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.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2284
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1957 times
Been thanked: 738 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #81

Post by benchwarmer »

historia wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:32 pm
benchwarmer wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:05 pm
historia wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:52 pm
What I'm trying to head off here is this tendency some folks have to object to an analogy simply because there are differences between the two things being compared.

I took your comment above that they are "not the same thing" to mean there are differences between the two. But, since an analogy is, by definition, a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect, simply pointing out that there are differences is not enough to show the analogy is false.
I think maybe the issue is that we are assuming the analogy is based on different things.
I think we actually roughly agree what the analogy is based on. A note before we continue, though:
benchwarmer wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:05 pm
My assumption is that the analogy is based on the process being the same.
You had bolded 'process' in your original statement, but I want to focus on your assertion that they must be "the same."

In an analogy the two things being compared have to have a "resemblance of a particular aspect." They don't have to be identical, i.e., "the same," with regard to that aspect.
Ok, it seems we are just going back and forth on semantics.

In what way are theologians doing something that 'resembles' what physicists are doing? Positing attributes right? That was what I said I thought you meant. Your analogy is around the resemblance of positing attributes for something we can't observe.

Again, my objection originally was around how theologians are arriving at these attributes to posit in the first place. What are they actually observing that causes them to posit these things? From my take, it seems they are positing these attributes based on wishful thinking.

Physicists are positing there may be gravitational effects from some form of matter causing the observed motion of bodies. This is based on previous observations of how gravity is an attribute of objects with mass. i.e. they didn't just pull this out of their keister.

What have we observed that we know comes from something god like such that someone could legitimately posit an analogous effect coming from another god like thing? In the theologians case, they are both positing the source of an effect and the effect itself. i.e. A 'god' is doing 'god like something' to cause X. What is this 'god' doing? Magic?
historia wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:32 pm With that in mind:
benchwarmer wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:05 pm
My issue is that theologians are likely positing attributes to a god based simply on wishful thinking/hope/faith/etc. Example: Something like "God is outside of space and time". I would answer: "Based on what did you arrive at that? What observation can we make that this would be an answer for?".

Maybe you could supply a concrete example.
Sure, again, consider the kalam cosmological argument:

Proponents of kalam make numerous observations concerning various cosmological evidence and philosophical considerations, which leads them to the conclusion that the universe likely has a cause for its beginning. We can't directly observe the cause. But, since the universe includes both space and time, the cause of the space-time universe (i.e., God, in their framing) must be in some sense "outside of space and time." In the event that cosmologists prove that the universe has no beginning, or philosophers provide defeaters for the philosophical considerations underlying the kalam argument, then proponents of kalam would have to abandon the argument.

Now, I'm not asking you to accept the conclusions of the kalam argument. I'm simply noting that the process here, especially in terms of inferring properties for something we cannot directly observe from indirect evidence, is analogous to that of science or history.
Ok, now you are back to process. However the process is not really analogous either. It's going to come down to what counts as a resemblance.

Are proponents of KCA positing attributes based on an actual observation? No, they are positing attributes based on positing other things. i.e. guessing. They are, for the sake of argument, claiming the universe had a beginning. In fact, we don't know this, it hasn't been observed, nor had anything been observed that would confirm that. Then they are positing that 'something' must have caused the universe if it had a beginning. They then insert a 'god' into the premises that just happens to have the properties required (but somehow not subject to - special pleading fallacy) to create the universe. This is not, in my opinion, analogous to what physicists are doing except for the detail of positing things. One process does not resemble the other IMHO.

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 #82

Post by historia »

benchwarmer wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:20 pm
It's going to come down to what counts as a resemblance.
Agreed. And here is where it would be quite useful if you could actually address the counter-examples I offered above.

Do you consider the entire discipline of history to be just "word play" or "wishful thinking"? How about the same for the Multiverse?

I'd like to return to your comments on the kalam cosmological argument, as I think you are wrong on several points there. But, before I do so, I need to know where you are drawing the line with your argument, otherwise this can quickly become an exercise in goal post moving.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #83

Post by Purple Knight »

AquinasForGod wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:42 pmThis 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.
The question then becomes what we do about that. There is evidence for everything. I think there's plenty of evidence we live in a simulation. Can or should I do anything about that? Should I worship the people who programmed the simulation?

To save time I'll just raise the 2% to 100%. I'll admit every single being conceived of exists. Maybe they do somewhere; I've always thought that this was at least possible: That everything exists somewhere.

So the Jewish God exists. But what makes him special? Is it because he's more powerful than other gods? I don't care if he exists or not. With his clothes off, he's a tyrant, as anyone with that power would be, even and especially if they were trying to be nice. Even if they were being nice. A tyranny of absolute laws, even if they are good laws that help people, is still a tyranny. I'm not saying I wouldn't choose to live in a gilded cage under the right conditions. In many cases I prefer a benevolent tyranny to freedom that equals horrible conditions. But it's still wrong. You don't get to oppress people, enslave people, own people, impose your will on people. Yes, even if you're omnipotent. If I were omnipotent I know it'd be wrong if I did it, so why is God so special?

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #84

Post by Diogenes »

AquinasForGod wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:42 pm Question for debate: Do atheist just missunderstand what evidence means? ....

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.
Schmidt, at least as presented in the OP, confuses argument with evidence. A 'finely tuned' universe is an argument, not evidence. There is no evidence of a finely tuned universe. There is no evidence for God. There are many arguments made for the existence of gods or a God. The arguments for gods provide zero evidence. "Atheist slogans" are also not evidence.

The difference is burden of proof. The burden falls upon he who alleges. The atheist simply demonstrates there is a lack of evidence for gods. Atheism is the default position, just as lack of evidence for fairies, leprechauns, ghosts and goblins is the default position. Therefore, it makes more sense to say, there are no ghosts or gods than to say there are... until evidence is produced.

Gods are in the same category as the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, PBUH
Image
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

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 #85

Post by historia »

Miles wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:59 pm
historia wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:05 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:36 pm
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

. . .

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,"
Diogenes wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:37 pm
There is no evidence for God.
This is the thread that keeps on giving.

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 #86

Post by historia »

Diogenes wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:37 pm
Schmidt, at least as presented in the OP, confuses argument with evidence.
I don't think he's confusing the two. As O'Connor also notes (rightly, I think) in the video, arguments and evidence are closely connected.

Evidence doesn't interpret itself. Someone has to provide an argument as to why the available evidence supports a particular explanation over and against other, competing explanations. In that way, arguments -- good ones anyway -- are based on evidence. The two are inseparable.
Diogenes wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:37 pm
A 'finely tuned' universe is an argument, not evidence.
Or, more precisely, its an interpretation of the available evidence (i.e., the fundamental physical constants).

One that is apparently widely held:
Wikipedia wrote:
Physicist Paul Davies has said, "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".
Back to your argument:
Diogenes wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:37 pm
There is no evidence of a finely tuned universe. There is no evidence for God. There are many arguments made for the existence of gods or a God. The arguments for gods provide zero evidence.
This is simply mistaken, I think. The arguments for God (not 'gods') do provide evidence. That evidence may not be sufficient or compelling enough for you to personally ascent to the proposition that God exists. But that doesn't mean there's therefore "no evidence."

Consider how we talk about criminal cases:

When the police report to a crime scene, they collect blood samples, finger prints, eyewitness testimony, and other artifacts. What do we call all of that? "Evidence" right?

If the evidence points to a particular suspect, and the district attorney decides to prosecute the case, it'll go to trial. If the jury in that trial ultimately decides that the evidence wasn't sufficient to find the defendant guilty, we don't then say there was "no evidence" of his guilt, right? We just say the evidence wasn't sufficient to establish his guilt according to the relevant legal standard.
Diogenes wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:37 pm
The difference is burden of proof.
I don't see how that's relevant to determining what is 'evidence' vs. 'argument', sorry.
Diogenes wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:37 pm
Therefore, it makes more sense to say, there are no ghosts or gods than to say there are... until evidence is produced.
Any evidence? Even just a small piece of evidence that could be interpreted in different ways? Evidence is often open to multiple interpretations, which is why describing the situation here as if there is either "evidence" or "no evidence" is not helpful. The way O'Conner and Schmidt frame things is better, I think.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #87

Post by Diogenes »

historia wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 4:54 pm Consider how we talk about criminal cases:

When the police report to a crime scene, they collect blood samples, finger prints, eyewitness testimony, and other artifacts. What do we call all of that? "Evidence" right?

If the evidence points to a particular suspect, and the district attorney decides to prosecute the case, it'll go to trial. If the jury in that trial ultimately decides that the evidence wasn't sufficient to find the defendant guilty, we don't then say there was "no evidence" of his guilt, right? We just say the evidence wasn't sufficient to establish his guilt according to the relevant legal standard.
I repeat, simply referencing the OP, "Argument is not evidence;" however, I appreciate the reference to 'evidence' in a legal context. In that context it is worthwhile to remember that not all evidence rises to a level where it can even be considered by the jury. Much of proffered evidence is not relevant to the proposition. For example the fact the Earth exists and supports life is not relevant to the claim gods exist.

Let's move on to what may be a more important point, the burden of proof.

In a civil case the burden is simply more likely than not.
But in a criminal case, the burden is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I suggest that is the minimal standard for proving there are gods, not just because you reference criminal law, but because the subject is of greater magnitude than mere property. Like a criminal case, liberty is at stake.

So, altho' I see NO evidence of gods relevant to the issue, there certainly is no probative evidence that rises to even the civil standard and none even close to the required burden in a criminal proceeding. For reference, I attach a standard instruction on that burden of proof:
A reasonable doubt is one for which a reason exists and may arise from the evidence or lack of evidence. It is such a doubt as would exist in the mind of a reasonable person after fully, fairly, and carefully considering all of the evidence or lack of evidence. If, from such consideration, you have an abiding belief in the truth of the charge, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.

What relevant evidence could possibly overcome this burden to establish the fantastic claim of extant gods? Schmidt concedes there is evidence for God. I do not. I'm familiar with the classical arguments for God, but don't see evidence to support them. What is the relevant evidence?
[... and no, I'm not watching a video that concedes confusion of argument with evidence]

We should also remember, as in a criminal case where the "defendant is presumed innocent and this presumption continues throughout the entire trial," the default position is, like innocence, that there are no gods, for the burden is on the one who alleges.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #88

Post by TRANSPONDER »

I don't see why the confusion, or rather maybe I do. Confusion is necessary to allow what isn't correct to be made to look like what is. We already saw that the implicit rider 'no Good evidence' was ignored so that atheism could be wrong -footed. This is No (good) evidence against atheism never mind any evidence for a god, but it is still repeated and pushed even after having been debunked. The thread that keeps on giving, indeed.

We also get the flurry of confusion about interpretation = evidence. We can guess what this is about - trying to make valid evidence mere opinion and opinion (let alone Faith) look like valid evidence. I recall this was already done - evidence can be the clues before examination. That is the raw data before experiment. The demonstration (interpretation) is then 'good' or validated evidence. That's the interpretation that matters.

the kind of Interpretation that religious apologetics does, appealing to far -fetched undisprovables, appealing to lack of 100% knowledge, dismissing science when it doesn't suit theism and appealing to Authority if it can be made to lool ike it supports theism, is the kind of Interpretation and 'evidence' we should be aware of and not fooled by.

The whole video about a supposed agnostic (we are all actually agnostics) just talking about rather than validating religious claims and arguments is no evidence for a god, and yet was presented as though it was. It would be easy to be miffed that believers think they can bamboozle us like this, but we have to sympathise; they cannot see it, being blinded by faith, even though we can.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #89

Post by JoeyKnothead »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 7:05 pm I don't see why the confusion, or rather maybe I do. Confusion is necessary to allow what isn't correct to be made to look like what is. We already saw that the implicit rider 'no Good evidence' was ignored so that atheism could be wrong -footed. This is No (good) evidence against atheism never mind any evidence for a god, but it is still repeated and pushed even after having been debunked. The thread that keeps on giving, indeed.

We also get the flurry of confusion about interpretation = evidence. We can guess what this is about - trying to make valid evidence mere opinion and opinion (let alone Faith) look like valid evidence. I recall this was already done - evidence can be the clues before examination. That is the raw data before experiment. The demonstration (interpretation) is then 'good' or validated evidence. That's the interpretation that matters.

the kind of Interpretation that religious apologetics does, appealing to far -fetched undisprovables, appealing to lack of 100% knowledge, dismissing science when it doesn't suit theism and appealing to Authority if it can be made to lool ike it supports theism, is the kind of Interpretation and 'evidence' we should be aware of and not fooled by.

The whole video about a supposed agnostic (we are all actually agnostics) just talking about rather than validating religious claims and arguments is no evidence for a god, and yet was presented as though it was. It would be easy to be miffed that believers think they can bamboozle us like this, but we have to sympathise; they cannot see it, being blinded by faith, even though we can.
I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a lady here a long time ago...

I declared how I'm very interested in evolutionary theory and such, and she respectfully dismissed the "soft sciences", asserting the supremecy of the "hard sciences". Frankly, it did kinda upset my cart full of apples.

In time though, if trying to soothe the burn, I've come to respect the soft sciences because they require what I consider so much more rigor in conclusions and such. Once we figure out naught and naught is naught, we'll there we go, no more naughts to fret.

In the study of the theoretical though, there's always this seeking of confirmation. Always reexamining 'knowns'. Always seeking to better explain. It's a fascinating process of discovery, where ya can't always be certain of what it is ya just discovered.

Unfortunately though, of the two types of science, the soft sciences are a bit too much like theism for many.

Where we think on a given theistic notion, up pups another'n to refute it. Such is the nature of our study. When ya can't even show a critter exists, how in heck can ya know anything about its hands?

We can see this same sort of problem in the differing theistic takes on evolution. Some theists'll deny it even occurs, while others'll accept it occurred, only with the magic hand of God pushing it along. And not once ever showing God even has him a hand.

This unknown, unknowable world of gods and such allows the human, with no nefarity, to make sense of the world. And where something comes along to upset the apple cart, they just find em a new cart, fill it up with them bruised apples, and push it along to the next unknown and unknowable.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: There is evidence for God according to Atheist Philosopher

Post #90

Post by TRANSPONDER »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #89]

Yes.While I'm not sure of the term'soft sciences', I imagine history in one. Simply because we have some very dubious records, and we rely heavily on archaeology (which is the harder of the soft sciences) to tell us what was going on at the time, rather than credit what the Bible says.

The thing is, we must learn patience and not be hustled into opting for one Belief or the other and fighting for it by all and any means. It is safe for skeptics because 'we don'tknow' is perfect for skepticism, and it is the believers who have to try to force a conclusion, without adequate evidence, without any real evidence and even in despite of the evidence.

In short, the soft science question is not a problem for doubters and skeptics, but is a problem for the Faith - claimant because it is a lot harder evidence (e.g that the Exodus now looks like Myth, too) than they would like.

Post Reply