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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Basically evidence is the data, proof is the conclusion....

I think this is a good definition and source for it:

a: an outward sign : INDICATION
b: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

That's clearly the data; the evaluation of it is the research and evaluation. The decision on whether it's valid in the claim made for it is the 'proof'. i

[AquinasForGod]

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

Blanket questions are rarely valuable. This atheist doesn't. That doesn't mean that no atheists do.

Of course, your title makes no sense. If someone thought there was verifiable evidence for god/gods, they wouldn't be an atheist. Odd how some theists try to confuse such a straightforward issue. Why do you think that is? I have my hunches, but it'd be better to get an answer from a theist. Have you any ideas?


Tcg

The title says "There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher" not "verifiable evidence" and the original post brings up the Scotsman fallacy, which is "No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly."..

An "appeal to purity"... Like saying there is no "true evidence" or "verifiable evidence", etc...

An example might be, believing eye witness testimony of an event even though there might be small contradictions between witnesses, but then claiming the biblical witness's aren't true because there are small contradictions. Claiming it is not 'true evidence' would be a Scotsman Fallacy. Believing in historical events that Josephus talks about, but then saying there is no verifiable evidence for Jesus would be a Scotsman fallacy.

according to the dictionary "Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened."

Right, like how the eye witnesses that escaped the Titanic contradict each other. Some claim to have seen the ship break in two while sinking. Other claims they saw it sink as a whole ship and that it did not break up. Yet we know the titanic sank. However, we don't know if it broke up before it sank, as sinking or after it sunk.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Miles in post #12]

You might want to watch Cosmic Skeptics youtube channel. He has been an atheist for a long time, all throughout studying philosophy. He does videos like this with Cameron because it benefits his own channel. Also, he wants to help atheists get better at discussing with Christians. As it is, atheists for the most part online are not very good at it.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #13]

The main mistake you make in this long post is that reality consists of empirical things only, yet we have no reason to accept that.

Let's take mathematical realism for example that many if not most mathematicians holds to. Mathematical realism is the idea that mathematics exists outside the mind. It is not invented but discovered. What kind of evidence would be used in this argument? It will not be observable because you cannot observe mathematics. You can only observe the human symbols we created. If mathematical realism is true, then math is a real but abstract thing.

Are you familiar with the arguments for and against mathematical realism?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Miles in post #21]

the Kalam by itself is not working to show God exists, but rather to show that there is an uncaused cause.

Other arguments then argue for why the uncaused cause ought to be God.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #25]

I've seen all the arguments and they validate nothing by way of a god

This must be hyperbole because there is no way you have seen all the arguments.

What is your objection to say the argument of psychophysical harmony?

And I am positive you haven't seen all the arguments because new arguments come out all the time.

What is your objection to Josh Rasmussen's Ontological Argument?

[AquinasForGod]

I would like to personally thank Historia for participating. It is refreshing to see someone that reasons well.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #12]

You might want to watch Cosmic Skeptics youtube channel. He has been an atheist for a long time, all throughout studying philosophy. He does videos like this with Cameron because it benefits his own channel. Also, he wants to help atheists get better at discussing with Christians. As it is, atheists for the most part online are not very good at it.

And neither are Christians, I suspect.

I did take a look at the free will discussion on Cosmic Skeptic but was disappointed with Steve's discussion with Alex O'Connor. Nothing new and almost all of it quite rudimentary. I was hoping for something of a more advanced nature, but that's just me.


.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #13]

The main mistake you make in this long post is that reality consists of empirical things only, yet we have no reason to accept that.

You may have no reason to accept that, but are you sure it's really a mistake? It could be, but I'm guessing you have no verifiable evidence of that do you? See what I did there

Let's take mathematical realism for example that many if not most mathematicians holds to.

Do you have a source for that claim?

Mathematical realism is the idea that mathematics exists outside the mind. It is not invented but discovered. What kind of evidence would be used in this argument? It will not be observable because you cannot observe mathematics. You can only observe the human symbols we created. If mathematical realism is true, then math is a real but abstract thing.

Are you familiar with the arguments for and against mathematical realism?

No I wasn't, and after reading the following, it seems there is quite a bit more to the story.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities ... thematical

If nothing else, thank you for the dive into something I hadn't heard of before.

My current view on mathematics is that it is a symbolic language that we use to describe our observations and as a way to help us convey ideas. Clearly I have more reading to do regarding the philosophical ideas and debates around that.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #25]

I've seen all the arguments and they validate nothing by way of a god

This must be hyperbole because there is no way you have seen all the arguments.

What is your objection to say the argument of psychophysical harmony?

And I am positive you haven't seen all the arguments because new arguments come out all the time.

What is your objection to Josh Rasmussen's Ontological Argument?

It is hyperbole,of course. I am always open to new argument, yet it is a fair comment as what I see are new versions of all the old arguments - including the various ontological arguments, mainly that they reuire a god to be real before they work and even then they don't prove one particular god.