There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

[AquinasForGod]

Question for debate: Do atheist just missunderstand what evidence means?

Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) and atheist philosopher says there is evidence for God. He explains why in the first part of this discussion.



He is not the only one, though. Also, Joseph Schmid explains that there is evidence for God, even though he is agnostic.

Alex explains that evidence doesn't have to fully convince you in order to serve as evidence. Something serves as evidence even if it only moves you by 1% toward belief in God.

If you say, there is no "true" evidence for God then that is the no true Scotsman fallacy. Or if you say anything like that. No true evidence, not actual evidence, not real evidence, etc.

It is either evidence or it is not.

He says, an argument could be successful in the sense that it makes the conclusion more probably true than false.

He says, but another way an argument can be successful is if it makes a conclusion more probably true than sans the argument.

This means that if prior to the argument you thought the probability for God was 1%, then after say the fine-tuning argument, you raise that probability to 2%, then the argument was successful.

[historia]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #109]

Okay, having addressed the historiographical questions in the earlier post, let's return to your definitional questions:

God is not an object inside the universe, so God cannot be "right there" in "this spot" in the way that an object inside the universe can.

Based on what are you claiming this?

How the concept of God has been understood for thousands of years.

Is it because God has just simply been defined as 'not an object inside the universe'?

God has not "simply" been defined as such, as if this is merely an arbitrary definition. Rather, as the creator of the universe, God would necessarily transcend the universe. In the same way, we wouldn't say the Multiverse has "simply," or arbitrarily, been defined as not an object inside the universe either.

If I define an angry band of unruly pixies as 'not inside this universe' can I, with the same conviction as theists, postulate that they are a possible reason for the current universe we live in?

No, this is little more than a linguistic trick, since an "angry band of unruly pixies" already has an established meaning that you would be ignoring here.

Of course, if we radically redefine what specific terms mean, we can always postulate things using those redefined terms. But clearly the intention with this kind of argument is that the words will retain something of their original meaning to the reader, thereby making the new statement seem absurd. This is just rhetoric.

In that way, God is more like the Multiverse, transcending our visible universe.

No.

Yes. We'll come back to your objection about prior observations presently. But the point I'm making here is simply that God and the Multiverse are understood to be entities that transcend our visible universe. So it doesn't make sense to talk about either God or the Multiverse (should they exist) being in some location or spot within our visible universe.

Perhaps God can manifest himself in various ways -- certainly some religious traditions believe he has. But that I think is different from saying that God is in a particular location.

This is just more conjecture about something that's not apparently possible to observe.

That is indeed what the word "perhaps" entails.

And, finally, the crux of the discussion:

Maybe what you mean to say here is that an hypotheses is objectionable if it is not consistent with our background knowledge, which would include prior observations?

Yes, you have understood me.

Okay, good. Would you agree, too, that an hypothesis being "consistent" with our background knowledge doesn't prevent us from postulating previously unobserved explanations? So, for example, no one had previously observed a black hole before that hypothesis was formulated, yet it is consistent with our background knowledge (from General Relativity).

Indeed, it seems that hypotheses about the early universe, the cosmos as a whole, or the fundamental nature of reality are going to necessarily entail things we have not previously observed, since they are outside of our normal experience. It seems, then, we shouldn't dismiss out-of-hand hypotheses like string theory, branes, white holes, and the like, simply because we haven't previously observed such things, would you not agree?

Okay, so it seems, then, that you don't dismiss out-of-hand black holes, Dark Matter, and the Multiverse, even though we can't directly observe those things. So, would you agree, then, that, it is legitimate in principle -- let me emphasize that again: in principle -- to postulate something we cannot directly observe (up to an including specific properties of that thing) based on the indirect evidence we can observe?

Based on the direct evidence we can observe yes.

Okay, good. So now imagine someone surveys the cosmological evidence supporting the Big Bang and related theorems, the apparent fine-tuning of the laws and constants of nature, as well as the initial conditions of the universe, along with the reality of consciousness, morality, religious experience, the necessary conditions of logical and mathematical reasoning, and various philosophical considerations for the contingent nature of reality, and from some or all of that direct evidence postulates God as an explanation.

Such an hypothesis would be analogous to the other hypotheses just mentioned, in that we are formulating an explanation that we cannot directly observe from evidence we can directly observe. As part of our background knowledge, we have all previously observed minds (our own and those of others), and God is posited as a similar kind of Mind.

Now, you may not ultimately find that specific hypothesis convincing -- just as one might not find any of the other hypotheses above convincing -- but to categorically rule it out because of the process followed, as you have above, seems to me to be little more than special pleading.

[TRANSPONDER]

A pre -s. no. I have to hold in any more than that, but appeal to fine tuning, morality and the rest is only a case for God if one already believes it. You don't (logically and rationally) get to award yourself the win by saying, effectively: 'it's the best explanation, even if skeptics don't accept it'. The way it actually works is: 'Just because you have talked yourself into seeing failed arguments like morality and kalam as cumulative evidence for god, doesn't mean that anyone else has to'. Nor, as I say, does it entitle you to award yourself the win.

It's the old problem. While it is intuitive to see what we know, either when the world was all we knew and then it was the universe, and now a universe within something wider, and suppose whatever made it has to be outside ,planning and making it, it's the old problems. Something must be outside and beyond, but what? Where did that come from? Calling it 'god' explains nothing. ascribing an intelligent planning will merely increases the problems., Postulating a creator god beyond space and time, explains nothing and merely introduces mythology into the efforts to work out the origin of everything.

Also, while the Big Bang is a popular image as the start of the universe, it is not how it is seen today, which is more an evolving of matter out of hot plasma everywhere at once, according to quantum. But there are still questions about that, and a pulsating creation is still a valid hypothesis. It is just too soon to start trying to adapt cosmic origin theories to shoehorn an intelligent creator in there. We just don't know enough.

So, while the Believers and god - apologists are welcome to try to fiddle human conceptual conventions to impose their god - belief on whatever reality is, it is a futile effort, as finding a philosophical (not to say pseudo scientific) hypothesis about cosmic origins, does not get us to any particular god or religion (1) but merely throws up more questions about the creative mechanism. And it can't be said too often - an origin for the matter/energy that made everything is a problem; making it intelligent is two problems.

"God" Is not an answer to the question of cosmic origins, but makes it two questions. And they can't be answered by Faithclaims - 'God is uncreated and eternal'. Physics could make the same faithclaim about Physics. Someone posted that Physics can't explain physics. Well, God can't explain God, but apologists seem to think it does.

Just sayin' this debate is essentially futile. I know why it is done - to try to wangle 'god' as a valid label into the debate. 'God' as a concept, label or faithclaim once 'accepted' can be used as a springboard to the Bible, Jesus and Christianity. I know how it works, because i have seen it before.

(1) which is the actual topic, not Cosmology.