Topic: So, what is it you're looking for anyway? (Read 6948 times)

SML · « **on:** June 01, 2006, 12:22:03 AM »

I'm curious. Atheists: What demand do you have of God (whoever he might be since you don't believe in any) in order to know A) that he/they exists/exist, and B) who he/they is/are?

I'm not even sure I'll respond to your posts. I'm just interested in knowing your perspective.

Cogito · « **Reply #1 on:** June 01, 2006, 06:07:37 AM »

Maj, I hope you realize that I am completely serious when I say that just the tiniest, slightest scrap of evidence that a god actually exists would be a good start towards my eventually forming a belief that a god exists.

I need more than a "gut" feeling; more than the occurrence of statistically unlikely events; more than the fact that we don't know everything about the universe.

I need either the same kind of evidence that we require to establish the existence of any other physical entity or some sort of coherent theory that might explain what it means for a non-physical entity to exist and how it's possible for such an entity to have any affect on the physical world.

Heretic · « **Reply #2 on:** June 01, 2006, 06:11:51 AM »

I would expect to see some kind of evidence to warrant a belief in such. I would expect the bible, or any other holy book attributed to a God, to at least demonstrate itself to be authored by the deity it professes to be authored by.

It's going to take more than a dusty old book filled with contradiction and absurdities and the words of someone making money off the belief in such in order to get me to consider any underlying reality.

Maybe even a demonstration of belief in any underlying reality of the beliefs believers profess to believe and not just words.

I really wish I knew what happened to my lenghy post on that subject. Someone seems to have deleted it. I'm guessing it was just to hard-hitting for someone with deletion powers. But I digress.

Ragnar · « **Reply #3 on:** June 01, 2006, 11:48:11 AM »

Like I've said before, a simple "hello" would be a nice start. It strikes me as ludicrous that an omnipotent being finds it difficult to do that which an ant can do - communicate. If he chooses not to communicate, he can't really expect me to believe he exists. After all, I'm just a human, I can't know that something exists unless it does something that brings it to my attention. Thus far, no gods have brought themselves to my attention.

Cogito · « **Reply #4 on:** June 01, 2006, 12:29:40 PM »

Quote from: Ragnar

It strikes me as ludicrous that an omnipotent being finds it difficult to do that which an ant can do - communicate.

Does it also strike you as ludicrous that we, as intelligent as our species is, cannot communicate with ants on a meaningful level?

Some might see an analogy between this and our communicative situation with respect to God and from that analogy draw the conclusion that we should expect no more in the way of clear and direct communication from a god than should ants expect the same from us.

The analogy fails however because of one word: OMNIPOTENCE!

Ragnar · « **Reply #5 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:15:16 PM »

Quote from: Cogito

Quote from: Ragnar
It strikes me as ludicrous that an omnipotent being finds it difficult to do that which an ant can do - communicate.

Does it also strike you as ludicrous that we, as intelligent as our species is, cannot communicate with ants on a meaningful level?

Some might see an analogy between this and our communicative situation with respect to God and from that analogy draw the conclusion that we should expect no more in the way of clear and direct communication from a god than should ants expect the same from us.

The analogy fails however because of one word: OMNIPOTENCE!

Communicate in this sense meaning to simply make one's existence known. I can make my existence known to an ant, on whatever level ants can be said to know such things. I can pick it up, block its path, pretty much make it do whatever I want. The ant would be aware of my presence. I'm huge to the ant, can't miss me. One would presume that an omnipotent god would appear the same way to us. I don't see any giant feet stamping down in front of me.

And that's not even what I'm asking for. An omnipotent being could appear in any form it wants, in such a way that he or she wouldn't be scaring the locals.

Cogito · « **Reply #6 on:** June 01, 2006, 05:17:30 PM »

Quote from: Ragnar

An omnipotent being could appear in any form it wants, in such a way that he or she wouldn't be scaring the locals.

And perhaps more importantly, in a form that the locals could comprehend. I agree with your point here and that is the key point in maintaining that an omnipotent god can communicate clearly and distinctly with any being that it desires to communicate.

But as far as our communication with ants goes, that is doubtful. Even as far as our "announcing" our presence to them. WE know that we're standing in front of ants, but do ants know that we are standing in front of them?

Hard to say.

This famous essay by Thomas Nagel says quite a bit more about that problem if you're interested and haven't read it: What is it like to be a bat?

Deep Thought · « **Reply #7 on:** June 01, 2006, 06:46:57 PM »

Myself (being what one might call a "weak" or "negative" atheist, though I don't like to call myself "atheist" so much as "agnostic"), all I want is objective evidence to prove that the objective existence of God is the most reasonable thing to believe. In terms of Christianity, I want objective evidence that the objective occurences upon which Christianity's truth or falsity depend actually, objectively happened. I am troubled by certain subjective things, but those are on the backburner. They give me reason to doubt, not to reject. I'll reject if I find evidence that makes the most reasonable conclusion something other than Christianity, then to that I'll go--and if I find insufficient evidence to conclude at all? I suppose I'll be a fence-sitter for the rest of my life.

Maybe I'll leave my journal to my son so he can pick up where I left off.

SML · « **Reply #8 on:** June 02, 2006, 12:32:44 AM »

Quote from: Cogito

Maj, I hope you realize that I am completely serious when I say that just the tiniest, slightest scrap of evidence that a god actually exists would be a good start towards my eventually forming a belief that a god exists.

I need more than a "gut" feeling; more than the occurrence of statistically unlikely events; more than the fact that we don't know everything about the universe.

I need either the same kind of evidence that we require to establish the existence of any other physical entity or some sort of coherent theory that might explain what it means for a non-physical entity to exist and how it's possible for such an entity to have any affect on the physical world.

Basically, evidence that can be examined using the full scientific method (includes observation and falsifiability)? (again, not interested in debating in this thread, just interested in understanding others' pov's)

SML · « **Reply #9 on:** June 02, 2006, 12:37:19 AM »

Quote from: Heretic

I really wish I knew what happened to my lenghy post on that subject. Someone seems to have deleted it. I'm guessing it was just to hard-hitting for someone with deletion powers. But I digress.

I wish I could have read it.

SML · « **Reply #10 on:** June 02, 2006, 12:41:23 AM »

Quote from: Cogito

But as far as our communication with ants goes, that is doubtful. Even as far as our "announcing" our presence to them. WE know that we're standing in front of ants, but do ants know that we are standing in front of them?

Hard to say.

Well, they do bite us in they happen to walk up our legs and notice we aren't trees... I don't think they have any comprehension of WHAT we are, though

.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** June 02, 2006, 08:58:11 AM »

Don't worry. We don't delete hardly anything. Harry just misplaced his keys.

fattychunks · « **Reply #12 on:** June 09, 2006, 08:35:37 PM »

Quote from: Maj73

I'm curious. Atheists: What demand do you have of God (whoever he might be since you don't believe in any) in order to know A) that he/they exists/exist, and B) who he/they is/are?

I'm not even sure I'll respond to your posts. I'm just interested in knowing your perspective.

i dont have any 'demands' of god because i dont think he/she/re exists. that's the most common misunderstanding of most theists is that anything about an atheist is DIRECTED at a supernatural something. atheism is the disbelief, lack of belief of a god or any god. like every theist lacks a belief in Zues, you become a aZuest.. i think i didnt spell that right.

but anyways, i dont think there's anything that could PROVE god exists because if he remain SUPERnatural, how COULD he exist? and since we only know something exists by knowing it's natural properties, nothing supernatural can possibly exist.

so i dunno, i cant answer that question.

fattychunks · « **Reply #13 on:** June 09, 2006, 08:42:31 PM »

Quote from: Cogito

Quote from: Ragnar
It strikes me as ludicrous that an omnipotent being finds it difficult to do that which an ant can do - communicate.

Does it also strike you as ludicrous that we, as intelligent as our species is, cannot communicate with ants on a meaningful level?

Some might see an analogy between this and our communicative situation with respect to God and from that analogy draw the conclusion that we should expect no more in the way of clear and direct communication from a god than should ants expect the same from us.

The analogy fails however because of one word: OMNIPOTENCE!

oh boy, well, the ant thingy doesnt work cuz i didnt create this environment for the ants. so that argument only helps a deist.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #14 on:** June 09, 2006, 09:03:03 PM »

Quote from: fattychunks

but anyways, i dont think there's anything that could PROVE god exists because if he remain SUPERnatural, how COULD he exist? and since we only know something exists by knowing it's natural properties, nothing supernatural can possibly exist.

This is what we call "naturalism," which assumes by default that the supernatural can't be part of the equation... Johnny's quite adamant in refuting it.

The question in simple terms is: if God existed, supernaturally, what kind of evidence would you require to be convinced of it?

Me, I just need to be convinced that Christianity is the most reasonable option out there, but I'd have to examine all of the available options to be sure of that, and I'd have to do so competantly.

And all the while I hold in mind that golden rule of logical investigation that I've already related to ya: The objective trumps the subjective.'

I can't agree with assuming naturalism; I would only embrace naturalism is all supernatural options failed my tests.

fattychunks · « **Reply #15 on:** June 09, 2006, 09:06:39 PM »

yes i knew it'd be called naturalism, but i dont think you have to assume naturalism because thats how we understand anything and everything anyways.

"I can't agree with assuming naturalism; I would only embrace naturalism is all supernatural options failed my tests."

so, how do you test supernaturalism? and i guess i'll search for Johnny's post.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #16 on:** June 09, 2006, 09:21:06 PM »

Quote from: fattychunks

yes i knew it'd be called naturalism, but i dont think you have to assume naturalism because thats how we understand anything and everything anyways.

"I can't agree with assuming naturalism; I would only embrace naturalism is all supernatural options failed my tests."

so, how do you test supernaturalism? and i guess i'll search for Johnny's post.

No, no, you misunderstand. Philosophically and theologically, "naturalism" is a viewpoint that automatically assumes EVERYTHING to be explainable via natural causes and laws. It assumes, in other words, that the supernatural doesn't exist, or at least is completely and utterly unknowable. By default it excludes the supernatural from the equation. To assume such before you've looked for evidence of possibly supernatural occurences... well, it's as useful as doing this --->

Cogito · « **Reply #17 on:** June 10, 2006, 06:48:30 AM »

Quote from: fattychunks

I would only embrace naturalism is all supernatural options failed my tests."

so, how do you test supernaturalism?

You never answered his question, Deep Thought.

You say that you would "only embrace naturalism is[sic] all supernatural options failed my tests," yet you seem to have no tests that apply to the supernatural.

Again, how do you plan to "test" supernaturalism?

Quote from: Deep Thought

To assume such before you've looked for evidence of possibly supernatural occurences...

What might possibly count as "evidence" of the supernatural?

fattychunks · « **Reply #18 on:** June 10, 2006, 09:04:41 AM »

"Philosophically and theologically, "naturalism" is a viewpoint that automatically assumes EVERYTHING to be explainable via natural causes and laws."

i dont understand how naturalism is even an assumption.. it's a brute fact that if i bang my head against the wall, the wall is going to be there until it's not.. but it's going to be there becuase all my walls are made of it. so i either stop or the wall must move.

"What might possibly count as "evidence" of the supernatural?"
"Again, how do you plan to "test" supernaturalism? "

yea i dont understand why i should consider the possibility for something BEYOND the natural...
i think it'd be good to keep this topic under this post
http://www.sntjohnny.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=36570#36570
for order's sake
=)

Deep Thought · « **Reply #19 on:** June 10, 2006, 10:41:18 AM »

Quote from: Cogito

Quote from: fattychunks
I would only embrace naturalism is all supernatural options failed my tests."

so, how do you test supernaturalism?

You never answered his question, Deep Thought.

You say that you would "only embrace naturalism is[sic] all supernatural options failed my tests," yet you seem to have no tests that apply to the supernatural.

Again, how do you plan to "test" supernaturalism?

Maybe you might try the thread with that in its title.

Author Topic: So, what is it you're looking for anyway? (Read 6948 times)

fattychunks

fattychunks

fattychunks

fattychunks