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]

Even without watching the video (I might if it isn'ttoo long) your aproach is terribly flawed, strawmanning the atheist case to fit the point you want to make.

There is no 'true'evidence with the implication that anything that doesn't suit atheist preferences is dismissed as Not Evidence'. The fact is that evidence has to comply with the requirements and with the same reservation on all subjects all across the board. Given that it is always open to further debate.

Just take for instance that claim that contemporary historians attest to Jesus. This has been well debunked, but Tacitus does stand up as at least credible. Suetonius being 2nd place, though 'Chreshtus' might well be a different person. However,Tacitus only says that the founder of the Christians (Chirst or Jesus) was executed by Pilate. That is some pretty good support for an actual Jesus even though Tacitus calls Pilat a procurator rather than a Prefect. So this shows him to be saying what he heard,rather than what he knew. But it at least shows the basics were known even in his day.

Now that's evidence that I accept. Contradictory resurrection stories do not constitute good evidence and neither are the exucses, evasions and denials that I get from people trying to make them stand up as good evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

Even without watching the video (I might if it isn't too long) your approach is terribly flawed, strawmanning the atheist case to fit the point you want to make.

There is no 'true' evidence with the implication that anything that doesn't suit atheist preferences is dismissed as 'Not Evidence' (we leave that to the god -apologists). The fact is that evidence has to comply with the requirements and with the same reservation on all subjects all across the board. Given that it is always open to further debate.

Just take for instance that claim that contemporary historians attest to Jesus. This has been well debunked, but Tacitus does stand up as at least credible. Suetonius being 2nd place, though 'Chreshtus' might well be a different person. However,Tacitus only says that the founder of the Christians (Christ or Jesus) was executed by Pilate. That is some pretty good support for an actual Jesus, even though Tacitus calls Pilate a procurator rather than a Prefect. So this shows him to be saying what he heard, rather than what he knew. But it at least shows the basics were known even in his day.

Now that's evidence that I accept. Contradictory resurrection stories do not constitute good evidence and neither are the excuses, evasions and denials that I get from people trying to make them stand up as good evidence

I just had a look at the first one 'No evidence for God'. We know what is meant, but the pettifogg is made 'there IS evidence - it's just not good'. Not that they admit the evidence isn't good. In fact the dude goes off into an evidential case and a cumulative case. Which is actually the same thing. It makes no difference whether there is a Theist case with a better atheist one or No theist case with a better atheist one. There is no difference in the evidence for the atheist side either way. Assuming it is better and (generally) it is.

But then he goes off into the unexplained such as the nuclear constants. This is a gap for god as he is assuming that God is the answer if science hasn't got one. So we know that theist - think is messing his logic up from the start. Do I want to spend time listening to the skewed and slipshod thinking of this fellow? Really?

Atheists will concede that gaps for god, have a part in keeping the theist case open, but they are NOT 'cumulative evidence for God'. They are 'nobody knows'. Especially nobody knows which god, and did you ever clarify just how you got from daft ontologies, gaps for god and strawmanning atheist arguments to Biblegod? I can't recall how you ever made the leap of faith though I vaguely recall that reasons convinced you.

[Tcg]

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

[Miles]

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.

...................... ---VIDEO---

Why would anyone spend almost two hours watching someone explain why there's poor evidence for god?

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

And why should anyone care what "agnostic" Joseph Schmid say about the evidence for god on a pro-Christianity video? Think the video isn't all a set-up? No? Then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

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.

And evidence is either good or it's not, so just because someone presents evidence for X doesn't mean it's worth anything more than a fart in a wind storm.

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

And you actually buy such claptrap?

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

So, let me get this straight. He believes the conclusion of an argument that has never been expressed is probably less true than the argument's conclusion? That about it? If not, please explain just what you're saying here.

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.

Successful at what? Duping you into thinking it's reasonable believe god exists even though you think there's a 98% possibility that he does not? Of course you do. And "why"? Because your need to believe far surpasses your reason and rationality.


.

[1213]

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

Yes, I think many atheists don't understand what evidence means. It looks like they mix up with the meaning of proof and think evidence is the same as proof. Evidence is not a proof; it is only something that indicates something.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Yes, I think many atheists don't understand what evidence means. It looks like they mix up with the meaning of proof and think evidence is the same as proof. Evidence is not a proof; it is only something that indicates something.

I don't think so. Though the terms may both be used for the same thing.

Basically evidence is the data, proof is the conclusion. Both get argued about, but generally it's whether the data is interpreted correctly and proof is what it says about the question asked. I would guess both sides know what evidence and Proof mean. Of course some people may be confused, but someone will straighten them out. That's what debate (as distinct from echo - chamber presentations where one side talks biased arguments and the other side just nods approvingly.) does. Bias doesn't actually matter, so long as the points are valid, as I think Aquinas for God may have said. But it needs to be identified when it skews the argument.

I may watch another 'Atheist slogan' ans see whether they get it wrong, too. I'm betting they do mainly because I have seen these sorts of arguments before and they always misunderstand or misrepresent the argument, either deliberately or because with their Faithbased mindset, they can't help it.

P.s generally. I know why I get duplicate posts. when submitting, I may notice a typo, correct it and hit submit again, and this results in a 2nd post. That's what I did above by adding a further para. I'll try to watch that in future, valued humans.

[TRANSPONDER]

Damn' watching, on I like his style a lot more. He did say 'bad evidence is still "Evidence" but he knows what is meant by 'No evidence': No Good evidence is Understood. And yes, cumulative evidence and sufficient for credence are all points, but must be treated with caution. Another atheist slogan is 'data is not the plural of anecdote'. Which, being translated, means, that a pile of bad arguments does not turn into a good argument. And that was the point I made above - fine tuning is a gap for god, but it isn't even Bad evidence for god. It is merely an unknown.

Now he mentioned the vestigial tail as minor evidence for evolution. Yes. The Creationist explanation that it could have been for muscle attachments and is not vestigial makes it less hard evidence that some evolutionists thought. We have to give 'em credit when they provide a fair alternative hypothesis or explanation. But minor or circumstantial evidence if it can be plausibly denied really doesn't make a case; it can ALL be misinterpreted (which is the anti - evolutionist case). But take something like the cetan sequence, and you have hard evidence for speciation. THEN the peripheral evidence becomes validated. Without that, it isn't and there is really NO evidence for a god that makes a nuclear constant even minor evidence for God; it is No evidence either way, aside the priority of the materialist default (which God - apologists persistently fail to recognise and much as they fail to understand the burden of proof) and which argues that there is a natural physics reason for the nuclear constant, we just don't know what it is yet .

However, he got on to Faith. But that doesn't matter in presenting evidence. If the evidence is good, whether it was presented as cold science or in Faith is irrelevant. As I say, Bias doesn't matter, valid evidence does. Let's look at some more.

Ah, Kalam. Simple one there, and rather like fine tuning. Sure there is fine tuning as there is (so it appears) a Cause for the universe, but neither of those are evidence for a god (name your own), even bad, peripheral or circumstantial evidence for a god. There could be natural physical explanations and - again the materialist default. It was true, though amusing, that he said Kalam doesn't have to be about a god to be valid. But if it isn't, then it is a pointless argument and theists shouldn't be making it. And to be consistent, he should apply that to nuclear constants as well. Oh yes, he started on the timeless -beyond the universe stuff which 'sounds a lot like God'. I do hope he goes on to recognise that it sounds more like the amazing cosmos of physics and 'God' is just anthropomorphising it. And as always, an 'intelligent cause' doesn't get you to any particular god. I always see a leap of faith which is any first cause has to be the god of the religion you believe in.

[historia]

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

Why would anyone spend almost two hours watching someone explain why there's poor evidence for god?

The section of the video under discussion is only about nine minutes long, beginning at 1:23.

Think the video isn't all a set-up? No? Then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Have you actually watched the video, Miles? It's a perfectly reasonable discussion.

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

And you actually buy such claptrap?

Why would you say that?

[historia]

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

This atheist doesn't.

. . .

Of course, your title makes no sense. If someone thought there was verifiable evidence for god/gods, they wouldn't be an atheist.

Ironically, though, your second statement here is precisely what O'Connor argues is the misunderstanding. He notes:

I think a lot of people are expecting that successful evidence must push us over the 50% boundary -- it must be that this piece of evidence is only a functional piece of evidence if it manages to essentially establish God's existence, or make it more likely true than not.

But I think you can also get successful evidence that just slightly increases your credence. Because, of course, if you get enough of those kinds of evidences, even if it is only marginally pushing up your credence, it may eventually push it over 50%.

Seems reasonable to me.