Can evidence lead to belief in god(s)?

[Argenta]

Hello everyone. I’m Argenta and this is my first post.

I stopped believing in deities before I was old enough to buy cigarettes but I have ever since wondered why so many smart people do sincerely believe in one god or another. I have considered the evidence theists present to support their beliefs but have only been able to conclude there is no evidence. None at all. I have searched for the arguments theists present to justify their beliefs and found fallacies in them all.

Maybe I’ve missed something.

So my proposition for debate is that belief in gods serves to satisfy emotional needs and apologetics serve to post-rationalise such beliefs. Am I right or can any theists point to the evidence or arguments that genuinely converted them to belief in god(s)?

Argenta

[EduChris]

...Why should we necessarily draw conclusions when none can be reasonably drawn?...

It doesn't seem to me that we're ever going to get the objective evidence that some people claim they're looking for. Short of finding the name "Yahweh" stamped on every sub-atomic particle, what kind of evidence do we really expect we're going to find? What evidence would convince anyone? The human powers of imagination could easily come up with numerous explanations to counter any theistic interpretation of any evidence.

So we have only two options for the question of the universe: the "God hypothesis," and the "No-god hypothesis." Each hypothesis lacks objective evidence, and there is no reasonable likelihood that we're ever going to get any objective evidence.

But in the meantime, if we want to have some theoretical underpinning for imagining ourselves to be more than wind-up dolls, we need the "God hypothesis." Perhaps some day the "No-god hypothesis" might allow for something other than the "wind-up doll" status for us, but even that (were it to happen) wouldn't disprove the "God hypothesis"--instead, it would only get the "No-god hypothesis" back to equal status.

So to me, the "God hypothesis" is no less reasonable--and probably slightly more reasonable--than the "No-god alternative." There is no downside to the "God hypothesis," while the "No-god hypothesis" currently leaves us without any theoretical underpinning for humans as anything other than wind-up dolls.

I can understand the person who says, "I really gave theism a shot, but it just didn't work for me. There's nothing in my subjective psyche that touches the divine in any way." If a person says that, there's really no logical argument that's going to change things. But if a person tries to claim that the "No-god hypothesis" is somehow more reasonable or more logical or more "evidenced" than the "God hypothesis," well, to me that's nothing more than meaningless posturing--it's just another unprovable assumption.

...Also, I don't see how that addresses the question...

Who was it who said, "The unexamined life is not worth living"?

[Zzyzx]

.

...Why should we necessarily draw conclusions when none can be reasonably drawn?...

It doesn't seem to me that we're ever going to get the objective evidence that some people claim they're looking for.

Notice that you ducked the question. “Why should we necessarily draw conclusions when none can be reasonably drawn?�

Some think conjecture, opinion, hearsay and ancient tales by unidentified people writing their thoughts about “gods� is adequate “evidence� upon which to make reasoned decisions. I disagree and regard that as a LACK of evidence.

Some suggest that OTHERS should make a decision (since they already have made their decision) – as though there was some pressing reason to “decide now about ‘gods’�. What’s the hurry? That is a high-pressure salesman’s tactic.

Short of finding the name "Yahweh" stamped on every sub-atomic particle, what kind of evidence do we really expect we're going to find? What evidence would convince anyone?

Those who are susceptible to being convinced by conjecture, opinion and unverified tales are likely to ALREADY be worshipers of one of the proposed “gods�. Those who require more substantial evidence are unlikely to be convinced by what religion promoters have available to present.

Promoters often attempt to convince “doubters� to lower their standards and accept conjecture, opinion, tales, etc – and coerce them to “make a decision right now� (as though it was important).

The human powers of imagination could easily come up with numerous explanations to counter any theistic interpretation of any evidence.

The human powers of imagination can PRODUCE “evidence� in the form of testimonials, conjecture, tales, etc.

There is NO assurance that anything presented is truthful and accurate.

So we have two options for the question of the universe: the "God hypothesis," and the "No-god hypothesis."

This false dichotomy has been pointed out before – and is still repeated as though it was valid.

Each hypothesis lacks objective evidence, and there is no reasonable likelihood that we're ever going to get any objective evidence.

Agreed. And the “What god?� hypothesis / position requires no evidence – but asks for evidence before committing to a position.

But in the meantime, if we want to have some theoretical underpinning for imagining ourselves to be more than wind-up dolls, we need the "God hypothesis."

Correction: “We� don’t need – YOU need “some theoretical underpinning for imagining ourselves to be more than wind-up dolls.�

That is YOUR position that you attempt to project onto others – as though they shared your personal “need�. Do you somehow NOT recognize that others may well not share your “need�?

Perhaps some day the "No-god hypothesis" might allow for something other than the "wind-up doll" status for us,

Again, the “wind-up doll status� is YOUR problem. YOU evidently need a “god� belief to give your life “meaning� (and avoid being a “wind-up doll�). Others do not share that affliction or position.

but even that, should it happen, wouldn't disprove the "God hypothesis"--instead, it would only get the "No-god hypothesis" back to equal status.

Any “inequality� in “status� of your dichotomy is YOUR opinion ONLY.

So to me, the "God hypothesis" is no less reasonable--and probably slightly more reasonable--than the "No-god alternative." There is no downside to the "God hypothesis," while the "No-god hypothesis" currently leaves us without any theoretical underpinning for humans as anything other than wind-up dolls.

Again and again, YOU may need the “god hypothesis� to avoid “wind-up doll status�, but that is a personal matter. It has not been shown to be anything other than personal opinion. No documentation is provided to show the conjecture is true.

I can understand the person who says, "I really gave theism a shot, but it just didn't work for me. There's nothing in my subjective psyche that touches the divine in any way."

Many who debate here occupy that position, using their own words.

Why would it be important that anyone “really gave theism a shot� before deciding that its claims and stories, threats and promises made no sense?

Should one “really give a shot� to belief in leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, mermaids, etc before concluding claims and stories about them are supported only by conjecture, opinion and unverified tales – and deciding that is insufficient evidence to accept the belief?

Do Christians typically “really give a shot� to competing religions before making a decision to worship their favored “god�?

If a person says that, there's really no logical argument that's going to change things.

A logical argument based on valid and verifiable information could make believers out of a lot of non-believers.

However, philosophizing or “logicing� or playing word games WITHOUT evidence any stronger than conjecture, opinion, unverifiable tales is not likely to be convincing.

But if a person tries to claim that the "No-god hypothesis" is somehow more reasonable or more logical or more "evidenced" than the "God hypothesis," well, to me that's simply another unprovable assumption.

Some who recognize “un-provable assumptions� in others, fail to recognize when they do exactly the same themselves.

An entirely rational position is: “I don’t know whether any of the thousands of proposed ‘gods’ exist or influence human affairs AND I refuse to be bullied or coerced into accepting or rejecting competing ‘gods’ and ‘god hypotheses’.�

...Also, I don't see how that addresses the question...

Who was it who said, "The unexamined life is not worth living"?

Socrates.

Someone else said, “Reliance upon unverified claims and conjectures is indication of impotent argument.�

[EduChris]

...a high-pressure salesman’s tactic...

I'm not sure how we get from a simple theoretical response to a theoretical question, all the way over to a charge of "high-pressure sales tactics."

...This false dichotomy has been pointed out before – and is still repeated as though it was valid...

The so-called "What god" question is nothing more than the posturing of those who seek by all means to avoid the logically prior "God" question.

...YOU may need the “god hypothesis� to avoid “wind-up doll status�, but that is a personal matter...

It may very well be a personal matter, but it is also a theoretical matter for people who are inclined to theoretical questions. I agree that not everyone feels the need to support their worldview by means of explicit theoretical argument and analysis. To me that approach is often shallow, superficial, and parasitic on the prevalent theories of their immediate culture, but that's just my opinion.

...Should one “really give a shot� to belief in leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, mermaids...

Only if such are claimed to be the answer to the question of the universe. But if such is not the claim, then the repeated (ad nauseam) reference to such trivialities constitutes nothing more than a transparent attempt to "foul the nest" of philosophical inquiry.

[mgb]

Can you show that this is anything more than 'argument from personal belief'? Does the concept of 'Deeper mathematical truth' have any meaning beyond the conceptual?...Can you show these 'deeper mathematical truths' exist in anything beyond the mind of man?

Mathematics is necessarily true. By this I mean that mathematical truth is entirely self-contained and self-explanatory. Mathematical logic is not governed by any logic external to it. Mathematics is what it is and cannot be otherwise. It is eternal truth. Once a mathematical theorem is proved it can never be 'unproved'. This is what I mean by saying that mathematics is necessarily true. It does not need physical reality to be true. It cannot be anything other than what it is. All it needs is a 'mind' to know that it is necessarily true because mathematics is pure knowledge.

Now, when it comes to the physical universe we can ask if it is also necessarily what it is. Is it, like mathematics, necessarily what it is independant of any 'external' logic? If we answer 'yes' we have a huge problem. A problem as big as the universe itself. This is because we are trying to argue that there are two distinct nesessary truths, mathematics and physicality. The problem consists in the fact that we are seeing these truths as distinct from each other yet they are in exact corrospondance with each other. Physical existence is in perfect accord with mathematical truth. If we argue in this way we are essentially saying that the corrospondance between mathematics and physicality is pure coincidence: it is a coincidence that the earth orbits the sun in accordance with Newtonian mechanics; it is a coincidence that mathematics is such a powerful tool for probing the quantum world; it is a coincidence that Group Theory describes quantum reality and that statistics predict physical events such as the throw of a dice etc. etc. etc.

I'm sure you will agree that this would be an odd world view. It is such an oddball opinion that nobody would entertain it if they thought carefully about it for any length of time. Yet this is the world view that obtains if we assert that physical reality is a necessary truth, entirely distinct, from the necessary truths of mathematics.

We are almost forced, by common sense, to admit that physical reality must be contingent. Contingent in the sense that it is not self-explanatory outside everything else, even mathematics. It is 'dependant' on some other necessarily true reality. The obvious candidate for the physical universe's contingency/dependancy, is mathematics, because physical reality is an exact mirror of mathematical necessity. This fact is being verified continually by science.

It is not possible to argue the other way round and say that mathematical truth arises out of physical necessary truths. It is easy to show that mathematics is true independantly of physicality. It is not easy to argue the other way around. I doubt that it is even possible to make a serious attempt.

So, to argue that mathematics is just a handy tool for measuring the universe is almost trite. The truth of the matter runs much deeper than this as evidenced by how Paul Dirac predicted the existence of the 'negative of the electron', the positron, purely on the basis that the equations need a positive and negative solution. There are many such examples in modern science of how mathematics predicts quantum reality. The alignment between physical existence and necessary mathematical truths is too profound to be argued to be a 'happy accident'. So the universe is contingent upon necessary mathematical truth. Mathematical truth preceeds physical existence.

But how can this be if mathematical truth is 'merely' an abstraction? How can an abstraction have the potency to 'govern' material existences? How can it make sense to say that mathematical truth preceeds physical reality if it is an abstract nothing? The answer is staring you in the face every time you go to a cash dispenser or do anything that requires mathematics to operate.

How, for example, does mathematics have to potency to govern the flight of a spacecraft to Mars? The answer is that when mathematics is 'in' a mind it becomes real and potent. In the case of the spacecraft mathematics is in human minds. The only way that mathematics can 'govern' physical reality, in general, from the beginning, is if it is given potency by a mind and for the universe this must be God's mind.

[mgb]

In my view, God is quite dexterious; God takes whatever anyone has to offer and uses it for the ultimate advance of life and love and creativity

This explains why St. Paul's theology, inaccurate as it is, has been so useful to the world.

[LiamOS]

...Why should we necessarily draw conclusions when none can be reasonably drawn?...

It doesn't seem to me that we're ever going to get the objective evidence that some people claim they're looking for. Short of finding the name "Yahweh" stamped on every sub-atomic particle, what kind of evidence do we really expect we're going to find? What evidence would convince anyone? The human powers of imagination could easily come up with numerous explanations to counter any theistic interpretation of any evidence.

So we have only two options for the question of the universe: the "God hypothesis," and the "No-god hypothesis." Each hypothesis lacks objective evidence, and there is no reasonable likelihood that we're ever going to get any objective evidence.

But in the meantime, if we want to have some theoretical underpinning for imagining ourselves to be more than wind-up dolls, we need the "God hypothesis." Perhaps some day the "No-god hypothesis" might allow for something other than the "wind-up doll" status for us, but even that (were it to happen) wouldn't disprove the "God hypothesis"--instead, it would only get the "No-god hypothesis" back to equal status.

So to me, the "God hypothesis" is no less reasonable--and probably slightly more reasonable--than the "No-god alternative." There is no downside to the "God hypothesis," while the "No-god hypothesis" currently leaves us without any theoretical underpinning for humans as anything other than wind-up dolls.

I can understand the person who says, "I really gave theism a shot, but it just didn't work for me. There's nothing in my subjective psyche that touches the divine in any way." If a person says that, there's really no logical argument that's going to change things. But if a person tries to claim that the "No-god hypothesis" is somehow more reasonable or more logical or more "evidenced" than the "God hypothesis," well, to me that's nothing more than meaningless posturing--it's just another unprovable assumption.

...Also, I don't see how that addresses the question...

Who was it who said, "The unexamined life is not worth living"?

Our endeavours in particle physics and cosmology, while not proving a deity, could ultimately necessitate one and narrow down its possible attributes.

[Goat]

Can you show that this is anything more than 'argument from personal belief'? Does the concept of 'Deeper mathematical truth' have any meaning beyond the conceptual?...Can you show these 'deeper mathematical truths' exist in anything beyond the mind of man?

Mathematics is necessarily true. By this I mean that mathematical truth is entirely self-contained and self-explanatory. Mathematical logic is not governed by any logic external to it. Mathematics is what it is and cannot be otherwise. It is eternal truth. Once a mathematical theorem is proved it can never be 'unproved'. This is what I mean by saying that mathematics is necessarily true. It does not need physical reality to be true. It cannot be anything other than what it is. All it needs is a 'mind' to know that it is necessarily true because mathematics is pure knowledge.

In other words, mathematics can describe things that are FALSE when it comes to the empirical world. It is a description of patterns. It exists only in the mind of man.. it is conceptual.

Now, when it comes to the physical universe we can ask if it is also necessarily what it is. Is it, like mathematics, necessarily what it is independant of any 'external' logic? If we answer 'yes' we have a huge problem. A problem as big as the universe itself. This is because we are trying to argue that there are two distinct nesessary truths, mathematics and physicality. The problem consists in the fact that we are seeing these truths as distinct from each other yet they are in exact corrospondance with each other. Physical existence is in perfect accord with mathematical truth. If we argue in this way we are essentially saying that the corrospondance between mathematics and physicality is pure coincidence: it is a coincidence that the earth orbits the sun in accordance with Newtonian mechanics; it is a coincidence that mathematics is such a powerful tool for probing the quantum world; it is a coincidence that Group Theory describes quantum reality and that statistics predict physical events such as the throw of a dice etc. etc. etc.

The universe is as it is. As far as we can determine, the way that the universe operates is consistent.. although it does evolve. But since there is a lot of math that can inaccurately describe the world, or is at best an approximation, it is not a coincidence at all. .. because we can change the assumptions and procedures to model the world. It's a tool, and it can change it assumptions to match the 'real world'

Again, it is conceptual, and the results it makes when trying to describe the real world is only as good as assumptions.

I'm sure you will agree that this would be an odd world view. It is such an oddball opinion that nobody would entertain it if they thought carefully about it for any length of time. Yet this is the world view that obtains if we assert that physical reality is a necessary truth, entirely distinct, from the necessary truths of mathematics.

You see, it does not make 'necessary truth', because it can describe things that are false. It might provide a model of reality, but it is only a model. It is a 'map' of what we expect.. but the map is not the territory.

We are almost forced, by common sense, to admit that physical reality must be contingent. Contingent in the sense that it is not self-explanatory outside everything else, even mathematics. It is 'dependant' on some other necessarily true reality. The obvious candidate for the physical universe's contingency/dependancy, is mathematics, because physical reality is an exact mirror of mathematical necessity.

Why?? That sounds like wishful thinking to me. To me, this sounds like the typical 'God of the Gaps', ... where instead of using 'God' as for things that are currently beyond the limit of our understanding, you are just substituting 'contingent' and 'true reality'... meaningless words unless we know the context.. and when we know the context, the 'contingency' and 'True reality' get pushed back another layer.

This fact is being verified continually by science.

I challenge you to show how 'science' verifies that. It looks like the God of the Gaps argument to me.

It is not possible to argue the other way round and say that mathematical truth arises out of physical necessary truths. It is easy to show that mathematics is true independantly of physicality. It is not easy to argue the other way around. I doubt that it is even possible to make a serious attempt.

This statement does not makes sense.. since, as has been pointed out many 'mathemetical truths' have been shown to to be empirical. It is all in the mind.

So, to argue that mathematics is just a handy tool for measuring the universe is almost trite. The truth of the matter runs much deeper than this as evidenced by how Paul Dirac predicted the existence of the 'negative of the electron', the positron, purely on the basis that the equations need a positive and negative solution. There are many such examples in modern science of how mathematics predicts quantum reality. The alignment between physical existence and necessary mathematical truths is too profound to be argued to be a 'happy accident'. So the universe is contingent upon necessary mathematical truth. Mathematical truth preceeds physical existence.

But how can this be if mathematical truth is 'merely' an abstraction? How can an abstraction have the potency to 'govern' material existences? How can it make sense to say that mathematical truth preceeds physical reality if it is an abstract nothing? The answer is staring you in the face every time you go to a cash dispenser or do anything that requires mathematics to operate.

How, for example, does mathematics have to potency to govern the flight of a spacecraft to Mars? The answer is that when mathematics is 'in' a mind it becomes real and potent. In the case of the spacecraft mathematics is in human minds. The only way that mathematics can 'govern' physical reality, in general, from the beginning, is if it is given potency by a mind and for the universe this must be God's mind.

It sounds like you are embodying a simple tool with lots of 'woo' based on personal belief. To say it is trite does not mean the excess meaning you are giving 'math' and truth exists in any place but your imagination. This is the logical fallacy known as 'argument from personal belief'.

You have made a whole bunch of claims. Let's see you make some practical and empirical predictions based on that.. and prove it is more than metaphysical wishful thinking.

Things that can be described conceptually via math do not exist in actuality. Some might be approximations, but that does not mean reality and conception match.

[Zzyzx]

.

...a high-pressure salesman’s tactic...

I'm not sure how we get from a simple theoretical response to a theoretical question, all the way over to a charge of "high-pressure sales tactics."

Those who read the post understand that coercion to “make a decision [and declare a position]� (about “gods� in this case) IS a tactic used by high-pressure salesmen.

Notice that AGAIN you have ducked the question (for the third time): ““Why should we necessarily draw conclusions when none can be reasonably drawn?�

;]...This false dichotomy has been pointed out before – and is still repeated as though it was valid...

The so-called "What god" question is nothing more than the posturing of those who seek by all means to avoid the logically prior "God" question.

Correction: The “What god?� POSITIION is a rational response to the false dichotomy of “god hypothesis� vs. “no-god hypothesis�. In fact, in my opinion, that is the only reasonable position of the three because the other two can offer no credible evidence to support their contentions, whereas “What god?� acknowledges the lack of evidence.

You have taken the “god hypothesis� and, rather than support the hypothesis with credible evidence (which you admit is largely, if not completely, lacking), you attempt to coerce others into taking a “no-god hypothesis� (which many do NOT take). Some debaters are not inclined to be intimidated into taking the position you promote for them – but realize that “no-god hypothesis� is as indefensible as the “god-hypothesis� – for exactly the same reason; LACK of evidence.

The “What god?� position is the only rational position, in my opinion, when there is insufficient evidence to support either of the dichotomous positions offered.

I realize this conflicts with your apparent desire to “debate� a dichotomy that YOU offer, but that is your problem, not mine.

;]...YOU may need the “god hypothesis� to avoid “wind-up doll status�, but that is a personal matter...

It may very well be a personal matter, but it is also a theoretical matter for people who are inclined to theoretical questions.

Some are so inclined and some are not.

Again, I say that YOU may need the “god hypothesis� to avoid “wind-up doll status� but others do not. It is irrational to project one’s personal needs onto others.

[I agree that not everyone feels the need to support their worldview by means of explicit theoretical argument and analysis.

Thank you.

Realists / Naturalists often feel that “explicit theoretical argument and analysis� in support of worldview is a silly notion of academics, theologians and those who fancy themselves philosophers or intelligentsia.

[To me that approach is shallow, superficial, and parasitic on the prevalent theories of their immediate culture, but that's just my opinion.

Exactly the same can be said of religious claims offered without evidence (other than testimonials, conjecture, opinion, philosophical “justification�, word salads, and unverified tales by ancient storytellers and religion promoters – shallow, superficial and parasitic.

;]...Should one “really give a shot� to belief in leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, mermaids...

Only if such are claimed to be the answer to the question of the universe.

If storytellers stop short of claiming “the question of the universe�, are they accepted as truthful and accurate OR are they not worthy of “really giving a shot�?

What about claims that OTHER, competing “gods� are responsible for the universe? Are those claims and stories given a “real shot� before deciding to accept one of the “gods� as true?

[But if such is not the claim, then the repeated (ad nauseam) reference to such trivialities constitutes nothing more than a transparent attempt to "foul the nest" of philosophical inquiry.

Perhaps those who fancy themselves should take their “philosophical inquiry� to the Philosophy sub-forum http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... m.php?f=25

[Argenta]

...God does not provide humans with evidence for its existence...

God does not provide humans with "objective" evidence for God's existence. In fact, given the human condition, I don't know how God could provide "objective" evidence without forcing us to accept such evidence, thereby making our wills irrelevant.

This idea merits examination. Your implied thinking is:

1. God exists
2. God desires humans to have free will
3. Objective evidence of God’s existence would force people to believe that God exists and not allow them to exercise free will.

4. Therefore, God chooses not to give objective evidence of its existence.

If any of the premises 1 - 3 cannot be supported, the conclusion is unwarranted.

Premise 1, cannot be demonstrated but we can overlook this to follow the argument through.
Premise2 needs evidence (but is obviously false if premise 1 is false)
Premise 3 is dubious. We have plenty of examples of people being denying objective evidence. Flat-earthers, young earth creationists, evolution-deniers, conspiracy theorists and many, many more show how readily humans exercise their will and ignore objective evidence. So it is cannot true that objective evidence forces humans to believe.

In any case, if the Bible is to be believed, it is not even true that God seeks to be hidden. Many stories tell of God making his presence known to individuals and groups.

I struggle to understand what benefit a god would gain by having people believe without objective evidence? What could the reason be? The most obvious one, of course, is simply that there can be no objective evidence for non-existent gods.

Argenta

[Luke wwjd]

Hello everyone. I’m Argenta and this is my first post.

I stopped believing in deities before I was old enough to buy cigarettes but I have ever since wondered why so many smart people do sincerely believe in one god or another. I have considered the evidence theists present to support their beliefs but have only been able to conclude there is no evidence. None at all. I have searched for the arguments theists present to justify their beliefs and found fallacies in them all.

Maybe I’ve missed something.

So my proposition for debate is that belief in gods serves to satisfy emotional needs and apologetics serve to post-rationalise such beliefs. Am I right or can any theists point to the evidence or arguments that genuinely converted them to belief in god(s)?

Argenta

I am not saying that Argenta is stupid but any one who is smart/well educated people do not believe in a god. Also the idea that a god serves to satisfy emotional needs is ridiculous due to the turmoil that it puts people through when they have " sinned " and weather on there death bed they will be deemed a good enough religious nut to get into eternial bliss.