Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

[grover]

Thanks - sums up nicely.

- The existence of the universe is evidence of the universe.
- There is no way you can prove that there is any fine tuning happening or ever happened. Physical constants simply exist. They are not evidence of anything other than themselves.
- The presence of intelligent, conscious life is evidence of life.
---------------------------------
-The existence of consciousness is evidence of consciosness.
-There is no way you can prove that brain creates consciousness. Consciousness simply exists. Consciousness is not evidence of anything else.
- The presence of consciousness is evidence of consciousness.
------------------------------------------------
So why in the first example making assumptions is bad but in the second example making assumptions is okay?

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, but you are arbitrarily assigning subjective desire to God.

Where have I done that?

Why can't a person say that something can't come from nothing and therefore the universe had to come from something and that something is God.

They can say it all they want. But saying it is NOT evidence of it.

For example, are they defining God merely as "the original cause"?
If so:
1. provide evidence that the Universe had a cause;
2. provide evidence that this "God" is the same god as any in religion, and that we can know anything about it (as described in those religions) other than "first cause";

Or say that the univers appears to have design.

Please provide evidence of this "design" you speak of.

Once can come up with rational reasons for God.

I agree that there are rational reasons to come up with some variations of "God" - such as those that define God as "existence" itself, or "the Universe".

But to claim something as "evidence FOR" something - as explained above, you need to show, rationally, how it is evidence for that something and not actually for something more rational.

You illustrate your lack of understanding.

Of course.

 

[Sarkus]

- The existence of the universe is evidence of the universe.
- There is no way you can prove that there is any fine tuning happening or ever happened. Physical constants simply exist. They are not evidence of anything other than themselves.
- The presence of intelligent, conscious life is evidence of life.
---------------------------------
-The existence of consciousness is evidence of consciosness.
-There is no way you can prove that brain creates consciousness. Consciousness simply exists. Consciousness is not evidence of anything else.
- The presence of consciousness is evidence of consciousness.
------------------------------------------------
So why in the first example making assumptions is bad but in the second example making assumptions is okay?

Because of the default rational position one takes, based on rational thought and the available evidence.

The existence of the universe is evidence of the universe
Anything is evidence of itself, as long as we read nothing else into it, i.e. take no assumptions in what that thing implies / entails etc.

Thus consciousness is indeed evidence of itself, but this statement adds nothing to our knowledge or assumptions of what consciousness is.

There is no way you can prove that there is any fine tuning happening or ever happened.
There was a claim made that the universe had been "finely tuned" - whereas there is no evidence for this. The only evidence that exists is that the universe exists as it exists. Default rational position (i.e. until evidence to the contrary) is thus that there is no fine-tuning.

With consciousness, the only evidence that exists is that material things exist. Thus default rational position (i.e. until evidence to the contrary) is thus that consciousness is a result of material interactions.

You have turned your part around to make it seem as though the claimants are stating that consciousness is definitely material in nature. This is not so. The claimants (e.g. you) are those proposing that consciousness is non-material, with us merely saying that there is no evidence and thus the rational position is of consciousness being material.

The presence of consciousness is evidence of consciousness.I have no issue with this - as long as, just in the first part, there are no assumptions or anything else read into this than what is there, and thus adds nothing to our understanding.

 

[grover]

Evidence, please?

A dream rock is not an actual physical rock.

I am not making any claims without evidence. Please point out where you think I am and I will again try to explain to you where you are going wrong.

You said: "Obviously if you dream of a brick then it is not a physical brick - but the dream it is still generated through physical interactions within the brain." This is a claim without evidence. How do you know the dream isn't causing physical activity in the brain?

I am not saying they definitely ARE physical. I am saying that, without evidence to the contrary, the only rational conclusion based on the available evidence is that they are physical in nature - i.e. purely the result of physical interactions.

The only evidence we have of conscious experience is the direct experience of it, and we know that the experiences appear to be immaterial (i.e., a dream brick is not an actual physical brick). Now, if you are going to claim that these apparently imaterial subjective experiences are in fact material you have to give a reasonable description of how this occurs (to have a rational conclusion), and then supply evidence that the reasonable description actually is the case. I haven't heard you do the first and no one has done the second.

NO! You just do NOT understand.
The default rational position in this case exists because there is ONLY evidence for one side of the case.
WE HAVE EVIDENCE FOR MATERIAL THINGS.
WE DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE FOR NON-MATERIAL THINGS.
The default position, through rational thinking, MUST BE - until evidence is shown to the contrary - that all things are material in nature.
What of this do you not understand?

A dream brick is not an actual brick. If your going to claim the dream brick is actually just a material action in the brain you have to give a plausible explanation of this for it to be a "reasonable conclusion." If you want to actually claim it as true you must be provide evidence. You can do neither.

I am not the one needing to provide evidence - YOU ARE!
I am not saying that "consciousness is definitely material".
I AM saying that until you provide evidence that something non-material exists, the rational default position must be that consciousness is material - and there is thus NO reason to believe otherwise.
Understand?

Yes, I do understand. There is a difference between a dream brick and a real brick. A real brick is made of physical atoms, etc. A dream brick on the other hand is not, it is immaterial. You can't throw a dream brick through an actual window and break the window. If you are going to claim it is a "rational conclusion" that the apparently immaterial dream brick is in actual fact material interactions within the brain you have to be able to say how this occurs. For you to claim this as true you have to provide actual evidence.

Please provide the rational thought process that says the universe comes from God.

Because something can't come from nothing. That's like saying consciousness doesn't come from the brain -it's just crazy!

Secondly - we're talking about LACK OF EVIDENCE - not evidence.
Evidence exists - and it is ALL material.
You claim non-material things exist - so you provide the evidence.
That's all we ask.

When I actually bleed cause someone hit me with a dream brick I'll start believing that it isn't self-evident that dream bricks aren't a different order of phenomenon than real bricks.

Please indicate where I have ever said that? Ever said that?!
Logical fallacy on your part.

That's what you are saying every time you say it isn't self-evident that a dream brick ins't a real brick.

But the dream IS material - i.e. it is caused by physical interactions within your brain.

How do you know this. What are these physical interactions? Or are you just assuming? How has it been shown that these cause the subjective experience of a dream? Or are you just assuming?

The fact that your brain interprets the dream with visions, feelings, emotions is merely evidence of those areas of the brain being stimulated by the impulses / interactions.

What?

Obviously if you dream of a brick then it is not a physical brick - but the dream it is still generated through physical interactions within the brain.

How? All we have evidence of is a self-evidently immaterial brick. You are claiming this is somehow created by physical interactions in the brian but can provide no description of how this occurs let alone provide evidence. Just admit you are making an assumption. I'm not trying to get you to give up your metaphysical allegiance to materialism, I'm trying to get you to see that you don't have any actual evidence for your metaphysical assumptions and your beliefs are therefore no different than someone that has metaphysical assumptions about God which they too can provide no actual evidence for.

 

[grover]

Because of the default rational position one takes, based on rational thought and the available evidence.

The existence of the universe is evidence of the universe
Anything is evidence of itself, as long as we read nothing else into it, i.e. take no assumptions in what that thing implies / entails etc.

Thus consciousness is indeed evidence of itself, but this statement adds nothing to our knowledge or assumptions of what consciousness is.

Right, but how is making assumptions about the origins of consciousness any different than making assumptions about the origins of the universe?

There is no way you can prove that there is any fine tuning happening or ever happened.
There was a claim made that the universe had been "finely tuned" - whereas there is no evidence for this. The only evidence that exists is that the universe exists as it exists. Default rational position (i.e. until evidence to the contrary) is thus that there is no fine-tuning.

Stop using the term "default position." Near as I can tell what this means is that you take your own metaphysical assumptions to be true. Join the club. One could just as easily say the appearnce of fine-tuning means there is fine-tuning.

With consciousness, the only evidence that exists is that material things exist. Thus default rational position (i.e. until evidence to the contrary) is thus that consciousness is a result of material interactions.

But you keep ignoring the obvious fact that there is a difference between a dream brick and an actaul brick. The dream brick is evidence of the immaterial.

You have turned your part around to make it seem as though the claimants are stating that consciousness is definitely material in nature. This is not so. The claimants (e.g. you) are those proposing that consciousness is non-material, with us merely saying that there is no evidence and thus the rational position is of consciousness being material.

No, there is self-evidently a difference between mind and matter (i.e., a dream brick is not an actual brick). If you are going to say that this appearance is really an illusion you have to provide an explanation for it to be a rational conclusion and actual evidence for it to be considered a probable truth.

The presence of consciousness is evidence of consciousness.I have no issue with this - as long as, just in the first part, there are no assumptions or anything else read into this than what is there, and thus adds nothing to our understanding.

Yes, but you are the one making a leap from saying that the self-evidently apparent nature of consciousness as being immaterial is incorrect and saying that consciousness is actually material.

 

[Sarkus]

You said: "Obviously if you dream of a brick then it is not a physical brick - but the dream it is still generated through physical interactions within the brain." This is a claim without evidence.

No - it is a continuation of the default rational position.

How do you know the dream isn't causing physical activity in the brain?

Dream studies - sleep studies - biology - research.

The only evidence we have of conscious experience is the direct experience of it, and we know that the experiences appear to be immaterial (i.e., a dream brick is not an actual physical brick). Now, if you are going to claim that these apparently imaterial subjective experiences are in fact material you have to give a reasonable description of how this occurs (to have a rational conclusion), and then supply evidence that the reasonable description actually is the case. I haven't heard you do the first and no one has done the second.

I direct you to my previous post where I point out your failure to understand where the onus of proof lies.

A dream brick is not an actual brick. If your going to claim the dream brick is actually just a material action in the brain you have to give a plausible explanation of this for it to be a "reasonable conclusion." If you want to actually claim it as true you must be provide evidence. You can do neither.

Would you say that a television image is material or immaterial?

I would say it is material - made up of electrons hitting a screen etc.
But i can not pick up a brick being shown on a television screen and hurl it across a room and break a window.
Wow - it must be non-material then!

Because something can't come from nothing.

So where did this God come from? He's been around forever, right? He came from nothing?

When I actually bleed cause someone hit me with a dream brick I'll start believing that it isn't self-evident that dream bricks aren't a different order of phenomenon than real bricks.

When did I ever state that a "dream brick" is identical to a "real brick"?

I have merely said that dreams are material in nature - i.e. caused by physical interactions within the brain. This is the default rational position.

You confuse yourself through introducing things into my argument that just aren't there.

That's what you are saying every time you say it isn't self-evident that a dream brick ins't a real brick.

See point above. I have never made this comment.
These are known as strawman logical fallacies.
Please avoid them.

How do you know this. What are these physical interactions? Or are you just assuming? How has it been shown that these cause the subjective experience of a dream? Or are you just assuming?

Dream studies, sleep studies.
How much evidence is going to satisfy you on this matter?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n3_v153/ai_20212425
http://futurefeeder.com/index.php/archives/2005/06/23/extracting-video-from-the-brain/
http://www.sensualism.com/love/brain.html

Just look it up on the web - plenty of stuff out there.

What?

I suggest you do some research on dreams etc.

How? All we have evidence of is a self-evidently immaterial brick.

LOL! It is NOT "self-evidently immaterial".
It is a dream! Yes - it is different to a brick you can hold in your hand and hurl through a window - BECAUSE IT ISN'T A BRICK!!
It is merely an interpretation by your brain of impulses in your head.

This is worth a read. Quite interesting... not on dreams per se, though.
http://amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h0998dgh/philom/consc/consc.html

 

[Sarkus]

Stop using the term "default position." Near as I can tell what this means is that you take your own metaphysical assumptions to be true. Join the club. One could just as easily say the appearnce of fine-tuning means there is fine-tuning.

You continue to show that you do not understand the terminology used, despite my best efforts.
As such I unfortunately feel it is pointless continuing.
I will respond to this post, but no more, unless you raise something different.

But you keep ignoring the obvious fact that there is a difference between a dream brick and an actaul brick. The dream brick is evidence of the immaterial.

No - the dream brick is evidence of a dream.

No, there is self-evidently a difference between mind and matter (i.e., a dream brick is not an actual brick). If you are going to say that this appearance is really an illusion you have to provide an explanation for it to be a rational conclusion and actual evidence for it to be considered a probable truth.

No - you have to provide more evidence than "it is self-evident".
You again fail to see where the onus of proof lies, or what constitutes evidence.

Yes, but you are the one making a leap from saying that the self-evidently apparent nature of consciousness as being immaterial is incorrect and saying that consciousness is actually material.

It is NOT self-evident. Your ENTIRE evidence is one of it being "self-evident".
This is NOT evidence - else ANYTHING could be deemed "self-evident" and thus claimed as truth etc.

 

[grover]

It is NOT self-evident. Your ENTIRE evidence is one of it being "self-evident".
This is NOT evidence - else ANYTHING could be deemed "self-evident" and thus claimed as truth etc.

Since at this point we seem to be talking past each other more than to each other lets just try and hammer out this one point.
-------------------------------------------------
1)The only evidence for any subjective experience is actually self-evident and there is in fact no objective evidence. For instance dreaming, we really only know that people dream because we have had that experience ourselves. Imagine if only you dreamed and everyone else just had dreamless sleep, you would have no way of actually providing actual evidence that you dream. You do in fact have no way of providing actual evidence, you just accpet it that others dream because they say they dream and so do you, but there is no actual objective evidence. ANd, that is how it is of all subjective experience. So, it should come as no surprise if I make a claim pertaining to consciousness which is based on self-evidence.
2) In this instance the claim being made is that consciousness is immaterial. I back this claim up by using an example of a dream brick vs. a real brick. There is an obvious difference between these two things. The real brick is a material object (albeit, made out of the immaterial). The dream brick on the other hand is not a real physical object is a mental recreation. Even if that recreation has physical correlates [which there is no actual evidence of (I'm speaking of the subjuctive experience itself as opposed to the brain regions correlated with dreaming)] the subjective experience would still not be a material object.

 

[Sarkus]

1)The only evidence for any subjective experience is actually self-evident and there is in fact no objective evidence. For instance dreaming, we really only know that people dream because we have had that experience ourselves. Imagine if only you dreamed and everyone else just had dreamless sleep, you would have no way of actually providing actual evidence that you dream. You do in fact have no way of providing actual evidence, you just accpet it that others dream because they say they dream and so do you, but there is no actual objective evidence. ANd, that is how it is of all subjective experience. So, it should come as no surprise if I make a claim pertaining to consciousness which is based on self-evidence.

This is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion.

2) In this instance the claim being made is that consciousness is immaterial. I back this claim up by using an example of a dream brick vs. a real brick. There is an obvious difference between these two things. The real brick is a material object (albeit, made out of the immaterial). The dream brick on the other hand is not a real physical object is a mental recreation. Even if that recreation has physical correlates [which there is no actual evidence of (I'm speaking of the subjuctive experience itself as opposed to the brain regions correlated with dreaming)] the subjective experience would still not be a material object.

And this is where your understanding / approach differs to mine.

You are saying that a mental recreation of a brick is not material, although the actual brick is.

I am saying that both are material - albeit in very different ways: the brick through the fact that it is made up of atoms, molecules etc (on which I think we agree) and the mental recreation through the fact that it is generated through nothing but material interactions within the brain.


What we claim / describe as "consciousness" is nothing more than the sum of these interactions. The sum of the outward appearance of these interactions is what we classify as "personality" - which is why when brain is damaged the personality is often changed / damaged.

Being the sum of these interactions there is obviously no centre to it - no easy way to define it - no simple "map" or structure. It is complex. Vastly complex. So complex as to make people think that it must be something it isn't - something "non-material" - something "beyond just the sum of the interactions".

And I say these not as a claim of truth but because, in the absence of evidence to the contrary... yes, you've guessed it... it is currently the default rational position. I am sorry you don't like that term but it is the most succinct way I can think of putting it.

I remain open to be shown evidence to the contrary.

 

[grover]

This is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion.

Well, cosidering my first post (#158) was this exact point I don't seee how it is irrelevant:
Sarkus, it is an accepted and obvious fact that the scientific method only deals with the material. For that reason scientists, referred to a scientific materialists, have made the leap that only material exists. This is an assumption. The lack of evidence for the immaterial can mean either that
1) scientific materialists are right and that only material exists, or;
2) the scientific method deosn't not apply to investigation of the immaterial
--------------------------------------------
Let's take a real-life example of a phenomenon we know exists but can't provide evidence for - consciousness. You and I both know this phenomenon exists because we have direct experience of it. But, here is my challenge to you - provide evidence of consciousness. You can't. This means one of three things;
1) Consciousness doesn't exist because no evidence can be provided for it.
2) Consciousness does exist but there is something about its nature that makes it so that evidence can not be provided for it.
3) Evidence can be provided for consciousness but we currently lack the technology to provide evidence for it.
---------------------
I don't think you'd say 1 is true which leaves us wth doors number 2 and 3.
There is only one word for door number three - Faith.
So, what we are left with then, unless we want to resort to blind faith, is option number 2 - which could also be stated as: There is at least one phenomenon that we know exists but we can provide no evidence for.

And this is where your understanding / approach differs to mine.

You are saying that a mental recreation of a brick is not material, although the actual brick is.

I am saying that both are material

Exactly, you are making a postive claim for which you have no evidence.

- albeit in very different ways: the brick through the fact that it is made up of atoms, molecules etc (on which I think we agree) and the mental recreation through the fact that it is generated through nothing but material interactions within the brain.

What are these actual interactions? This is psuedoscience bullshit.

What we claim / describe as "consciousness" is nothing more than the sum of these interactions.

No-evidence-psuedoscience-materialist-dogma-bullshit.

The sum of the outward appearance of these interactions is what we classify as "personality" - which is why when brain is damaged the personality is often changed / damaged.

No one is disputing that there is some connection between brain and consciousness. What that connection is is whats in dispute.

Being the sum of these interactions there is obviously no centre to it - no easy way to define it - no simple "map" or structure. It is complex. Vastly complex. So complex as to make people think that it must be something it isn't - something "non-material" - something "beyond just the sum of the interactions".

No, what we are taking as the starting point is our observations of consciousness which appear not to be strictly material things. If you want to believe that withou evidence feel free, just don't act like their is a difference between your belief in that and a creationists belief in Intelligent Design. You both have your "default positions" and without actual evidence it is just psuedoscience that happens to be aligned with your respective dogmas.

And I say these not as a claim of truth but because, in the absence of evidence to the contrary... yes, you've guessed it... it is currently the default rational position. I am sorry you don't like that term but it is the most succinct way I can think of putting it.

"Default position" is just a code word for the abscence of evidence coupled with dogma.

I remain open to be shown evidence to the contrary.

The problem is that you refuse to accept the self-evident nature of consciousness at face value (that there is a difference between a mental thing and a physical thing) and are claiming postive belief of a materialist nature without either evidence or even a coherent explanation of how it could occur.

 

[Ophiolite]

I agree that it's evidence - but he needs to convince me that it's evidence for GOD and not for something more rational.

Point 1: If God exists, then he/she/it/they are most decidedly rational, since any entity (as I understand the term) must be rational, in the sense of being real.
Point 2: God is said (by most/many religions)to be the creator of the Universe. Creation is the act of coming into being through an external agent. This may be a perfectly rational, logical, law based process, but the agent initiating and controlling this process would, as far as I can see, merit being called God.
Point 3: If things did not exist at one time, and do exist now, this is suggestive that something, some entity, some agent, some he/she/it/they caused it to exist. This constitutes evidence.
Point 4:I do hope we are all keeping in mind that there is a vast difference between evidence and proof.

Ophiolite, your points are romanticisms and assumptions:

I don't deal in romanticisms. All science is based on assumptions. Aristotle was happy with concept of a First Cause. I certainly don't intend to rule it out.
I recall the words of J.B.S.Haldane. "The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine, it is weirder than we can imagine."

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Choosing not to have a belief that A is true does NOT imply that you believe B is true.
Learn this.

Well at least there is acknowledgement of 'belief'.
Regarding youR statement, where does that leave you?

Where is the evidence that consciousness is a material phenomenon?

There is evidence that material phenomena exist, agree?

Okay.

Where is the evidence that non-material phenomena exist?

The evidence for material phenomenon exists because it is matter, and we can percieve matter through our base senses. Non-matter, cannot be percieved directly through our senses, it has to be understood by way of clear, human, intelligence. The obvious fact that we cannot see non-matter, does not mean it does not exist. To believe it does not exist because it cannot be senseD by base senses, is just that, a belief.

If you don't have any then the default rational position must be of the material.

Only if you decide to shut down parts of your humanity, which can, if guided properly, allow you to understand things which cannot be percieved directly.

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.

But you believe your position in choosing non-belief is rational, right?
No matter how far back you take it, it all stems from belief. The notion that "i'm right" and "your wrong", is no different to any other fanatical
belief system.

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.

I think you are confused, period.
That statement was demonstrating, how our basic positions are the same, despite you doggedly labeling me as irrational because of my beliefs.
I have no default position regarding consciousness, its something I never thought about in the past, and when I became interested, I started to question it. I didn't just think it was material, or non-material.

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

Then the answer is, you don't know what to look for, and you are quite satisfied in your default position. Your only fault is, you believe your are right and I am wrong.

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!

No. That's not what I mean.
The whole question of non-matter/God is not a question for modern-science, because as you say, it cannot be detected.
There is nothing (to my knowledge), which pertains to modern science, past and present, that contradicts the existence of non-matter or God. Therefore there is no reason to doubt the existence of either, other than belief.

Again - you display your own ignorance.

And this statement is supported by your inability to see a bigger picture.

Correct. But you need to provide the evidence of its existence in the first instance - or it is logically akin to non-existence.

*sigh*
Okay we'll wait untill some non-matter shows itself so that scientists can say, LOOK, we can SEE some non-matter, therefore it is proof of its existence.
How's that.

If you can not grasp this then there is little point in continuing the debate.

Your basic premise killed any hope of debate, I'm more interested in how far you are prepared to go with this dogma, in the name of rationalism.

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

Only because you do not understand.

LOL!
Seriously though, what is there to understand? I simply choose not to take the base sensual position on the matter, and I do so rationally. I do not critisise your position, even though you yourself do not seem sure about it, which is more than can be said for you.

Why?

Because coins are extremely common.

What would suffice as "proven to exist"?

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

s-s-t-t-rike

Let me rephrase the statement, as you're clearly just being obstinate for the sake of it:

LOL!!
I've no reason to be obstinate, in fact if you look back you will clearly see that you are the one being
obstinate, eg, asking obtuse questions like where is the (scientific) evidence for non-matter. And statements like,
non-matter can not exist because it hasn't been discovered yet. Using these as actual arguments.

I have evidence that material things exist. That is one more piece than you have with regard to non-material things.

Duh!
So what?
This isn't some school exam, this is day to day, real life search for knowledge.

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

I can understand your
frustration of arguing with someone who does not pander to your childishness.
Apologies, I thought you were somewhat more mature.

Jan.

 

[SkinWalker]

Jan, let's avoid ad hominem remarks like the one in your last line above. Surely you're more mature than that.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Point 1: If God exists, then he/she/it/they are most decidedly rational, since any entity (as I understand the term) must be rational, in the sense of being real.

The only problem with this proposition is that it starts with IF. I can always say IF I were 40 feet tall I'd be decidedly rational, in the sense of being real.

Point 2: God is said (by most/many religions)to be the creator of the Universe. Creation is the act of coming into being through an external agent. This may be a perfectly rational, logical, law based process, but the agent initiating and controlling this process would, as far as I can see, merit being called God.

This point is entirely based on hearsay. Also:

1. Why do you think existence requires creation?
2. Using your term "creation" (which I will define as the force causality of existence), why does there need to be any agent at all, be it external or even intelligent?
3. If we accept an intelligent designer, why does it merit being called god, or even merit being worshipped?

Point 3: If things did not exist at one time, and do exist now, this is suggestive that something, some entity, some agent, some he/she/it/they caused it to exist. This constitutes evidence.

This brings me back to my point #2 before...why do you think there has to be an entity?

Point 4:I do hope we are all keeping in mind that there is a vast difference between evidence and proof.

There is a vast difference between circumstantial evidence and hard evidence.

You are most likely speaking of the legal definition of "proof"...the conclusion of evidences. Less likely, you may be alluding to the fact that a "proof" can be argued as opposed to observed.

There is however (contemporarily speaking) little difference between evidence and proof. They are synonyms in any thesaurus.

I don't deal in romanticisms. All science is based on assumptions. Aristotle was happy with concept of a First Cause. I certainly don't intend to rule it out.

Allow me to quantify. Your statement is fraught with assumptions (intelligent designer) with no intention of following it to its truthful conclusion of either "true" or "false". Science always seeks the truth thru the scientific method, and as an institution does not start from a presupposed conclusion.

I recall the words of J.B.S.Haldane. "The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine, it is weirder than we can imagine."

And the point of this is? That Chaos Theory is true perhaps? "Wierder than we can imagine" still does not mean that any creator exists.

 

[Sarkus]

Non-matter, cannot be percieved directly through our senses, it has to be understood by way of clear, human, intelligence. The obvious fact that we cannot see non-matter, does not mean it does not exist. To believe it does not exist because it cannot be senseD by base senses, is just that, a belief.

You CONTINUE to misunderstand the position!
I have NEVER said that non-matter does not exist, nor that I believe that non-matter does not exist!
I have merely said that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for non-matter. There is therefore no rational reason to BELIEVE THAT NON-MATTER EXISTS.

Your basic premise killed any hope of debate, I'm more interested in how far you are prepared to go with this dogma, in the name of rationalism.

I've no reason to be obstinate, in fact if you look back you will clearly see that you are the one being obstinate, eg, asking obtuse questions like where is the (scientific) evidence for non-matter.

Why is it obtuse? It is at the very heart of the matter - of this very thread!!!

Again you try to squirm out of answering any question that you can not answer, trying to avoid its implication.

And statements like, non-matter can not exist because it hasn't been discovered yet. Using these as actual arguments.

Intellectual dishonesty, Jan.
Please indicate where I have EVER said this?
Ever?
Feel free to apologise.

Duh!
So what?
This isn't some school exam, this is day to day, real life search for knowledge.

It goes to the heart of this thread!!!
But you avoid it - which adds weight to the case that you are arguing for the sake of it.

I can understand your frustration of arguing with someone who does not pander to your childishness.
Apologies, I thought you were somewhat more mature.

Goodbye Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Point 1: If God exists, then he/she/it/they are most decidedly rational, since any entity (as I understand the term) must be rational, in the sense of being real.
Point 2: God is said (by most/many religions)to be the creator of the Universe. Creation is the act of coming into being through an external agent. This may be a perfectly rational, logical, law based process, but the agent initiating and controlling this process would, as far as I can see, merit being called God.
Point 3: If things did not exist at one time, and do exist now, this is suggestive that something, some entity, some agent, some he/she/it/they caused it to exist. This constitutes evidence.
Point 4:I do hope we are all keeping in mind that there is a vast difference between evidence and proof/

These might have been commented on already, but my 2p worth..

Your points 1 to 3 are fine to conclude that the Universe is evidence of God... IF you can provide evidence that the Universe was created (as it hinges on the cause / event that created this Universe). However, this would define God as nothing more than that which caused / created our universe ("first cause").
To go beyond that and assign characteristics to god (eternal, loving, intelligent etc) would surely require more evidence.

I was/am happy to admit that there are possibly rational arguments for "God" - but that this "God" would as a result be so singularly defined (e.g. as "first cause" and nothing more) as to add nothing to our understanding - and thus the term "God" is, in my view, wrong to use (due to its implications).

i.e. We currently have evidence that all things have a cause.
The universe must therefore have had a cause.
That initial cause was "God".

But what does this tell us about "God"?
Why is it "God" and not merely "the first cause"?


As for point 4 - I agree.

 

[Sarkus]

The problem is that you refuse to accept the self-evident nature of consciousness at face value (that there is a difference between a mental thing and a physical thing)

I am self-evidently aware that there is a difference between, say, a mental image of the brick and the brick itself!
I have stated this before!!

I am merely claiming that the default rational position is that the mental thing is STILL material due to the way it is created - i.e. through physical interactions within the brain.

I can not explain to you exactly how the brain creates the images.
But guess what... I DON'T NEED TO.

You are the one going against rationality (i.e. against the existing evidence) and so YOU provide the evidence.

To do anything else (such as believing the non-material to exist as a means of explaining XYZ) is merely your "God of the Gaps".

But you fail to provide the evidence with every post you make.

And there is no belief on my part.
I am not saying "I believe non-material things do not exist".

 

[grover]

I am self-evidently aware that there is a difference between, say, a mental image of the brick and the brick itself!
I have stated this before!!

Okay, please keep this difference in mind. (I"m assuming that you will also admit that the mental image itself has no physical characteristics -i.e., the mental brick doesn't actually wiegh anything, or the brick isn't actually orange, that there is in fact no actual object that is orange)

I am merely claiming that the default rational position is that the mental thing is STILL material due to the way it is created - i.e. through physical interactions within the brain.

There is no such thing as a default position. We don't know how it is created.

I can not explain to you exactly how the brain creates the images.
But guess what... I DON'T NEED TO.

The point is that you claim the follwing.
1) There is a differnece between a mental image and a brick.
2) The mental brick has no physical characteristics (so is not self-evidently physical)
3) You make a positive claim that that mental image is material.
The problem is your positive claim at number 3. You do so without either a plausible explanation or evidence. Which makes me wonder why it is okay to make a positive claim here without evidence but making a positive claim for God is somehow wrong?

You are the one going against rationality (i.e. against the existing evidence) and so YOU provide the evidence.

The existing evidence is self-evidence (as with all subjective experience) that there is nothing obvious or self-evident that a mental brick is material. You are making the claim that the self-evidently immaterial nature of the mental brick is material. Get it? You are making the claim, you provide the evidence.

To do anything else (such as believing the non-material to exist as a means of explaining XYZ) is merely your "God of the Gaps".

I have done nothing but point out that a mental brick and a physical brick are self-evidently differnet order of phenomena and that mental bricks do not have any self-evidently material qualities. You are trying to claim that the self-evidently immaterial nature of the mental brick is just an ilusion and that the mental brick is in fact physical, yet you can provide no evidence - materialism of the gaps.

But you fail to provide the evidence with every post you make.

I thought we already agreed that claims of self-evidence are acceptable when it comes to subjective experience. You didnt't take issue with my previous post:
"1)The only evidence for any subjective experience is actually self-evident and there is in fact no objective evidence. For instance dreaming, we really only know that people dream because we have had that experience ourselves. Imagine if only you dreamed and everyone else just had dreamless sleep, you would have no way of actually providing actual evidence that you dream. You do in fact have no way of providing actual evidence, you just accpet it that others dream because they say they dream and so do you, but there is no actual objective evidence. ANd, that is how it is of all subjective experience. So, it should come as no surprise if I make a claim pertaining to consciousness which is based on self-evidence. "

And there is no belief on my part.

Then stop claiming that consciousness is material without evidence.

I am not saying "I believe non-material things do not exist".

No, you're not.
-----------------------------
I am not saying that it is impossible that science will one day show that consciousness is created from the brain but that hasn't been shown yet and there is no evidence to support it. So, when people do say that consciousness is created by the brain it is materialist dogma. No claims in science can be made without having evidence (a test which has supported the hypothesis). In the case of consciousness there are no testable hypotheses.
------------------------------

 

[Enterprise-D]

Doesn't this brick argument smatter a little of LG's high school dropout vs the electron?

 

[Ophiolite]

The only problem with this proposition is that it starts with IF. I can always say IF I were 40 feet tall I'd be decidedly rational, in the sense of being real.

All proper science begins with if. all science is founded upon assumptions, just as mathematics are founded upon axioms. There is nothing improper, unacceptable, unscientific, or illogical in doing this.

This point is entirely based on hearsay.

Excuse me? Stating that creation is the act of coming into being through an external agent is hearsay? I think you'll find that is a definition, not hearsay.

1. Why do you think existence requires creation?

I didn't say that I do. I have previously stated that either the universe has existed for ever, or it was created. Big Bang bellievers rule out a steady state Universe, so we are left with creation.

2. Using your term "creation" (which I will define as the force causality of existence), why does there need to be any agent at all, be it external or even intelligent?

Agents are not necessarily intelligent. Agents are not necessarily conscious. Agents are not necessarily single entities, though they may be any or all of these. And I should perhaps clarify that I see nothing implausible in postulating a recursive universe in which the act of creation is a consequence of our ultimate destiny. (Where our means intelligent life.) In that instance the agent would be internal.

3. If we accept an intelligent designer, why does it merit being called god, or even merit being worshipped?

I tend to think any intelligent designer, having put together a Universe of billions of galaxies and billions of years in age and many, many more in potential age, deserves to be called God, but if you prefer to call he/she/it/they Arthur, go right ahead.
Could you please point out to me where on Earth I stated, implicitly, or explicitly, that such an agent merited worship. You seem to be making presumptions, not assumptions.

This brings me back to my point #2 before...why do you think there has to be an entity?

I have not said at any point that there has to be an entity. I have simply stated that the existence of the Universe, etc, etc, is itself evidence for such an entity. Evidence is different from proof. I hope you understand this, but your peculiar remarks suggest you don't.

There is a vast difference between circumstantial evidence and hard evidence.

There may well be. Again, be good enough to show me where I stated that there was hard evidence. A poster stated that there was no evidence. I disagreed. The poster did not say there was no hard evidence: they stated there was no evidence.

There is however (contemporarily speaking) little difference between evidence and proof. They are synonyms in any thesaurus..

There is world of ****ing difference. This is a science forum. Please do not corrupt the discussion by bringing lay definitions into it.

Allow me to quantify. Your statement is fraught with assumptions (intelligent designer) with no intention of following it to its truthful conclusion of either "true" or "false". Science always seeks the truth thru the scientific method, and as an institution does not start from a presupposed conclusion..

I have absolutely no idea what you are warbling on about. This is the second or third time you have brought up intelligent design. You aren't a closet creationist are you, trying to deny your true feelings?

And the point of this is? That Chaos Theory is true perhaps? "Wierder than we can imagine" still does not mean that any creator exists.

Of course it doesn't. Nor does it rule it out. [And the point is that I like to quote J.B.S.Haldane whenever an opportunity presents itself. ]