Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

I have no evidence that the notion of God is anything but man-made.

Or in other words you choose to believe God does not exist, because you cannot possibly know that for sure.

Which THEIST came up with the notion that God is beyond scientific scrutiny?

The fact that it is beyond such "scrutibility" is not a real problem, at least not for the majority of everyday people going about their everyday lives.

And we call that being intellectually lazy.
The fact that it is not a problem to those that don't think too hard about it is irrelevant to the discussion.

We already have thought about it, which is why we came to our decisions. If God, for the sake of argument, could be scrutinised by science he would not be God.

God.

You know God is not described as a physical being, so why seek evidence from a method whose only business is understanding the physical universe.
Why demand physical evidence.

I do not know. Something that is beyond mere scientific possibility.

Do you know the extreme limits of scientific possibility?

No - I mean evidence of design.

Anything we see in nature?

I observe - I see no evidence of design - just the obeyance of a few rules of the Universe.

That's you.
I accept that. Try and accept there are those who see evidence.

Eh? I don't believe he exists. I also don't believe he doesn't exist. All due to lack of evidence.

That equates to 'you don't believe', unless you can say specifically what constitutes as evidence for the existence of God.

So current lack of a scientific means of replicating abiogenesis is your evidence of design?

No. I said "life comes from life" that is a scientific fact. Is it not.

Lack of evidence for one thing is NOT evidence for another.
This is simple logic that you should realise by now.

You said you do not believe in the existence of God due to lack of evidence.
So in essence, your "lack of evidence" is the evidence for why you don't believe in God. It seems you don't realise that logic.

If you can't answer me then just say so.

I can discuss it, no problem, but your lack of understanding of the subject matter, permits me to conclude that such a discussion would be a waste of both our time.

And yet you call the reason of not having any evidence "weak"?

What would you call a "strong" reason?

I didn't say "not having any evidence" is weak, I said using that reason alone, is weak, especially regarding this subject matter.

Why is it the honest thing to do?
Surely it is more honest to explain fully the rationale for reaching the conclusion one does?

It is the honest thing to do, because it is the only real reason you can possibly have. You already know God is not described as material, you already know the scientific method can only observe that which is material.
I think I'm correct in thinking that no one in this thread believes God is a physical being, or claim to know he exists, not in the scientific sense.
So what is the point of asking for scientific evidence?

So you now admit you have no evidence for God????

I have good reasons to believe in God.

Yet you said earlier that you see evidence of design in the Universe???
Who do you see as this designer of yours if not God???

By "evidence", I mean evidence which would stand up to modern scientific scrutiny, physical evidence. There is no scientific evidence which concludes proof of Gods existence or non-existence, simply because God is not defined as a physical being. Which is why, it boils down to whether or not you believe, and how much you have faith in that belief.

Jan.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You can hang that hat on the human race. Don't try to exclude yourself.

You are correct that extremism is a human issue and it would appear the vast majority of extremists today are religious extremists. It seems religion is really conducive to cultivating that behavior.

 

[SnakeLord]

I think I'm correct in thinking that no one in this thread believes God is a physical being

The bible states otherwise - showing many times that he is a physical being - from taking a stroll through the GofE to getting crucified, (the latter only counts to those that believe jesus is god).

He is also described as going around in a big pillar of fire, (something physical), that to many might be considered viable evidence.

 

[geeser]

LOL you've just confirmed what I said you all really believe "evidence causes something to become true" instead of "evidence reveals what is true"......

no never said that, but did comfirm that lenny the Leprechaun, francis the Fairy, or elsa the Elf, are equally as valid, as god.

As for how I know, I base it on own independent reasoning, unlike you I have an independent mind and am able to have beliefs outside of science and what the current evidence upholds....comparing these things to a Leprechaun is really useless.....

so your evidence is purely subjective, so why is comparing it to a Leprechaun different?

You know what electromagnetism never existed in ancient times,

wrong yes it did, man just did not have the knowledge to understand it, hence why they used there imagination to explain it.

the Sun revolved around Earth before too,

did it, see above answer.

there was no such thing as blackholes in the past, etc......

see also above answer.

and could you answer my previous post, properly thank you.
1, how is god the origin of all. and please, a little more than you subjective interpretation, or books of fiction.
2, how do you know that before there was existence or non-existence God existed just the same. and please, a little more than you subjective interpretation, or books of fiction.
3, how do you know that god is not made up fictional. and please, a little more than you subjective interpretation, or books of fiction.

 

[KennyJC]

But we know that Santa, the tooth-fairy, and FSM were made up and fictional....

By the same measure, this is also true of god. Who wrote his lines in the Bible? Men.

 

[Sarkus]

Or in other words you choose to believe God does not exist, because you cannot possibly know that for sure.

I do not choose to believe God does not exist. I merely choose NOT TO BELIEVE.

You know God is not described as a physical being, so why seek evidence from a method whose only business is understanding the physical universe.
Why demand physical evidence.

I don't demand physical evidence - just evidence. The scientific method is not only interested in the physical - it just so happens that no evidence for the non-material has ever been produced.

Do you know the extreme limits of scientific possibility?

Nope - which is why I do not jump on the "God of the gaps" as an answer to fill in the knowledge we don't yet have.

Anything we see in nature?

You think anything we see in nature is evidence of design?
Please provide an example - and then show how this is evidence of design.

That's you.
I accept that. Try and accept there are those who see evidence.

I do accept it - I just don't agree with it.

That equates to 'you don't believe', unless you can say specifically what constitutes as evidence for the existence of God.

How can I specifically state what constitutes as evidence for something that I have no evidence of? That's just absurd!

No. I said "life comes from life" that is a scientific fact. Is it not.

It is a scientific fact that life does come from life. You only have to look at the way one was born to realise this.
However, it is not a scientific fact that life ONLY comes from life.
So again I reiterate that you seem to be suggesting that the lack of evidence for abiogenesis, or for the origin of life, is evidence for the existence of God?

You said you do not believe in the existence of God due to lack of evidence.
So in essence, your "lack of evidence" is the evidence for why you don't believe in God. It seems you don't realise that logic.

Lack of evidence is NOT evidence!
You can play around with words all you want but you need to understand the basic principles you're dealing with here.
You are the one who seems to be grasping onto a lack of evidence as being fuel to your "God of the gaps".

I can discuss it, no problem, but your lack of understanding of the subject matter, permits me to conclude that such a discussion would be a waste of both our time.

Typical elitist theist get-out clause.
Concession accepted.

I didn't say "not having any evidence" is weak, I said using that reason alone, is weak, especially regarding this subject matter.

What other reason is there that is stronger than not having any evidence?

It is the honest thing to do, because it is the only real reason you can possibly have. You already know God is not described as material, you already know the scientific method can only observe that which is material.
I think I'm correct in thinking that no one in this thread believes God is a physical being, or claim to know he exists, not in the scientific sense.
So what is the point of asking for scientific evidence?

At what point does the scientific method ever claim to only be regarding the physical/material?
The fact is that no evidence for the non-material has ever been produced.
Thus people assume that "science is only about the material".
This is rubbish.
Scientific method is a method for ANY evidence at all - material or non-material.

If you could provide evidence of the non-material, the scientific method will work just fine with it.
But instead you feel content in claiming the scientific method can not cope with the non-material.

By "evidence", I mean evidence which would stand up to modern scientific scrutiny, physical evidence. There is no scientific evidence which concludes proof of Gods existence or non-existence, simply because God is not defined as a physical being. Which is why, it boils down to whether or not you believe, and how much you have faith in that belief.

Who says evidence has to be physical?? It just so happens that 100% of the evidence for anything is currently physical.

And it is due to this lack of evidence (which per my comments above doesn't necessarily have to be material!) that any such belief is irrational - whether it is belief in the existence or in the non-existence.


So you freely admit there is no evidence for God?
You freely admit that there IS evidence of a designer (a contradictory position, it seems, that you haven't yet clarified)?
And you freely admit that belief in God is based on zero evidence and is just a matter of choice?

 

[grover]

If you could provide evidence of the non-material, the scientific method will work just fine with it.
But instead you feel content in claiming the scientific method can not cope with the non-material.


Who says evidence has to be physical?? It just so happens that 100% of the evidence for anything is currently physical.
And it is due to this lack of evidence (which per my comments above doesn't necessarily have to be material!)

Sarkus, the problem with what you are saying is this.
1) I demand evidence of the non-material
2) No evidence of the material has ever been produced
It is at #2 where the problem is. You freely admit that science has never produced evidence that is non-material and yet you seem to conclude from that that this means that there is nothing that is immaterial. It is just as possible that science has its limitations and that scientific evidence for the immaterial can not be produced. Which is why I would feel much better if you would say no "compelling reason" rather than "evidence." Because when you demand evidence what you are really saying is that you have faith* that science is a flawless method for answering all questions.

*Faith - here meaning you have arbitrarily decided that the lack of material evidence proves the non-existence of the immaterial rather than taking the position that science has its limitations.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Well aren't you glad that all those people could open their mouths, fight and die and bleed and kill so you could live your blameless vegan life?
You are a vegan right?

No... I am not irrational. I am not opposed to killing in order to live. In fact, if I could, I would kill my own food to eat instead of buying someone else's kill.

Because the theists will argue the point "how do you get an eye by accident" - obviously he doesn't understand evolution, but if as it was always thought that there was some truth to the Adam and Eve story (that humans were poofed) then it would surely mean there was a deliberate creation to it. You may say that doesn't apply to the 'big bang', but then, the universe evolved too - you didn't get galaxies overnight. It all seems to be simple > organised complexity... and god would be the reverse - immense complexity > simple complexity. Granted, if I create something then that is immense complexity > simple complexity, but I am the result of slow evolution... I am not god, am I?

I agree. But I am saying that things like the story of Adam and Eve is more metaphorical than most think. Since all language is metaphor (even today, the words I am using now) and all languages evolve, then it is safe to say that their metaphors back then are cliche and mythic to us now, but only because the same words have different meanings to us now.

But it would seem more rational to suppose that the rules that we observe today in the universe are the very rules that a hypothetical god would use to create it.

I don't think there is a 'being' at all. If consciousness is just one aspect of what we call 'life' in this universe, then is there a god of gravity? A god of clouds, a god of toenails? Why do we think the only god is one that has a lot in common with our own psyche? I think whatever happens in our brains is no different to anything, yet what happens in our brains seems to make us assume the same is true for the creation (creator?) of the universe?

Who's to say that (if there is a god) then he is the god of all these things, since they are a part of all of us anyways. I am just saying its possible and that denying or fully accepting will blind you either way.

RoyLennigan,
What is so "disgusting" about how theists live?
Jan.

I wasn't giving my personal opinion, I was just describing most atheists' subconscious justification for their beliefs. This is just what I've observed from most of them. It's not all that irrational, either. But I'm not all for it; I'm not typically a person who is 'disgusted'.

 

[RoyLennigan]

I am an agnostic - I have no knowledge of God - either of his existence or his non-existence.
I am also an atheist - due to my lack of belief in God.

This is what I see as the only rational position - unless one claims to either have knowledge or evidence.

And then it is a matter of what that knowledge / evidence is actually knowledge / evidence of.

You can't be both, man. If you are atheist then that, by definition rules out you being agnostic. If you have a lack of knowledge of a thing, then you cannot make a conclusion about it. How can you say something about something you don't know anything of? It makes no sense.

When the true agnostic is asked about god, he/she says "I don't know what that is."

 

[RoyLennigan]

Roy, what do you do if termites infest your house, sing kum ba ya?

My house is concrete.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Sarkus, the problem with what you are saying is this.
1) I demand evidence of the non-material
2) No evidence of the material has ever been produced
It is at #2 where the problem is. You freely admit that science has never produced evidence that is non-material and yet you seem to conclude from that that this means that there is nothing that is immaterial. It is just as possible that science has its limitations and that scientific evidence for the immaterial can not be produced. Which is why I would feel much better if you would say no "compelling reason" rather than "evidence." Because when you demand evidence what you are really saying is that you have faith* that science is a flawless method for answering all questions.

*Faith - here meaning you have arbitrarily decided that the lack of material evidence proves the non-existence of the immaterial rather than taking the position that science has its limitations.

Again, the immaterial could either be something so obvious we take for granted and subconsciously rule it out as an option; or it could be the web of constants which are the natural relationships which motivate all change in the universe.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

The bible states otherwise - showing many times that he is a physical being - from taking a stroll through the GofE to getting crucified, (the latter only counts to those that believe jesus is god).

He is also described as going around in a big pillar of fire, (something physical), that to many might be considered viable evidence.

*************
M*W: In a manner of speaking, and interpreted in the manner in which I believe the bible to be, "god" is a "physical being," if one considers the myth of "god" being a metaphor for the "sun."

As to the "pillar of fire," and the "burning bush," the contents of the Ark of the Covenant, etc., all refer to a bright, burning and dangerous light or fire. Again, I believe these are metaphors for the "sun."

Jesus, OTOH, was a metaphor for the "sun/son of god." He is also referred to, as is Lucifer, as the Morningstar. The Morningstar could be a metaphor for the sun, or it could be a reference to Venus. My interpretation of this is that the Planet Venus is said to rise with the sun (as is a New Moon), it then becomes more likely that the reference of the Morningstar is to Lucifer who is lesser than the "sun," but appears to be taking over the morning sky.

Jesus' crucifixion is also a metaphor (in my interpretation) of the Vernal Equinox when there is a "crossing" between four planets or constellations (I'll look this up at another time), and they appear to be a N-S-E-W directional sign that crosses the sun around the time of Passover/Easter. The passion story of the NT as I interpret it is quite clear that it is a story about the Vernal Equinox, and Jesus' crucifixion is an allegory that tells of this astrological event.

I don't believe in god, but I do believe there is a sun, but I am not a sun worshipper! When one interprets the OT&NT in an astro-theological perspective, it does become perfectly clear that the whole story of Jesus and his mythological ancestors are just fictional characters who represent the "heavens" or the "sky beings."

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, the problem with what you are saying is this.
1) I demand evidence of the non-material
2) No evidence of the material has ever been produced
It is at #2 where the problem is. You freely admit that science has never produced evidence that is non-material and yet you seem to conclude from that that this means that there is nothing that is immaterial.

This is the flaw in your assessment - as I do not conclude that there is nothing that is immaterial.
I do conclude that, as yet, no evidence for the non-material has been produced. It is a different conclusion entirely.

It is just as possible that science has its limitations and that scientific evidence for the immaterial can not be produced. Which is why I would feel much better if you would say no "compelling reason" rather than "evidence." Because when you demand evidence what you are really saying is that you have faith* that science is a flawless method for answering all questions.

I do not have "faith* that science is a flawless method for answering all questions". I have never stated that nor implied it.
I merely chose not to be irrational and believe in something for which there is no reason other than "god of the gaps" explanation - e.g. the non-material.
Until such time as evidence for the non-material is produced, to belive that the non-material exists is irrational.
That is not to say that it doesn't exist.

I would indeed be happy to claim there is no "compelling reason" if there was even the slightest hint of evidence for the non-material.
But there isn't.
There is, as yet, NO evidence for the non-material other than as a catch-all net for things currently not understood (e.g. consciousness).

*Faith - here meaning you have arbitrarily decided that the lack of material evidence proves the non-existence of the immaterial rather than taking the position that science has its limitations.

I have never claimed that lack of evidence is evidence for lack.
Please indicate where I have stated as much and I will happily correct your flawed interpretation of my statement.

My position is one of agnosticism with regard the non-material.
I have no knowledge of it, no evidence. I thus take the only rational course and do not believe the non-material to exist, but I also do not believe that the non-material does NOT exist. How can I make either claim when there is no evidence either way?

Of course, please provide said evidence and I will happily review my position.

 

[Sarkus]

You can't be both, man. If you are atheist then that, by definition rules out you being agnostic. If you have a lack of knowledge of a thing, then you cannot make a conclusion about it. How can you say something about something you don't know anything of? It makes no sense.

When the true agnostic is asked about god, he/she says "I don't know what that is."

No offence, but I suggest you look up the accurate meanings of the words you're using - atheism and agnosticism.
They relate to entirely different aspects - one of belief, the other of knowledge.
It is entirely possible to be both: an agnostic atheist, a non-agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a non-agnostic theist.

Wikipedia is a reasonable place to start:
Atheism
Agnosticism

 

[RoyLennigan]

No offence, but I suggest you look up the accurate meanings of the words you're using - atheism and agnosticism.
They relate to entirely different aspects - one of belief, the other of knowledge.
It is entirely possible to be both: an agnostic atheist, a non-agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a non-agnostic theist.

Wikipedia is a reasonable place to start:
Atheism
Agnosticism

Well, then it really makes no sense. But I guess most of what humans do doesn't make a lot of sense. For one, I don't really care what the "official" definition of the word is. Everyone thinks of different associations when hearing the word. For general purposes, the term 'atheist', at least in the US or maybe western society, means a conscious decision to believe that there is no god. And the term 'agnostic' would be, as you say, that it is 'unknowable' if there is a god, or what a god would be.

I guess I am just trying to steer clear of being associated with anyone who says for certain that there can be no such thing as god, as much as I want to steer clear as those who insist that their own idea of god is true.

Perhaps I am not agnostic. Perhaps I am beyond agnosticism and require a new 'on-the-fence' label. I don't know, words seem to change.

But... what exactly would an agnostic theist be?

 

[Sarkus]

I guess I am just trying to steer clear of being associated with anyone who says for certain that there can be no such thing as god, as much as I want to steer clear as those who insist that their own idea of god is true.

Then I guess you'd be a weak-atheist (i.e. merely lacks the positive belief of god's existence - but don't go as far as to say that you have the positive belief in god's non-existence - which is what strong-atheists do).
It seems you have reached your (weak) atheist position primarily through your agnosticism - i.e. you do not have the evidence / knowledge to either say god exists or doesn't.

A laudable rational position, I might add, that I myself adhere to.

But... what exactly would an agnostic theist be?

Someone who believes in God through, for example, Pascal's Wager.
They don't know if god exists or not - but choose to believe he does because the reward, even if only remotely possible, is worth it over the lack of reward offered by the alternative. They might also believe purely through fear (the "well, wouldn't it be awful if he didn't and all we do is die and rot back into the ground!" people).

I don't suggest that there are many agnostic-theists - but I don't doubt there are some out there.

 

[grover]

Sarkus, do you agree that it's at least possible that the following statement is true:

Science is a method of investigation pertaining to material phenomena but not applicable to immaterial phenomena.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, do you agree that it's at least possible that the following statement is true:

Science is a method of investigation pertaining to material phenomena but not applicable to immaterial phenomena.

I agree - it is possible.

But, to qualify that, we won't know for sure until the non-material evidence is subjected to the scientific method and the scientific method found wanting.

It is also entirely possible that "evidence" can only be material - in which case any method requiring said evidence is only going to look at the material, even if it could be usable for non-material evidence, should such exist.

But then if "evidence" can only be material - it brings us full circle as to how one justifies the existence of the non-material when there is no need for it, per Occam's Razor (as "non-material" would be to indtroduce an unknown into any explanation).

 

[lightgigantic]

I agree - it is possible.

But, to qualify that, we won't know for sure until the non-material evidence is subjected to the scientific method and the scientific method found wanting.

this doesn't make sense - how can one expect to determine the non-material by material means? (If one could, it wouldn't be non-material)

It is also entirely possible that "evidence" can only be material -

this is akin to saying that it is possible that the only evidence available is through the measurement of our senses

in which case any method requiring said evidence is only going to look at the material, even if it could be usable for non-material evidence, should such exist.

what about inference
suppose you are seated on a train and not moving from your seat (even though the train is moving) - out the window everyone is moving very quickly backwards (at least so it directly appears)

what about authority
suppose one is not at all familiar with medical terms or conditions yet the doctor says you have cancer - unless one is a qualified doctor, there is certainly no evidence for this (unless of course one is an expert or authority in the field)

But then if "evidence" can only be material - it brings us full circle as to how one justifies the existence of the non-material when there is no need for it, per Occam's Razor (as "non-material" would be to indtroduce an unknown into any explanation).

actually we can use Occam's razor to disregard the notion that material reductionism is sufficient to define everything, since there is no material evidence for this

 

[Sarkus]

this doesn't make sense - how can one expect to determine the non-material by material means? (If one could, it wouldn't be non-material)

The point is that it is not necessarily "by material means". Until the non-material can be conclusively shown to exist - it remains unknown whether the scientific method can cope with the non-material.

this is akin to saying that it is possible that the only evidence available is through the measurement of our senses

Please feel free to provide more ways of measuring our senses - and bear in mind that there are far more than just the 5 basic senses you were taught at school (Heat, Pain, Body, Balance etc).

what about inference
suppose you are seated on a train and not moving from your seat (even though the train is moving) - out the window everyone is moving very quickly backwards (at least so it directly appears)

What about it? There is material evidence here - and nothing immaterial is needed to reach the conclusion.
The "inference" you speak of is merely the recollection and application of previous experience / evidence, all completely material.

what about authority
suppose one is not at all familiar with medical terms or conditions yet the doctor says you have cancer - unless one is a qualified doctor, there is certainly no evidence for this (unless of course one is an expert or authority in the field)

Ah yes - your "authority" argument.
Authority is meaningless unless accompanied by practical performance.
And it is this practical, observable evidence of performance that enables society as a whole to build up the subconcious probability assessment that someone practicing as a doctor, with all the "qualifications", is able to do what they say.
It is NOT as simple as saying: "You are an authority - this is sufficient evidence." The authority is built up from observable evidence throughout society. We observe people with qualifications in most fields being able to do what their qualification says they can.
We then use this observed evidence to subconcsiously reach a probability assessment that anyone else in "authority" / with "qualification" can do what they say.

Your term, and use, of "authority" merely hides the plethora of evidence that accompanies the authority/qualification.

actually we can use Occam's razor to disregard the notion that material reductionism is sufficient to define everything, since there is no material evidence for this

Please feel free to try. Should be interesting.
And bear in mind that lack of evidence is NOT evidence for lack - but you seem to forget this time and time again.