A Modest Proposal for Empirical (A)Theology

I think you are guilty of your own crime here, David. Evidence <> proof. There certainly not be proof that God doesn’t exist, but there can be evidence.

For example, I find the subjectivity of the Bible to be evidence. I find the inconsistency of Christian sects to be evidence. I find the general failure of Christianity as a moral foundation to be evidence. I find the general description of God’s presumed nature to be inconsistent with that of a supreme being to be evidence.

Is this proof? Not on your life, but this and other reasons, bring me pretty close to 0%.

Any is such an exclusive word. Did you really mean to use it?

Gaudere:

I am flabbergasted.

Glitch said:

Only if you assert a very specific god. I was talking about the overall concept of a god. If I say that I know there is a god who will suspend gravity for me when I jump off this tall building, and I jump and splat, well, then that is evidence against this particular god. But it is not evidence against “God” in general.

But that is evidence against the specific version of the Christian God, not “God” itself. What if there is a god who created the universe with a Big Bang and then just sat back to watch things happen? Maybe he wouldn’t be the god of the Christian bible, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t God. KnowwhatImean?

Hey, I’m pretty much at the 0% line myself. But that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize that God could exist in some form – just not a particularly meaningful form.

Lib – yes, I meant to use the word “any.”

David:

If you don’t see any evidence — that is, you see exactly zero — upon what basis do you hold out any — that is, more than zero — possibility?

[Minor hijack]Phil, let me say that I am sorry for your sake about your grandmother. With no “ulterior motive,” play “The Living Years” (Mike and the Mechanics) and accept my sympathy – I do have some small sense of what you are experiencing. [/hijack]

Jon: The onus of proof for an assertion is on the one asserting it. The link makes an assumption regarding what atheists think that is very natural (what I thought coming into this board, as a matter of fact), but, as always, “the truth is more complex than that.” (said by Richard Leakey, but probably with a history of being said dating back to Cro-Magnon times) Detailed analysis of this stuff can be found in the three Atheist (Non) Religion threads, but suffice it to say that, just as being a Christian does not bind you into believing the same thing as Pope John Paul or Fred Phelps, atheism can cover a variety of “flavors” of disbelief.

David…thank you for the clarifying post.

I agree that it is impossible to have evidence for any imaginable omnipotent god, because there is always a description of a god that circumvents any evidence. However, I think at some point you are forced to assume a non-interventionist god in order to invalidate all possible evidence, like the one you describe as being solely a watcher. I believe it is possible to have evidence against any god that actually makes it presence known to humanity which describes pretty much every god in human history (in fact, that would be evidence itself, that humans keep inventing gods and then discard them as false at a later date, so it seems likely that gods are a manmade construct).

Hmmm … in fact, the reason above is the very reason why I also reject the notion of a watcher god. A watcher god would seem to me to be a human construct that humanity would create when all other gods are no longer likely. So, maybe I don’t agree with you afterall. :slight_smile:

Lib the Enigmatic strikes again. Ok, I’ll bite…how have I flabbergasted you?

Gaudere:

I’m sorry, Gaudere.

That must have been what you meant when you once said that I am cryptic. Sometimes, I use such comments (you will see a “Dear God” here, or a “I feel a phase shift” there), and I usually use them sort of like bookmarks. I don’t have time to respond right that moment, but I am so interested in a certain post (yours, in this case) that I want to make a demarcation so I won’t lose track of it when I get back.

You listed four reasons that you found to be evidence that God does not exist, and I was flabbergasted by them because they didn’t sound to me like the kinds of reasons you would give. I would have thought you might have given reasons like “I gave God a legitimate metaphysical test (see the “Evidence for God” thread) and He failed,” or “I am unable to define God, and therefore unable to test Him.” Those seem more like reasons that a person with your beautiful spirit would give.

But the reasons you gave (though, in fairness, you mentioned “other reasons”) were so much weaker, plagued by classic problems.

One is the problem of evidence that can go either way. The Bible’s ability to be interpreted subjectively, for example, can be indicative of God’s recognition that He is speaking to billions of unique individuals. Another is blaming God for the sustained contention of religion politicians who use their control of various sects as a means to their own ends. But the most flabbergasting of all was what you called “the general failure of Christianity as a moral foundation”. In retrospect, though, I suppose it makes sense that you might have thought the Golden Rule is the definitive Christian moral imperative. But it isn’t. Jesus said that it sums up the law and the prophets that came before Him.

The Christian moral imperative is something else altogether, and is really the only useful one there is for reasons that I’ve been telling Glitch, namely, that all moral imperatives fail unless their users are perfectly moral. The Christian moral imperative, as given by Jesus, is this:

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” — Matthew 5:48

Where did I give evidence that God doesn’t exist? This isn’t the Atheist Religion thread and I am not inclined to witness anyhow. I mentioned why I do not believe feelings are an good method for determining objective reality, but that is all I can think of that you might be referring to.

Oh, I think I see–I think you were confusing me with Glitch. Well, I guess I can stop patting myself on the back for having such a distinctive “voice” that no one ever gets me mixed up with someone else. (With one notable exception, of course)

It seems to me that the search for God is, by nature, the search for an interventionist, since everyone should accept the possibility (and the ultimate insignificance) of a supremely powerful “watcher god” who has never made his presence known and will never alter the universe in any way.

The question to me, at least, is whether or not there is a deity who can affect MY life, either to help me or to hurt me.

The evidence presented here so far has mostly been of two categories:

**A) I felt the presence of God

B) Something extraordinarily rare happened to me (surviving the car accident and the pills)
**
Of course, in my own life:

A) I have often had very strong, false “feelings”, so much that I would probably fail to recognize the feeling they speak of unless it was clear and overwhelming enough to fall into category B (Examples: I have been suddenly overcome by an intense artistic vision and convinced that I could create something extraordinary, only to fail miserably. I have had strong dreams of the “End Times” out of the blue, only to later discover that there was an upside-down copy of “Left Behind” on the floor next to my bed)

B) I have survived accidents unscathed without feeling any sort of divine touch. (Examples: At age 17, driving a car into a concrete divider head-on at 60mph. At age 18, flipping over the handlebars of a bike and landing on my head on the pavement.) It seems to me that the probability of surviving car accidents and overdoses is low but not so incredibly low as to be an undeniable miracle to outside observers.

Now, since I was not a first-person observer of the events described, I cannot judge whether they surpass my own experience. However, heard secondhand, they cannot convince me.

----------------------------------
 &lt;font color=000033&gt;My *lack of* conversion experience&lt;/font&gt;
----------------------------------

I would love to have the faith so many others speak about. It would very comforting to me to think that there was some divine purpose and thus I have spent a long time looking for evidence of such.

Currently, however, while I consider it very likely that there are god-like beings out there, I cannot arrive at the belief that there is, today, right here on Earth, a God affecting our lives. Here’s how I arrived at my current state of agnosticism:

A) Lack of direct evidence: Most of the popular religions revolve around divine intervention in the distant past. Why is that? Why is the same God who was so forceful then so quiet now?

B) Lack of motive to intervene: If there is a God who is to us as we are to ants, why is he interested in us? Do we generally play with ants except occasionally to fry them with magnifying glasses, confound them with an ever turning piece of paper, study them like puzzles, etc? In other words, are they ever more than toys to us? or at best, tools?

C) Lack of motive to judge: Suppose ‘God’ created us, like we would create artificial intelligence. Why would he judge us? Do we judge Furbies and send them to Furby Heaven or Hell based on whether they ever managed to pick up the word ‘Zamboni’? At best, it seems that He might be training us and discarding the mistakes.

Given those three considerations, I see the following likelihoods:

A) There is no god who intervenes in our lives

B) There is a god who plays with us like toys

C) There is a god who cherishes us like pets (but for some reason may have grown bored tending the herd and moved on to either individuals or some other farm entirely)

D) There is a god who is “culling the herd”, so to speak, and will take the best he sees (according to some unknown criteria) for some other purpose.

E) There is a god who is so incomprehensible that I cannot even fathom his motives, let alone act on them in any way.

Only C and D present any motive for worship since they offer the possibility of special perks for ‘good behavior’. Yet, all of the religions of the world have their own definition of ‘good behavior’, and the common denominator seems to be ‘that which the conscience allows’, so I can see no particular reason to join a religion.

If I do pick a faith, then at best I may stumble upon the right God who will reward me. As likely, I will stumble upon the wrong God and be punished. It seems I’m better off just living a happy life and hoping that either:

  1. some God will reveal himself to me with overwhelming evidence

  2. if no such evidence is given, divine favor will fall on those who do the most with what they’re given, thereby glorifying their creator, rather than those who spend this life preparing for a future one which may or may not exist.

Wallowing in agnosticism (and verbosity),
Meara

I think you meant me, Lib. The reason I choose those four, amongst the multitude of reason I hold, was two-fold:

#1 I didn’t want this thread to become either “Evidence against God” (see #2 below)

#2 They are rather simple and require little in the way of explanation or history. Granted, they are not obviously true with the reasoning behind it, but for argument’s sake accepting them as true illustrated the point I was trying to make.

Um, I already explained that a couple times now, Lib. Any omniscient being worth the title could create a universe in which there is no evidence that said being had a hand in it.

Sorry if my post turned into “Evidence against God”.

I was just trying to explain that I have had similar experiences to those described thus far, except that they did not lead me to faith, and that in the absence of such faith, I must build my position based on the LACK of evidence and motive.

I just got kind of carried away. :frowning:

Meara

Psst, hey meara–you might like reading our previous threads, The Atheist Religion and The Atheist (non)Religion, part 2. And welcome to our message board!


“It’s like I always said…there’s nothing an agnostic can’t do if he really doesn’t know whether he believes in anything or not” --Monty Python, “The Meaning of Life”

Gaudere:

Oh, what a relief! You’re right. That was Glitch.

David:

Ouch! You’re right. So, that’s not really evidence. It’s just an argument, right?

Oh, I see, when Gaudere says it then you are surprised it comes from such a beautiful spirit, but when it comes from me it is just same old, same old, huh? Well, that’s a fine how do you do! :wink:

One of these days I’m going to tumble off the pedestal you’ve put me on, Lib, and I fear I will crush you when I fall. I think Glitch has a beautiful spirit, too (metaphorically speaking); he makes me want to be a Bushido. :slight_smile: