Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

[Jeremyhfht]

Haas anyone bothered to define 'material' and 'immaterial'? If you haven't you may all be arguing on a groundless base.

I agree. When discussing philosophy, regular definitions tend to not be specific or broad enough. I advise you all start defining what you're gabbing about.

 

[Sarkus]

Then, as I said, it boils down to belief and faith, as neither of us actually know. And there is the possibility that we will never actually know.

There is no faith, no belief, on my part.

Consider the non-material/spiritual nature of consciousness - of ALL things - as being the default position.
If you wish someone to believe otherwise - YOU provide the evidence.

Why take as a default position something for which there has never been any evidence?

What evidence?

There is evidence that material things exist.
This is one more piece of evidence than that which exists for the immaterial.

What evidence would be acceptable to you, to make you believe consciousness is non-material?

At this present time I have no idea. I am sure I will recognise it if I ever come across it.

But it does not dictate that consciousness is material, and there is nothing to suggest it is, other than speculation.

Of course it doesn't dictate that consciousness IS material - only that it is more rational to accept the "theory" that consciousness is material than is non-material.

As you have no idea either way, are prepared to accept, at least, both possibilities have equal chance of being correct. That seems to be the most rational way to look at it.

Not equal - no. There is NO evidence for non-material things.
Rationality thus dictates that the concept of the material nature of consciousness is preferable to the non-material.

If I enclose a room on all sides and tell you that there is either a 10-cent piece or a dollar in the room - and the ONLY evidence you have regarding this set-up is that there is DEFINITELY one or other of them in there - would you say that, rationally, there is equal chance of it being a either coin?
I would, as I have evidence of the existence of both the 10-cent piece and the dollar.

However, if the choice was between a 10-cent piece or an Irish Leprechaun - which would you say is more likely - given that you have evidence of the existence of 10-cent pieces, but zero evidence of Irish Leprechauns?
Would you seriously and rationally say that there is 50% chance for each of them to be in the room?

Of course you wouldn't. Why? 'Cos there is no evidence for the existence of the Irish Leprechaun.

The same can be said in a non-material capacity. The point is, we don't actually know.

How can you have, as a default, a position that has never been proven to exist (i.e. non-materiality)?? It is not rational - and your whole post makes me realise that you really do not understand rational-thinking.

I cannot provide scientific evidence, but neither can you.
But the reality is consciousness cannot be proven to be material, there may be a reason for this, there may not be. So at the moment it boils down to belief.

Belief, on your part, with an absolute lack of evidence - which is irrational.
I have evidence that material things exist. That is one more piece than you.
If you can not realise this difference, and appreciate what it means to the respective (ir)rational positions, then there is little point in continuing.

 

[grover]

Okay, I'll try a definition.
Material - that which can be detected by the senses.
Immaterial - that which can not be detected by the senses.

The reason I have defined material as such is because we all agree that material things are those things we can touch, hear, smell, etc. despite the fact that at their most basic level even material things are not material (i.e., it is made out of that which can't be detected through the senses.)
The immaterial on the other hand can not be detected by the senses. This includes things we can measure like energy and something we only know exists by direct experience - consciousness.

Here is a dictionary definition: 1. the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.
2. physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, esp. as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.

Sarkus, let me put it this way. It seems to me self-evidently apparent that there is a difference between mind and matter? You are claiming that the appearance is an illusion and that mind really is just matter. What is your evidence for this?

 

[SkinWalker]

Okay, I'll try a definition.
Material - that which can be detected by the senses.
Immaterial - that which can not be detected by the senses.

Hmmm. Will that not include a single molecule of water, which certainly cannot be detected by your senses? You could inhale it and not even know it. There are many material things that you cannot detect with the unaided senses, so does your definition include assisted observation?

 

[grover]

Hmmm. Will that not include a single molecule of water, which certainly cannot be detected by your senses? You could inhale it and not even know it. There are many material things that you cannot detect with the unaided senses, so does your definition include assisted observation?

It means anything that could be detected with the senses. Water can be detected with the senses. Assisted observation counts. If you can ever detect it with it your senses it is material.

 

[Cyperium]

Why should we believe in anything with no evidence?

Maybe because that is why it is called 'belief' something that is without definite evidence. There are alot of reasons why you should believe on the other hand, and judging on the teachings in the Bible it can really help you with alot.

 

[SkinWalker]

Maybe because that is why it is called 'belief' something that is without definite evidence. There are alot of reasons why you should believe on the other hand, and judging on the teachings in the Bible it can really help you with alot.

There is absolutely no reason to believe in any assertion that cannot be supported with evidence. None. There are many truths in biblical mythology, but there are many more bits of utter nonsense, fable, myth, and contradiction. Indeed, many "teachings" in biblical mythology are downright evil. Stoning to death those with whom we disagree and taking slaves is advocated by biblical mythology. Are you advocating that biblical mythology is only useful in so far as it can be cherry-picked for the "right bits?"

 

[FoolFromHell]

I think they have doubts about their own atheism and sometimes desire a God. My best guess, anyway.

Atheist here.
I really wish there was a God, but in my heart, I know there isnt.
The reason we ask for "evidence" is because theists call us deluded and misguided while they have no evidence except circular logic...
"The bible/ quran/ other says god exists and the bible/ quran/ other was written by god, thus, god exists."
That logic is flawed...

 

[Sarkus]

Okay, I'll try a definition.
Material - that which can be detected by the senses.
Immaterial - that which can not be detected by the senses.

Would you consider "heat" material or non-material?

And in response - I'll try a definition:
Immaterial - anything that is NOT the interaction, or combination of interactions, of the material.

 

[(Q)]

No, it happens in science too. Science isn't immune from dogma.

Sorry, I can't agree with that. You'll need to point out exactly what "dogma" you refer.

I think you might be misinterpreting me. What I'm saying is that the status quo within the scientific community often turns out to be wrong. Plate techtonics is a good example of this. More recently - neuroplasticity.

I think you exaggerate when you say 'often' and 'status quo.'

 

[VitalOne]

There is absolutely no reason to believe in any assertion that cannot be supported with evidence. None. There are many truths in biblical mythology, but there are many more bits of utter nonsense, fable, myth, and contradiction. Indeed, many "teachings" in biblical mythology are downright evil. Stoning to death those with whom we disagree and taking slaves is advocated by biblical mythology. Are you advocating that biblical mythology is only useful in so far as it can be cherry-picked for the "right bits?"

Yes, there is, there's many reasons to believe in things without evidence. Its very simple logically. You see right now we only have certain limited evidence, in 2007, a certain scope of evidence, therefore there are many innumerable, possibly infinite things that are true and that exist without evidence. Therefore you can believe in something without evidence because in reality there really are many things that are true, undiscovered, and exist without evidence...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

There is no faith, no belief, on my part.

So you must KNOW then.
Where is the evidence that consciousness is a material phenomenon?
If you have no evidence, then stop acting like you have.
If you think because everything in your world view is material, explained by natural causes, then it is a dogmatic belief.

Why take as a default position something for which there has never been any evidence?

Its not a default position.
And what do you mean by evidence?
What evidence would suffice?

There is evidence that material things exist.
This is one more piece of evidence than that which exists for the immaterial.

Do you know what to look for, regarding evidence of non-material?
Do you know how to begin looking?

At this present time I have no idea. I am sure I will recognise it if I ever come across it.

How?

Of course it doesn't dictate that consciousness IS material - only that it is more rational to accept the "theory" that consciousness is material than is non-material.

That's not being rational, that's being close-minded.
From a scientific point of view, there is no reason to doubt the existence of non-matter.

Not equal - no. There is NO evidence for non-material things.
Rationality thus dictates that the concept of the material nature of consciousness is preferable to the non-material.

You haven't stated what would be suitable evidence for the non-material, so you don't know if there is non-matter. For all you know non-matter may exist, but it has to be understood differently to matter. But to bleat "there is no evidence" all the day long, is pure, dogma, and stubboness.

However, if the choice was between a 10-cent piece or an Irish Leprechaun -which would you say is more likely - given that you have evidence of the existence of 10-cent pieces, but zero evidence of Irish Leprechauns?
Would you seriously and rationally say that there is 50% chance for each of them to be in the room?

Both things are material, and the evidence would be in favour of the money. But non-matter is not material.

How can you have, as a default, a position that has never been proven to exist (i.e. non-materiality)??

What would suffice as "proven to exist"?

It is not rational - and your whole post makes me realise that you really do not understand rational-thinking.

Funny, from your posts, I don't think you undertstand rational-thinking.

Belief, on your part, with an absolute lack of evidence - which is irrational.

What do you mean by "lack of evidence"? I'm still not sure on this point.

I have evidence that material things exist. That is one more piece than you.

Wrong. I also have evidence that material things exist.

If you can not realise this difference, and appreciate what it means to the respective (ir)rational positions, then there is little point in continuing.

If you don't wish to continue, just say so, and I will stop responding.
But don't project your failings on me.

Jan.

 

[grover]

Would you consider "heat" material or non-material?

This is actually a really interesting question.
1) Does heat even exist outside of perception?
2) We know exactly what the perception of heat is from - molecules moving faster. There is actual scientific evidence for this. We can not say with any evidence what it is about the brain that creates consciousness nor can you even offer any speculation about what specifically is occuring on a material level to create consciousness. In other words you are supporting a position based on zero evidence, which is precisely what you say is so wrong about the theist position.

And in response - I'll try a definition:
Immaterial - anything that is NOT the interaction, or combination of interactions, of the material.

You can define it however you want but without any evidence to back it up I fail to see how you are not supporting a double-standard and being hypocritical.

 

[Ophiolite]

.......nor can you even offer any speculation about what specifically is occuring on a material level to create consciousness.

Yes I can. Consider for example Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
While if you refer to the Wikipedia article on consciousness [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Cognitive_neuroscience_approaches] you will find that three types of physical explanation are on offer, each of which has multiple versions.
Now given that you are unaware of such, does this not cast doubt on your ability (through lack of knowledge) to be defending your position?

 

[Sarkus]

So you must KNOW then.

Only if you misunderstand simple logic.
Choosing not to have a belief that A is true does NOT imply that you believe B is true.
Learn this.

Where is the evidence that consciousness is a material phenomenon?

There is evidence that material phenomena exist, agree?
Where is the evidence that non-material phenomena exist?
If you don't have any then the default rational position must be of the material.

If you think because everything in your world view is material, explained by natural causes, then it is a dogmatic belief.

Rubbish - it is merely a non-belief in the immaterial.

Its not a default position.

You said "Consider the non-material/spiritual nature of consciousness - of ALL things - as being the default position."
I then asked the question.
And your response is now to reject your own position? I am confused by you, Jan.

Do you know what to look for, regarding evidence of non-material?
Do you know how to begin looking?

How can I know what to look for when there has never been any evidence for it!???

That's not being rational, that's being close-minded.

Lol!
You truly do not understand.

From a scientific point of view, there is no reason to doubt the existence of non-matter.

You mean other than the utter lack of evidence for it? The non-testability of it? The complete and utter un-scientific nature of it?
No - no reason to doubt it at all!

Again - you display your own ignorance.

You haven't stated what would be suitable evidence for the non-material, so you don't know if there is non-matter.

For the LAST TIME - I AM NOT SAYING THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS IMMATERIAL.

I AM SAYING THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE NON-MATERIAL, AND THUS TO BELIEVE IN THE NON-MATERIAL IS IRRATIONAL.

For all you know non-matter may exist, but it has to be understood differently to matter.

Correct. But you need to provide the evidence of its existence in the first instance - or it is logically akin to non-existence.
If you can not grasp this then there is little point in continuing the debate.

But to bleat "there is no evidence" all the day long, is pure, dogma, and stubboness.

Only because you do not understand.

Both things are material, and the evidence would be in favour of the money.

Why?

What would suffice as "proven to exist"?

You tell me - you're the one advocating its existence.

Wrong. I also have evidence that material things exist.

Let me rephrase the statement, as you're clearly just being obstinate for the sake of it:
I have evidence that material things exist. That is one more piece than you have with regard to non-material things.

If you don't wish to continue, just say so, and I will stop responding.
But don't project your failings on me.

Pathetic, Jan.
My only failing is in bothering to think that you're actually worth debating with.

 

[Sarkus]

This is actually a really interesting question.
1) Does heat even exist outside of perception?
2) We know exactly what the perception of heat is from - molecules moving faster. There is actual scientific evidence for this.

Heat is material, in my view, using my definition. It is the direct result of interactions of the physical.

We can not say with any evidence what it is about the brain that creates consciousness nor can you even offer any speculation about what specifically is occuring on a material level to create consciousness.

Perhaps not yet - at least I can't, anyway.
So why believe that it is non-material?

In other words you are supporting a position based on zero evidence, which is precisely what you say is so wrong about the theist position.

See below - you misunderstand the position.

You can define it however you want but without any evidence to back it up I fail to see how you are not supporting a double-standard and being hypocritical.

Please explain this "double-standard" and being hypocritical?

I think you miss the issue - like so many who debate against a generalised view of atheism...

You have a positive belief that the non-material exists - that there are some things (such as consciousness) that are immaterial.
I do not have this positive belief.
That's it.
I do not have a positive belief that only the material exists - as there is no way to test and provide evidence for EVERYTHING.

The default position, in the lack of evidence - is the lack of the positive belief.
The default RATIONAL position MUST THEREFORE BE that consciousness is purely material - until such time as more evidence (either way) comes to light.

If you can provide evidence for the non-material - then I can do little but take it into account - and the rational position in this matter will change.

 

[grover]

Heat is material, in my view, using my definition. It is the direct result of interactions of the physical.

I agree that heat is a physical property. It actually fits in with my definition of material being that which can be sensed. Why do you insist on comparing consciousness to physical properties? They have nothing in common except that matter has properties and you are trying to say that consciousness is just another property of matter despite the fact that consciousness doesn't have any physical properties at all.

Perhaps not yet - at least I can't, anyway.
So why believe that it is non-material?

Like I said before it seems to me self-evidently apparent that there is a difference between mind and matter? You are claiming that the appearance is an illusion and that mind really is just matter. What is your evidence for this?

See below - you misunderstand the position.

Please explain this "double-standard" and being hypocritical?

I think you miss the issue - like so many who debate against a generalised view of atheism...

You have a positive belief that the non-material exists - that there are some things (such as consciousness) that are immaterial.
I do not have this positive belief.
That's it.
I do not have a positive belief that only the material exists - as there is no way to test and provide evidence for EVERYTHING.

There is no way to provide evidence for EVERYTHING? That's interesting.
The double standard is that you are making a positive claim without evidence. The hypocrisy is that you claim that not having evidence is a good reason not to believe in God. It's my assertion that you too are making arbitrary metaphysical assumptions about the universe based upon what seems to you to make sense yet saying there is something wrong when theists do the same thing.

The default position, in the lack of evidence - is the lack of the positive belief.
The default RATIONAL position MUST THEREFORE BE that consciousness is purely material - until such time as more evidence (either way) comes to light.

That is insane. First you say the default position is the lack of positive belief then you say the default position is that consciousness must be material despite the fact that you've already said there is no evidence. To quote Skinwalker "There is absolutely no reason to believe in any assertion that cannot be supported with evidence." You can squirm around this issue all you want but there is no scientific evidence supproting consciousness being material and to assert such is nothing but materialist dogma.

If you can provide evidence for the non-material - then I can do little but take it into account - and the rational position in this matter will change.

You will first have to answer my question: it seems to me self-evidently apparent that there is a difference between mind and matter? You are claiming that the appearance is an illusion and that mind really is just matter. What is your evidence for this?

 

[grover]

Yes I can. Consider for example Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
While if you refer to the Wikipedia article on consciousness [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Cognitive_neuroscience_approaches] you will find that three types of physical explanation are on offer, each of which has multiple versions.
Now given that you are unaware of such, does this not cast doubt on your ability (through lack of knowledge) to be defending your position?

Julian Haynes book is not science. It is a speculative explanation that has never received any kind of scientific evidence (as far as I know). Read the second chapter here http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html. In particular: "The ambiguity of the term "consciousness" is often exploited by both philosophers and scientists writing on the subject. It is common to see a paper on consciousness begin with an invocation of the mystery of consciousness, noting the strange intangibility and ineffability of subjectivity, and worrying that so far we have no theory of the phenomenon. Here, the topic is clearly the hard problem - the problem of experience. In the second half of the paper, the tone becomes more optimistic, and the author's own theory of consciousness is outlined. Upon examination, this theory turns out to be a theory of one of the more straightforward phenomena - of reportability, of introspective access, or whatever. At the close, the author declares that consciousness has turned out to be tractable after all, but the reader is left feeling like the victim of a bait-and-switch. The hard problem remains untouched."

I was aware that there a materialist philosophical theories.
Bottom line: there are at this time no testable hypotheses. So if you want to see scientific dogma face to face look no further than people claiming that consciousness is material.

 

[Ophiolite]

Grover, I find your ability to comprehend language and to apply logic to be sadly lacking. The alternative explanation is that you are being deliberately deceitful.

I was addressing your specific statement "nor can you even offer any speculation about what specifically is occuring on a material level to create consciousness."

I offered such speculation by way of reference to Julian Jaynes' work. (That's Jaynes, not Haynes.) Now you respond that is not science. We were not talking science; you did not state that I could not offer any scientific speculation, but whether I could offer any speculation. Don't get cute by offering up a strawman as a means of evading the issue.

The same goes for yor further remarks. They are irrelevant to the point that I intended to demonstrate and did, indeed, demonstrate that we can offer speculation etc. Your statement was inaccurate.

 

[grover]

Grover, I find your ability to comprehend language and to apply logic to be sadly lacking. The alternative explanation is that you are being deliberately deceitful.

I think the mistakes I've made in interpreting peoples statements have been honest ones.

I was addressing your specific statement "nor can you even offer any speculation about what specifically is occuring on a material level to create consciousness."

Okay, I will be honest on this point and say that you are technically correct here. However, anyone following my argument can plain see my issue the entire time has been evidence. Furthermore, the fact remains that scientists have yet to come with any speculation or hypothesis that is testable. Furthermore, I have yet to hear anyone on this thread provide any description of their own of how consciousness is really just material.

I offered such speculation by way of reference to Julian Jaynes' work. (That's Jaynes, not Haynes.) Now you respond that is not science.

I have never read Jaynes work. I have heard of it and find the idea very intriguing. However, as I understand it his work deals with how people used to perceive language from one side of the brain as being an outside force. His work doesn't even deal with the hard problem of consciousness (which is why I posted that link) and I don't even think his speculation concerning language has ever been confirmed by neuroscience. So, while his work is intriguing it is on the level with other psuedoscience like intelligent design and consciousness being an emergent phenomenon.

We were not talking science; you did not state that I could not offer any scientific speculation, but whether I could offer any speculation.

We are talking about evidence. Everyone is free to speculate as much as they want. But, when people start talking about that speculation as if it is a proven fact that is a problem (wouldn't you say?). Second of all I'm pointing out that many people that believe think all their beliefs are based on evidnece often times do have beliefs which are not based on evidence. How can people people believe that consciousness is really just material without evidence but say that people that believe in God without evidence are somehow deluded? It seems like a double-standard. Both groups are really just believing in that which "makes sense" to them.

Don't get cute by offering up a strawman as a means of evading the issue.

I've been arguing the evidence issue the entire time. I suggest you don't get cute by trying to change the topic from evidence to speculation as a means of evading the issue. Again, if you guys are going to start saying its okay to bleieve in something based upon speculation I guess God is back on the table as an acceptable thing to believe right?

The same goes for yor further remarks. They are irrelevant to the point that I intended to demonstrate and did, indeed, demonstrate that we can offer speculation etc. Your statement was inaccurate.

Yes, you can speculate...doenst' change the fact that I've clearly been talking about the issue of evidence the entire time. My further remarks were to clarify the issue I was talking about (I posted a link because you seem to think I'm illiterate and either stupid or dishonest so I figured the link would explain what I'm talking about better and the fact that it came from a respected philosopher might reduce your attempts to dismiss the argument based on ad hominem attacks).
Anyone that's followed my line of reasoning pertaining to consciousness can plainly see that the issue I've been bringing up is evidence. I have no problem if someone wants to adopt a materialist view, just don't act like its an obvious and unquestionable fact, don't act like its been proven by science, and don't think your belief differs in any significant way from those who believe in God without evidence.