More than that. If their particular brand of deity was the creator, this deity could be expected to give them an actual creation story that matches the evidence. Since the creation stories we’ve gotten are bull, that’s strong evidence their god is made up also.
I’ve been asking theists your question since early Usenet days, and have never gotten one reasonable answer.
… doesn’t care that we exist.
Before starting a discussion on how the universe might have been created, I would like to see some compelling evidence that it was in fact created.
Too easy. G-d is mysterious and ultimately unknowable in comprehensive detail. So we make an educated guess, backed by tradition and perceptions of beneficial outcome. While any given religion is likely to be mistaken in some ways (it is an institution of man after all) some will provide a decent fit for those of the matching temperament or social/historical situation. This sort of thinking also props ecumenicism. It isn’t that one religion or another is invalid (barring fundamentalist ones); it’s more like there are an abundance of churches or temples consistent with one foundational definition of G-d or another.
Why? That wouldn’t follow if the purpose of the creation story is philosophical, moral or spiritual. See St. Augustine et al on the interpretation of scripture.
I think the universe is pretty solid evidence for pantheism.
Next up: why tautologies are always true.
Premise denied. This statement either basically says that there is a (magical/metaphysical) barrier put up that will stop us from acquiring knowledge about this deity of yours, or it says that mankind can only learn so much and that any actual knowledge about your deity is beyond mankind’s limit no matter how far we progress. However, the first premise only works if you are already buying into the game in the first place, so it has no truck here, and the second…who are you to say how far mankind will go or how much it can learn?
People rarely change their opinion when it comes to debates on trivialities like their favorite movies, books, tv shows, video games, or sports heroes. Religion? Forget about it.
A theist describing her position is really unlikely to change my mind about god’s existence, although it’s not impossible: the fact that in four decades I’ve heard no persuasive arguments as to the existence of any supreme being does not completely rule out someone having a brand new argument I’ve never heard before and that’s persuasive. But it’s pretty damned unlikely.
HOWEVER: a theist describing her position MAY change my mind about her own self. This has happened numerous times, where, for example, a Catholic priest I talked with online left me with a much higher opinion of the intellectual rigor and honesty of some members of his profession than I’d previously had.
In the opposite direction, as a teenager I had a pretty genial opinion of the local Hare Krishna folks, due mainly to the delicious free meal they offered every Wednesday afternoon in a downtown park. It took one long conversation with one of their members to persuade me they were a bunch of nasty fruitcakes in a cult.
I can believe someone is mistaken and still have a high opinion of them. The second part, and not the first, is what’s likely to change in a conversation with a theist.
What is religion for if not this? If religion doesn’t explain something about the creator, what the creator wants from us, then what is its purpose?
A religion that says “God created the Universe, but we don’t know anything about God. He is an unknowable mystery.” is a religion that will last for about 1 minute before the pastor has shared everything he knows about God.
I have never heard a sermon or religious lecture based on the premise that we know absolutely nothing about the god being worshiped by the people being preached/spoken to.
I don’t see why some highly advanced, alien race couldn’t have that technology.
That’s a big problem with “proof” of a deity. You have to come up with something that is distinguishable from technology.
Once again, what was being asked for was the slightest bit of solid evidence, not “proof”. I would find such an event to be evidence that something beyond our current understanding took place, and that would be a start to the conversation.
I’m fine with repeating my statement and replacing “proof” with “evidence”.
To be fair to the theists, this would do nothing for me, as it’s simply more “god of the gaps” BS. We currently don’t know of any biological mechanism by which a human could spontaneously regrow a limb, but if it suddenly happened, my first thought would be A) it’s bullshit, and then if it started happening a lot, that B) there’s a new biological mechanism for spontaneously regrowing human limbs that we may or may not figure out at some point.
Which is why this:
is such a compelling answer. It’s not enough for “miracles” to happen, religious adherents need to connect the dots to their specific deity as SeniorBeef describes. Show me that cancer goes into remission more often for people who pray to Ganesh or whatever. Heck, show me that bad things happen more often to atheists or people from all of the “wrong” religions when controlling for various factors. Any sort of study that supported a religious belief would work.
Conveniently, Christianity invalidates the very idea of testing religion with controlled studies because god says he’s not to be tested. Frankly, it’s so convenient that it makes me think that even people at the time suspected god was made up. But really, doesn’t this raise some fascinating philosophical questions? If god cures cancer sometimes, but he doesn’t cure cancer if people are studying the effect of prayer because he refuses to be tested, then can the entire earthly power of god be nullified by scientists with clipboards? Could the ancient armies destroyed by the Hebrews in the old testament have thwarted defeat by declaring, prior to the battle, the that battle itself was a test of the Hebrew god’s existence?
A rare moment of complete honesty! Sadly, this is what most of us do.
The question of “what evidence would change your mind” is a great one, for a lot of subjects.
For the true agnostic, the answer is “nothing,” for the simple reason that we can so easily be fooled. (Most people use “agnostic” to mean “I don’t know” but I use it to mean what it originally meant, and what it means to philosophers: “There is no possible way to know.”)
So, logically, I’m in the agnostic camp. I do not think there’s any way to know, for sure. But that also puts me in the solipsist camp, since there’s no way to know that there is an objective reality, either. And frankly, well, I’m not a solipsist. So, there should be limits to my agnosticism, too.
If God spoke to me personally and persuasively, I’d buy it. I’d wonder if I were crazy, but unless I had other evidence that I was crazy, I’d probably buy it. I suspect that a lot of religious people are in this camp, except that it’s their heart of hearts that is telling them there is a God, and they don’t feel that God speaks to them directly. I can respect that, as long as they can respect my reasonably strong conviction that their God is fictitious.
If I saw miracles performed routinely and easily attributable to God (e.g., the prayer test mentioned above) I’d question my skepticism.
I got a good dose of challenging my own beliefs some years ago, reading an anthology compiled by J P Moreland against evolution. (I was trying to understand how smart people could disbelieve evolution.) I read the probability argument against the first protein occurring by accident, and the probability was more than astronomical. I was floored. It was gut-wrenching; I felt I had a lot to re-evaluate. If I could have taken an inner picture, it wouldn’t have been pretty.
As it turns out, the argument was flawed, but it was good for me to be challenged that way.
Listened to the show. Frankly, I thought the Jesuit sounded more reasonable than the others, whenever NDGT let him finish an answer. Not impressed overall with the show, especially NDGT. He’s obviously trying to keep it from being a stale talking-heads show, so I’ll give him a pass.
No very convincing arguments on either side, other than that the Jesuit made a decent statement (not so much an argument) that religion need not be inconsistent with science, as long as religion bows out whenever science contradicts. IMHO, that leaves little left but Spinoza’s God, which is a pretty useless proposition.
A lot of intelligent and educated people are religious, so it’s a mistake to assume that only fools are religious.
I was hoping for better. I liked Nye’s bit best, but he wasn’t really addressing the question in point.
Thanks for the contribution about the podcast, Learjeff. I had to read it twice to be sure I had not submitted the post myself.
Or that they are good at keeping a solid wall between the foolishness and the science.
Fine. “G-d is mysterious and ultimately unknowable in comprehensive detail, given current knowledge.” I might have said that to begin with, but it scans poorly. Some issues are a matter for conjecture. This is one of them. Sociologically, I suspect that it will remain this way, but multi-century forecasts are perilous.
An analogy might involve a discussion of tuberculosis in 1720, well within the enlightenment and the beginnings of science but well before the germ theory of disease. There simply wasn’t enough information for firm conclusions. Philosophers would withhold judgment. Care givers would do the best they could with what they had.
There’s an “in between world” of ‘Existential phenomena’ that negates the beliefs of both sides.
“What are” you “talking about”?