Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

[grover]

No - this is where you start down your irrational conclusion.

Just because we can not explain something does NOT make it false.
We can not (yet) explain consciousness in terms of material, but that does not mean it is evidence for non-material.
To think otherwise is irrational.

I see your point. But, I am not saying that simply because we cannot give a physical explanation for consciousness it must be non-physical, I am saying that mental phenomena are self-evidently not just physical phenomenon. This is the mind-brain problem. Materialists claim that mind really is just matter, but they can provide no evidence of this. It's a philosophical position so there is no actual evidence either way. I am presenting my reasons for thinking that mind is immaterial. If there are good reasons for thinking that mind is immaterial then it leaves the religous question wide open as a serious possibility. If mind is proven to be material then I would pretty much have to say case closed - religious claims go against everything we know about the universe. In my opinion, all religous claims that should be considered as possible actually revolve around the nature of consciousness, direct experience, subjective claims (i.e., things we can provide no actual objective evidence for even without bringing religion into it, so religous claims should not be dismissed outright simply because no objective evidence can be provided for thse claims.)

Again - an irrational conclusion.
The rational conclusion is that mental phenomena are a different type of material phenomena to matter that can be held in the hand, for example - just as a television image of a brick is material - but can not be held in the hand.

Sarkus, in my opinion you are drawing an irrational conclusion. What your argument boils down to is this: Since evertything else we'eve ever been able to provide an expalnation for has been material consciousness must also be material.
The mental brick actually has no physical characteristics whatsoever, which is why I am claiming it is immaterial. The TV brick does exist in objective physical reality, we can also give very precise descriptions about how it gets on the screen. We can't give explanations for the mental brick.

But this is NOT, in itself, evidence for non-material - unless you think irrationally.

My ppoint here was actually; 1) That no evidence can be given for any subjective experiences yet we all know that they exist. This is to show that it might not be appropriate to ask for evidence for religous things since we know of at least one phenomenon that we know exists but no physical evidence can be provided for. 2) No, the abscence of evidence for materiality is not in-itself evidence of immateriality. But mental phenomenon appear to not have material characteristics which is why saying that they are in fact material is an irrational conclusion in the abscence of evidence. Mental phenomenon to be immaterial (abscence of physical characteristics) not material (presence of physical characteristics).

And I have shown you where your thinking is flawed.
You are, to put it simply, using a lack of evidence FOR as evidence AGAINST.

Strictly speaking isn't lack of evidence for evidence against. If you are going to say the way something appears is wrong you have to provide evidence. I am not saying simply that because no evidence can be provided that consciousness is material it is proof that it is immaterial. I am saying mental phenomenon appear not to be material so if a claim is going to be made that it is physical evidence has to be provided.

Several reasons:
1. I know I do.
2. It has been shown that the brain enters certain states when it dreams (REM, alpha waves etc) - which has been tested in the lab - and is repeatable.

Right. Both of these actually refer back to subjective experience. Even in the case of brain waves scientists only learned to correlate those patterns with dreams because people self reported those dreams (i.e., theres nothing that could lead someone to believe someone is dreaming by looking at those brainwaves).
----------------
People claim to have religous experiences of gaining insight into the nature of self and universe. If everyone had these experiences would they just be accpeted as well?

The comparison is between something for which there is evidence and something for which there is no evidence. The analogy, in this respect, is sound.

Sarkus, let me put it this way. If someone told you there was a real brick behind the door or a mental brick which would you believe?

I don't doubt your efforts, or your sincerity in this, and apologies if this comes over as arrogant or elitist (not my intention) but your reasoning is flawed.

Yes it would be if what I was saying that just because we don't have evidence that mental phenomenon are material they must be immaterial. I am pointing out that everyone knows from direct experience that there is a difference between a mental brick and a physical brick and therefore one can't simply say that it is material without evidence when what you are trying to account for is the appearance of immateriality.

This is where we differ - in that you think the mental representation is non-material - whereas I hold that rationally it should be considered material.

The mental representation strictly speaking is not material. If one is going to say that it is material they have to have a better argument thatn "It is material because everything else we've been able to show exists is material."

 

[kerux]

Why do atheists ask for the evidence for God?

If you direct your God question to the Creator of Heavens and Earth, these atheists ask because they want to be sure that they will not be guilty of folly.:bugeye: , if in case their belief of Bible LENIENCY is limited to graveyard only.

 

[Ophiolite]

Should we also consider the possibility that green lemmings, with Austrian accents, have cornered the market in DVDs?

What does this have to do with discussing the nature of consciousness?Jan.

You stated this "If, as you say, there is no reason for non-matter to exist, and we adhere to that, how will we know if it really does exist?"
I say, if we close our minds to the possibility that green lemmings, with Austrian accents, have cornered the market in DVDs, how shall we know if they have, or have not.
It seems to me that time spent wondering about how to test for green lemmings, etc, is very likely to be wasted time. There is little or no evidence for their existence, let alone their involvement with the music industry. Equally, there is little or no evidence for the immaterial. therefore, why should we investigate that, whilst ignoring the green lemmings, with their charming accents?

 

[Enterprise-D]

.Again, you fail to see the vital distinction between evidence and proof. (And I am not forgetting that in science all 'proof' is provisional; all conclusions are subject to change.
I don't think the evidence is very good, but it is evidence. My scientific objectivity requires that I acknowledge it as evidence. That is what I am doing.

This is where we differ; I view that which you call evidence as merely semantics and self-serving definitions. For example when you stated

The existence of the universe is evidence for God.

It is not. It is evidence of itself.

*this statement btw is where i assumed you were an ID supporter*