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.

[Shem Yoshi]

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."

[Miles]

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.

Not interested.

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.

I have no need or desire to. Christian apologetical videos like this are a dime a dozen, and are inevitability a set-up. Why wouldn't they be? Think a pro-Christian organization would ever show a video where Christianity or theism came out on the bottom? Of course not. It's a foregone conclusion Christianity will win and whoever is in the opponent's seat will lose, and no matter how poor the Christian argument is.

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?

Because an argument's success is rarely if ever based on the slim probability of an additional 1%, particularly when the opposition ends up with 98%. It's utterly stupid.

.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

There a couple problems here. First, with the title of the OP and second, the question for debate.

First, since we have no verifiable (observable) evidence of what 'God' even is (even if he/she/it exists), we first have to define what 'God' is that we think there might be some evidence for. If we can't do that, then all we could maybe say is that we have evidence for 'something', but we don't know what that something is. Making the leap from "We observe these effects" to "God is the answer" without any observation of "God" is pure god of the gaps thinking.

Lets take a concrete example in the realm of physics: Dark Matter. Now, we don't know what Dark Matter is, this is simply a place holder name for 'something'. We can observe gravitational effects from something, but we don't know what that something is. We can't observe what's causing the effects that we can observe. Using god of the gaps type arguments some might claim "God is the reason". Does this seem reasonable? The proper answer is "We don't know the answer". The term "Dark Matter" is simply a shorthand to call whatever it is that is causing the effects. If/when scientists actually observe this something, it can then be properly described/named/etc.

Would theists be happy to have 'God' simply be a placeholder for whatever we may eventually, actually observe (if possible)? No, I doubt it. Many theists think they know what 'God' is and are happy to ascribe all manner of properties to it without ever actually observing the 'God' in question. In other words, it's all just word play and faith.

Second, do some theists also not understand what evidence is? There is more than just 'evidence'. Is it verifiable evidence? Hearsay evidence? Consistently repeatable evidence? Evidence that actually supports the claim being made? When saying we have 'evidence' and nothing more than that, all it means is someone is making a claim. The next words out of the person being told there is evidence is usually "Show me". So, I think we all know what basic evidence is, but do we all understand the utility of the various types of it?

Let's make up an example.

I claim I have evidence that elephants live in my house.

Anyone who cared would say "Let's see the evidence".

I show them a picture of a peanut on my floor.

Should they be convinced? I mean, elephants eat peanuts right?

"Hold on now" some will say, what evidence do you have that elephants eat peanuts? And why don't you simply show us a picture of the elephants in your house instead of a peanut?"

Should I now say these people asking questions don't know what evidence is? I mean, a picture of a peanut is surely evidence right?


Really the only difference between my example and some of the "evidence for God" is that I can actually show a picture of a peanut and a picture of an elephant. I might be missing the picture of the elephant in my house, but I'm already ahead of the apologetics game.

[historia]

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.

I have no need or desire to. Christian apologetical videos like this are a dime a dozen, and are inevitability a set-up. Why wouldn't they be? Think a pro-Christian organization would ever show a video where Christianity or theism came out on the bottom? Of course not. It's a foregone conclusion Christianity will win and whoever is in the opponent's seat will lose, and no matter how poor the Christian argument is.

But that's just the thing, it's not that kind of video at all. No one comes out "on top" or "on the bottom." It's just a discussion.

I can appreciate you not being interested in the video. But it's ill-advised to comment on something you haven't actually seen.

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?

Because an argument's success is rarely if ever based on the slim probability of an additional 1%, particularly when the opposition ends up with 98%. It's utterly stupid.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, since it seems to misconstrue what was said in the video. The argument O'Connor makes is that multiple pieces of evidence can form a cumulative case, as I already noted above (see post #10), repeated here:

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%.

Which part of that assertion do you think is absurd or nonsensical?

[brunumb]

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.

Do you use the edit button to make corrections/additions?

[historia]

The term "Dark Matter" is simply a shorthand to call whatever it is that is causing the effects.

I think that's inaccurate. Dark Matter is a hypothetical form of matter. It's not simply a short-hand for whatever is causing the gravitational phenomena we are seeing in galaxies.

Modified Newtonian dynamics is an alternative hypothesis to explain these phenomena. If that turns out to be true, then there is no need to posit the existence of Dark Matter. In that way, Dark Matter is not simply a placeholder, it's a hypothesis that can turn out to be false.

Would theists be happy to have 'God' simply be a placeholder for whatever we may eventually, actually observe (if possible)? No, I doubt it. Many theists think they know what 'God' is and are happy to ascribe all manner of properties to it without ever actually observing the 'God' in question. In other words, it's all just word play and faith.

If you're willing to entertain hypotheses like Dark Matter (or the Multiverse, etc.) for which we have no direct observational evidence, it would seem to be special pleading on your part to say that we can't do the same for God.

I mean, a picture of a peanut is surely evidence right?

Yes, it's just not, in itself, sufficient evidence to establish the particular hypothesis that you have an elephant in your yard. Direct observational evidence of an elephant would essentially make the hypothesis undeniable. But a sufficient quantity of circumstantial evidence could make the hypothesis more likely true than not.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Do you use the edit button to make corrections/additions?

I did.

Now I watched a bit more on Kalam, and there's some confusion by the interviewer, like he says stage 1 - universe (these days rather the cosmic stuff the universe was made from as the BB does not need a god) must have had a start (where did the stuff come from?) is not stage 2 the Eternal Timeless Beyond that must be fore the 'stuff' (which is arguable) where I already said that doesn't imply a god anyway and he oddly implies this refutes the (atheist) 'objection' when it does nothing of the sort. The philosopher makes some decent points about the context which is how the Kalam can lead someone pump - primed with 'God'(which he didn't believe) to leap not only to Theism but Christianity which is a Bilge too far. Let's do some more.With the edit button, if needed.

[TRANSPONDER]

3rd slogan'If youhad been born elsewhere, you wouldn't be a Christian'. The Philosopher says 'Well that's true'. Pretty evident from the evidence. He does go around some good points (not helpful to Christianity). And apart from, sure, that there are other religions doesn't make Christianity true, but where we are heading is why Christianity is true and the others aren't? It is just a variety of 'Which god?' And assuming they keep Faith out of it and Christianity not being centralised is irrelevant - nor was Buddhism, but it vanished from India was eradicated in Malaya and Java and Communism saw it off in China. But it was as spread as possible given a lack of Industrial -grade travel and colonialism that Christianity had, without which, the Phillippines would be totally Muslim today, the argument would come down to Gospels looking convincingly like eyewitness record, which I've long said was the only argument worth the time.

I liked the way he responded to 'Inclusivism' was 'That's a good way around it'. Effectively it's inventing your own Christianity,aside from the idea that 'everyone will come to Jesus, eventually' which is more a pious hope than an argument. However they follow up this idea of 'works, not Faith', which is to say that God will save all Good people, no matter the religion. Which is NOT (as I understand it) what Christian Dogma says, though it is almost an Elephant in the Church that people (even apologists) think it should be. And the reasoning goes on to oblivion as a 'punishment'for not 'doing to will of God' whether in the dogmatic or moral sense, and i wonder wither they will consider that an existence where you are with God in a form that cannot be anything of what you are now, and oblivion, is pretty much the same thing. I don't know about the interviewer's suggestion that half believing and going through the motions in case it's true (which doesn't get over 'Which God?') will be enough to Save, but it makes me thankful I'm not a Christian.

[Diagoras]

If you're willing to entertain hypotheses like Dark Matter (or the Multiverse, etc.) for which we have no direct observational evidence, it would seem to be special pleading on your part to say that we can't do the same for God.

I wouldn’t accept the claim of special pleading here, as there’s a great deal of difference between the hypothesis of dark matter, and the supposed existence of God.

The key difference (in my view) is experimentation - and the design of such as to test a hypothesis by attempting to falsify it.

“If dark matter exists, then when we examine these galaxies, we should see such and such…”

There’s a great deal of time and effort being invested in understanding dark matter, and it’s not through lack of trying that we only have (so far) indirect observational evidence for it.

I’m not aware of any scientific efforts to similarly test for and falsify a God hypothesis. As others have also mentioned, a clear definition of what God is would also be needed. In another thread here, for example, God is apparently ‘pure love’.

[historia]

Many theists think they know what 'God' is and are happy to ascribe all manner of properties to it without ever actually observing the 'God' in question. In other words, it's all just word play and faith.

If you're willing to entertain hypotheses like Dark Matter (or the Multiverse, etc.) for which we have no direct observational evidence, it would seem to be special pleading on your part to say that we can't do the same for God.

I wouldn’t accept the claim of special pleading here, as there’s a great deal of difference between the hypothesis of dark matter, and the supposed existence of God.

The key difference (in my view) is experimentation - and the design of such as to test a hypothesis by attempting to falsify it.

Sure, Dark Matter concerns hypothetical objects inside the universe. That means these objects can, in theory, be observed through direct experimentation. God, on the other hand, is not conceived of as an object inside the universe, so cannot. In that way, God is more like the Multiverse hypothesis.

But the point that I'm making above is directly to benchwarmer's criticism -- as I understood it -- that there is something illegitimate in theists positing various attributes for God without having first observed God. Cosmologists have posited various attributes for Dark Matter (or the Multiverse) without having first observed it, and yet benchwarmer doesn't seem to have a problem with that. So this seems like special pleading.