a closed system. The materialist therefore is not warranted in his claim since at best we don't know if the universe as a whole is a closed system. One couldn't even prove such a thing as it would require the observer to step outside the universe in order to investigate such a claim.
3. There is absolutely no substance to the claim that God' activity would require additional energy in its operation. That is a pathetic materialistic assumption that is simply stated without justification. In other words, it's simply a restatement of the materialistic faith. God could very well influence reality in its interety without altering any energy whatsoever. Claims that he can only do it "materialistically" are either circular logic or sheer nonsense.
4. The c of e suffers from the same problems as induction (since it's an inductive observation) that the materialist cannot account for. So he is in fact borrowing from Theism in order to even make reality intelligible and as such formulate his c of e theory/law.
This are just a few refutations of the stupid claim regarding c of e and God as expressed by village atheism. I think this oretty much settles the matter.
Comment by above — April 22, 2012 @ 4:51 pm
April 22nd, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Not to mention that if the universe were past infinite as materialism claims and the first and second law of thermodynamics held it would be so that we would have reached maximal entropy by now without any useful energy left. But the very fact that I'm trying this message is evidence to the contrary.
Comment by above — April 22, 2012 @ 4:57 pm