There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
AquinasForGod
Sage
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 71 times

There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #21

Post by Miles »

historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:06 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 3:01 pm
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:37 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:41 am
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.
I did take a look at about the first 12 minutes or so and found the first 9 minutes pretty much a strawman, and the following discussion about the Kalam Argument a waste of time, although the two of them did manage to slip in some rather god affirming remarks such as:

HOST "The Kalam doesn't get you all the way to god [implying that it is useful to getting you part way there---it does not] Do you find that helpful?"

GUEST "It's certainly helpful in what it seeks to establish [the existence of god (see note below)]. . . . I made a Kalam video years and years ago where I made this claim. I said 'look,' sure the universe has a cause, but that cause does not need to be god.' I made a video a few years later debunking myself, and one of the points I made was that if the argument doesn't claim to do that then it's not a problem" [but it is a problem because it's the argument's sole reason for existing; to prove the existence of god]. .

The opening statement of the Wikipedia article on the argument:

........ "The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God."



Miles wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 3:01 pm
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:37 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:41 am
AquinasForGod wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:42 pm
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:
O'Conor wrote:
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?
I found the assertion that a 1% increase in the probable correctness of an argument can be viewed as a success, to be absurd. That, as AquinasForGod put it, "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." ----As if an improbability going from 99% to 98% is somehow significant. I do not. I find a 1% increased probability of an argument being right (1% up to 2%) to be extremely unsuccessful.

.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #22

Post by historia »

Miles wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:36 pm
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:06 pm
I can appreciate you not being interested in the video. But it's ill-advised to comment on something you haven't actually seen.
I did take a look at about the first 12 minutes or so and found the first 9 minutes pretty much a strawman
How so?
Miles wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:36 pm
the two of them did manage to slip in some rather god affirming remarks such as:

HOST "The Kalam doesn't get you all the way to god [implying that it is useful to getting you part way there---it does not] Do you find that helpful?"

GUEST "It's certainly helpful in what it seeks to establish [the existence of god (see note below)]
Your transcription here is inaccurate and your analysis (in brackets) seem confused. The thing O'Conner is saying he finds "helpful" is this objection to the kalam argument they are discussing, not the kalam argument itself.

Not sure why that would be "god affirming." But, at any rate, that's beyond the section of the video relevant to our discussion.
Miles wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:36 pm
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:06 pm
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:
O'Conor wrote:
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?
I found the assertion that a 1% increase in the probable correctness of an argument can be viewed as a success, to be absurd. That, as AquinasForGod put it, "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." ----As if an improbability going from 99% to 98% is somehow significant. I do not. I find a 1% increased probability of an argument being right (1% up to 2%) to be extremely unsuccessful.
I see. I think what's missing from AquinasForGod's summary of O'Connor here is the subsequent part of his argument I quoted above.

O'Conner's overarching point here is that a single piece of evidence or an individual argument can be "successful" if it is part of a cumulative case. In that way, an argument that gets you from 2% to 3% can be called "successful," not because 97% improbable is itself "success," but because, together with other arguments and evidence, it contributes toward getting you over 50%.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #23

Post by Diagoras »

historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:27 pm 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.
<bolding mine>

Positing attributes to something ill-defined that supposedly ‘exists outside’ the universe (usually defined as ‘all that exists’) is still very different from observing phenomena within the universe and positing attributes to it based on (admittedly limited and indirect) observations.

Note how, in order to protect the assumptions made of God, it has to be defined in such a way as to make it essentially unverifiable (“outside the universe”).

It may be that benchwarmer was making a different point, but from my understanding, and your response above, I maintain the position that there’s no special pleading in differentiating between a scientific hypothesis of dark matter and a theological claim about God.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #24

Post by historia »

Diagoras wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:30 pm
I maintain the position that there’s no special pleading in differentiating between a scientific hypothesis of dark matter and a theological claim about God.
Okay, but now you're just straw-manning my argument. I'm not saying there are no differences between these various hypothesis/explanations.

My argument again is this:
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:27 pm
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.
I'm happy to entertain a rebuttal to this point. But, you have to understand that I'm drawing an analogy here, which is, by definition, "a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect," so Merriam Webster.

Simply telling me there are differences between the things I'm comparing is just telling me you don't understand how analogies work.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7971
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #25

Post by TRANSPONDER »

historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:50 pm
Diagoras wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:30 pm
I maintain the position that there’s no special pleading in differentiating between a scientific hypothesis of dark matter and a theological claim about God.
Okay, but now you're just straw-manning my argument. I'm not saying there are no differences between these various hypothesis/explanations.

My argument again is this:
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:27 pm
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.
I'm happy to entertain a rebuttal to this point. But, you have to understand that I'm drawing an analogy here, which is, by definition, "a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect," so Merriam Webster.

Simply telling me there are differences between the things I'm comparing is just telling me you don't understand how analogies work.
Not too difficult to clarify, rather than rebut. Because theist apologetics are usually based on something, but gotten a bit wrong. Atheist reservations about the God -claim are not based on requiring definitions of what a god is by either side, nor by 'positing various attributes for God without having first observed God'. Atheists leave it up to the god -apologists of any kind to make a case no matter what the god -concept is or is not. The bottom line is validating evidence for an intelligent intent behind anything that we observe. Bottom line.

And to get back to the video, I wonder whether I need to go on with it because the bottom line there is that no matter how they juggle with it, they have Nothing. I've seen all the arguments and they validate nothing by way of a god - claim, even before the idea of 'Which god?' even comes up. .

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #26

Post by Miles »

historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:05 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:36 pm
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:06 pm
I can appreciate you not being interested in the video. But it's ill-advised to comment on something you haven't actually seen.
I did take a look at about the first 12 minutes or so and found the first 9 minutes pretty much a strawman
How so?
In their claim that there is "no evidence" for the existence of god is an atheist slogan--the first of ten---and their subsequent attempt to show that, indeed, there is such evidence. O'Connor then proceeds to say why some people would make such a claim: they "fail to consider the "cumulative case for the existence of god." which allows him to then expound on his "cumulative case" theory.
As a long-time atheist I don't recall ever hearing such a claim, much less as a slogan, without some kind of qualifier before "evidence," such as "convincing," "rational," "reasonable," "persuasive," or the like. Of course, as any discussion about evidence plays out the qualifier is often dropped, but does remain implied.

The whole "no evidence" ploy was set up so as to give O'Connor a chance to promote his "cumulative case" theory.

Miles wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:36 pm
the two of them did manage to slip in some rather god affirming remarks such as:

HOST "The Kalam doesn't get you all the way to god [implying that it is useful to getting you part way there---it does not] Do you find that helpful?"

GUEST "It's certainly helpful in what it seeks to establish [the existence of god (see note below)]
Your transcription here is inaccurate and your analysis (in brackets) seem confused. The thing O'Conner is saying he finds "helpful" is this objection to the kalam argument they are discussing, not the kalam argument itself.
Is it a game-changing inaccuracy?

What is it I've said that confuses you?

And sorry, but I'm not up to going through the discussion again. :?

Miles wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:36 pm
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:06 pm
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:
O'Conor wrote:
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?
I found the assertion that a 1% increase in the probable correctness of an argument can be viewed as a success, to be absurd. That, as AquinasForGod put it, "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." ----As if an improbability going from 99% to 98% is somehow significant. I do not. I find a 1% increased probability of an argument being right (1% up to 2%) to be extremely unsuccessful.
I see. I think what's missing from AquinasForGod's summary of O'Connor here is the subsequent part of his argument I quoted above.

O'Conner overarching point here is that a single piece of evidence or an individual argument can be "successful" if it is part of a cumulative case. In that way, an argument that gets you from 2% to 3% can be called "successful," not because 97% improbable is itself "success," but because, together with other arguments and evidence, it contributes toward getting you over 50%.
But is that what was said?


.

Online
benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2287
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1959 times
Been thanked: 739 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #27

Post by benchwarmer »

historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:01 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 3:39 pm
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.
You are correct, but also seem to be missing the point. When I said 'shorthand' I mean "Dark Matter" is not something we actually can observe. It's a name that been given to a proposed thing. As you correctly point out, technically this is a hypothesis.

You seemed to skip over the first part of my reply and zone in on my perhaps poor wording. Thank you for the correction, but you seem to be agreeing that we have indeed observed something (movement of observable bodies), but have not observed what might be causing it.

Have we observed any "God effects", but simply missing observation of "God"? In other words, are we observing things that we don't know what is causing it, and "God" is a proposed hypothesis where "God" could indeed either not be there (if it's something else) or the properties of this "God" are completely unknown? That is the analogy I'm making and I'm not looking for any special pleading.

What I'm saying is that if we observe something, but can't observe the cause, is it reasonable to assume an answer or is it better to simply say "We don't know", but have some hypotheses?

If someone wants to put "God" (an unknown entity that may be causing observed phenomenon) on the table as a possibility, that's fine. It's no different than Dark Matter though in this case. i.e. you can't jump from this proposed thing to the god defined in any religion as we can't observe the "God" to figure out what it is.
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:01 pm 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.
See above, no special pleading. If you want to posit an unknown entity as a hypothesis and call this unknown entity "God", I'm fine with that. However, we all know most theists have a particular god in mind and are not just describing some yet to be determined thing.

I don't walk around telling people that "Dark Matter" is the answer for observed effects. I'm open to whatever answer we might eventually have verifiable evidence for. I'm also open to "Dark Matter" being defined as something other than what it might be now based on hard science. It is an "I don't know", but maybe "some sort of matter". I'm open to it being debunked by some other theory. My faith in Dark Matter is non-existent.
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:01 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 3:39 pm
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.
That is exactly my point.
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:01 pm Direct observational evidence of an elephant would essentially make the hypothesis undeniable.
Also my point. If you came over to my house and saw the elephant, that would be about as good as you could get. Assuming of course I'm not tricking you. A vet doing an extensive exam on the elephant in front of you and sharing the result with you would be further evidence it's not just an elaborate illusion.
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:01 pm But a sufficient quantity of circumstantial evidence could make the hypothesis more likely true than not.
On this we likely disagree. I'm glad you said "could", but even then, it's very dependent on the actual evidence. A large quantity of 'bad' evidence does not equal a small quantity of 'good' evidence. Nor does the quantity of circumstantial evidence increase the likelihood of truth. You are basically saying that if I showed you 1000 pictures of peanuts, each one in a different place in my house, it would start to build a good case that there is indeed an elephant present (assuming elephants actually eat peanuts in the first place)

At best, we could comfortably say that I apparently don't vacuum very often and there are lots of peanuts in my house.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #28

Post by Diagoras »

historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:50 pm
Diagoras wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:30 pm
I maintain the position that there’s no special pleading in differentiating between a scientific hypothesis of dark matter and a theological claim about God.
Okay, but now you're just straw-manning my argument. I'm not saying there are no differences between these various hypothesis/explanations.

My argument again is this:
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:27 pm
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.
I'm happy to entertain a rebuttal to this point. But, you have to understand that I'm drawing an analogy here, which is, by definition, "a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect," so Merriam Webster.

Simply telling me there are differences between the things I'm comparing is just telling me you don't understand how analogies work.
If we changed ‘illegitimate’ in your argument to ‘unscientific’, would we be closer to agreement?

I suspect you wouldn’t be comfortable in making that change, which speaks to my point that you are using a false analogy: you fail to account for the relevant differences between a scientific hypothesis and a theological hypothesis.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #29

Post by brunumb »

historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:05 pm O'Conner's overarching point here is that a single piece of evidence or an individual argument can be "successful" if it is part of a cumulative case. In that way, an argument that gets you from 2% to 3% can be called "successful," not because 97% improbable is itself "success," but because, together with other arguments and evidence, it contributes toward getting you over 50%.
:? How does that work? If you have 50 pieces of information regarding a proposition, each with 2% probability of being true, does that mean that cumulatively they result in the proposition being 100% true? The best one could really say is that all that information is getting you no further than a suggestion of being true with a probability of 2%. Interestingly, the 98% probability of the proposition being false in each case seems to get ignored.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11353
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #30

Post by 1213 »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:55 am 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

Post Reply