If **nd_n8 **has evidence for the existence of God I will happily withdraw my accusation of inconsistency.
He claimed his reason for not believing in stomach gnomes was that they could be detected while God could not (so he not only doesn’t rule God out, he believes He exists). It would be inconsistent to reject the gnomes given the possibility that they may be invisible and he may as well believe they exist.
I’m coming in late, and it’s just not possible for me to read over 300 posts (I did read the first 100).
But the very question posted in the OP is nonsensical, so I’m sort of stunned at the length of discourse here. The concept of God is by definition supernatural. Those that believe in God do so by faith without scientific evidence. Science is the discipline of modeling the universe we live in based on observation, predictions, and tests (more or less). Science addresses what is natural, God addresses what is supernatural, and ne’er the twain shall meet.
IMHO scientific arguments for God put forth by the faithful are an ill-conceived attempt to persuade those who base their beliefs on what can be determined objectively.
You can never persuade the faithful that there is no God simply by reminding them that there is no evidence, and you can never persuade the reasonable* that there could ever be scientific proof of God.
________________________________________-
*The faithful and the reasonable are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
This is just wrong, unless God lives in a completely separate ‘supernatural’ universe that cannot interact with this one at all. But then what would be the point?
No, the most basic idea of all religions is that God can and does interfere with this universe. He floods planets and burns towns. He creates things (everything, even) out of magic breath and places them here, tinkering with their biochemicals and more complex structures when evolution can’t overcome those difficulties. He makes up rules, feebly attempts to let everyone know what those rules are, and them punishes them severely when they inevitably sin. He guides our hearts and talks to people. He heals the sick.
All these things are potentially falsifiable, but what happens is that believers wriggle out of all attempts to study them.
I tell you what: I’ll personally donate every last dollar I have to the Catholic Church as soon as religion stops addressing what is natural and gets its nose out of science’s business.
I take it you’re a fan of Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria” concept. I’m not. The only reason that some theists nowadays claim that God is separate from the natural world is that science has now explained what religion used to explain, so religion has retreated back into this position where it can’t be shoved around anymore.
I agree that people can hold conflicting ideas simultaneously - that’s the point of the phrase cognitive dissonance. On the other hand, faith and reason are mutually exclusive, by definition.
I think you’ve nailed on the head the crux of why atheists saying “No evidence will convince me that god exists” is not a faith-claim in the same way that “No evidence will convince me that God doesn’t exist” is.
With the atheist, this is a question of definition - does anything exist which qualifies for the label ‘god’ - and what is the definition of this label anyway? There is not really much concensus on what the properties of a god are. And some of the concepts commonly associated with the term (infinite power, created the universe, is not equalled or surpassed) are either unfalsifiable or would be impossible to conclusively demonstrate in practice. So, while a being could easily appear and prove itself to be extremely powerful, it could not possibly prove itself to meet the undefined defintion of a god.
Of course, people who claim it does exist are making a positive claim about an entity that, in their mind at least, is a specific entity with specific properties, which may be specifically argued against.
Noted that this is an admitted asserted belief, and might be wrong.
Woah, back up. If the self-awareness were replicated you would end up with two separate self-awarenesses, in different locations, but otherwise similar in properties. You wouldn’t end up as some kind of freaky hive-mind or something, with one “individuality” that was looking out of two sets of eyes simultaneously; you’d end up as two individuals, each with their own self-awareness, who happen to be identical to each other in every respect.
This is nonsense; by definition, each copy would have their own self-awareness and “individuality”. It would be copied right along with the rest of them.
And yes, you believe it’s not copyable; I’ll adress that shortly. But let’s be quite clear, there’s nothing conceptually problematic about duplicating a consciousness. You just end up with more consciousnesses.
All evidence points to it being an emergent property of the electrochemical activitiy in your brain. Next question?
As noted above, there is no handwaving in saying that it’s electrochemical. Now, a ‘soul’ - THAT is handwaving, because nobody goes on to explain how a soul works.
You’re asserting again; you have no evidence that self-awarenesses cannot be copied.
Except you haven’t presented evidence, you have presented assertions. You have provided no reason for us (or you) to accept the existence of “something” outside of the physical manifestations of our world.
(And I don’t know that I’m impressed by your “if platypuses are possible, then maybe it’s not silly to believe that manticores exist too”-style argument that you close with there either.)
I am insinuating no such thing. I’m saying that if nd_n8 believes that the amount of evidence is incomparable, then there is no inherent inconsistency in his view. My own beliefs regarding God are irrelevant to that issue.
And for that reason, you are indeed putting words in my mouth.
Because as I emphasized earlier, they have been covered in a great many previous threads. I feel no obligation to rehash them here… especially in light of the train wreck that this thread has become. I hope that doesn’t upset you.
Most dopers tend to accept that people don’t necessarily wish to rehash matters that they’ve already discussed ad nauseuml. Based on past experience though, not everyone does. Some of the less reasonable people gloat, saying "Aha! Obviously, you don’t have any reasons! Sorry folks, but I have other things to do and a limited amount of time at hand. For this reason, I’m not jump through hoops at someone’s behest, especially when it comes to matters that I’ve discussed many times before through the years.
How convenient. First you claim to have evidence you posted elsewhere - which would be major news if true - then you refuse to so much as link to it or copy and paste it. And then, you get in a preemptive slam against anyone who points out just how self serving that position is.
Yes, I’m one of those who says that you refuse to post your “evidence” because it’s either nonexistent or not evidence. Just like every other claim in human history of “evidence” for a god.
Yes, of course, but actually that’s part of the problem, this interface between God and the world that is knowingly physically ours. The interface is as problematic to explain as God Himself (similar to some spiritual “soul” that interfaces with our brain chemistry).
Not familiar with it but I’ll read his essay when time allows.
I’m not a theist but my position is that by the definition of what God is supposed to be, His existence can’t be proven by science. God is the unknowable Origin Of Everything. God was the Maker of Atoms. When atomic structure was understood, God was Maker of the Protons, then Maker of the Quarks, etc. So if String Theory turns out to be widely accepted, God will become the Maker of the Strings. No matter how far down you go, the faithful will see God as the last turtle. 
Lots going on in those last two sentences.
Cognitive dissonance is a whole theory about the human mind’s need to *resolve *such conflicts rather than to continue to hold them simultaneously, but IANAP.
Faith and reason *are *mutually exclusive, which is why there is no conflict in having both.
I don’t happen to be religious, but I don’t think people who believe in God per se are idiots or unreasonable people. The ones who are nuts are the ones who use religion as an excuse for antisocial behavior, are intolerant of other ways othinking, or who retreat into it so far that they fail to face certain realities.
Earlier, I predicted that some people would be quick to gloat at my refusal to rehash past debates. Thank you for not disappointing.
No, I’m not going waste time jumping through hoops on your behalf and link to previous debates. As I said, time is limited and I have other obligations. Now, if you’re willing to do my household chores, teach my Sunday school class, or pay a few hours worth of my salary, then we can get down to business.
And as I pointed out, that’s a quite convenient attitude for you. Pre-dismissing all demands for evidence. Rather than having to actually defend some bit of gibberish or delusion as “evidence”, you can just pretend we are mistreating you for asking you to present evidence you say you have.
If you aren’t willing to post this supposed proof, something that would be one of the biggest, most talked about bits of evidence in the last 2000 years - then I can only assume that either it doesn’t exist, or that you know quite well that it’s not proof at all. You just want to claim it exists, and for the rest of us to just go along with you. Well, too bad.
Well, I’m willing to be perfectly fair - I will (like you) not waste time, on believing you have such evidence in the first place. When you choose to simply stand on your assertions, you get all the credit and credulousity that standing on assertions deserves. Which is about as fair and non-gloaty as it gets, I believe.
With time being limited, though, why don’t you save even more time and not bother asserting repeatedly that you have the secret evidence, and complaining about us failing to accept it? Surely you were aware coming in that such assertions alone are unconvincing and would not elicit a positive reaction.
And it’s convenient for you to resort to bluster in situations like this. Frankly, I don’t care. I’m not going to waste my time, for reasons shown in your next statement below.
You’ve just demonstrated one reason WHY I’m not going to bother wasting time with this. I was talking about evidence, yet you demand that I produce “proof” – even though I made no such claim. This is exactly the sort of thing that repeatedly happens in discussions on God’s existence. Is it any wonder that I choose not to repeat these discussions?
FTR, the evidences that I spoke of include, among other things, the classic philosophical arguments for theism – teleological, cosmological, axiological, noological, historical, and so forth. Every single one of these arguments provides plenty of grist for a lengthy debate. They also provide hours worth of discussion, even in a non-contentious atmosphere.
As I said, I have obligations and priorities. You may sneer, “How convenient!” but that’s the reality for most grown-ups. If you really insist that I should discuss each of these topics in detail, then you’re going to have to help me liberate time for doing so. You can start by mowing my lawn and building these circuit boards that my employer needs on Monday.
I’m only repeating it because Der Trihs chose to scoff, as I knew he would. I’m willing to take a few seconds to respond to a couple of posts, but I’m not going to waste hours in any lengthy discussions. Moreover, I take considerable umbrage at your describing this as “secret evidence,” considering that these are classic philosophical arguments that have been discussed time and again in previous threads. That’s not characteristic of any sort of “secret.”
YOU are accusing someone of bluster ? Ridiculous.
Because you know you can’t back up your claims, so you clutch at wordgames and nitpicks like this one.
Not really. They aren’t evidence at all, not a one of them. Even the ones that actually exist; there isn’t any “cosmological” evidence of God.
Garbage. Either put up or shut up; your attempts to play the martyr just underscore how you can’t win an actual argument.
Ah yes, abstract philosophical arguments. That explains it.
Presenting your bald bare assertions alone should be sufficient to make your argument as strong as it could possibly be. So you’re already all set!
You use the word “abstract” as though it somehow invalidated the arguments. FTR, I think they’re only abstract to people who aren’t inclined to invest the effort required to grasp them. In contrast, at least some of these arguments were compelling enough to make philosophy professor Antony Flew, one of the foremost atheist debaters of our time, switch first to deism, then to full theism.
Here’s a quote from the article you linked to: “I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”
So he thinks that the most impressive arguments in favor of God are scientific. And he specifically calls out “intelligent design” as an example. :rolleyes:
As he says later "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design. " Well, no, actually they don’t.
I submit to you that Professor Flew, however gifted he may be as a philosopher, knows bugger-all about science. And as a result has allowed himself to be taken in by creationist flim-flam.
You are welcome to that view. Personally, I think that objectors to intelligent design are the ones who fail to grasp the nature of their opponents views. This is evident, for example, when they dismiss intelligent desig as mere “creationist flim-flam,” even though the two are not necessarily equal. Michael Behe, for example, one of the foremost ID proponents, still believes in evolution, though he believes that a designer set it all in motion. And physicist Fred Hoyle is famous for declaring that a superintellect must have monkeyed with the laws of the universe, even though he himself was an atheist.
It’s precisely for this reasons that I find such discussions to be mostly a waste of time. And yes, I know that this statement will be greeted with further sneers and misrepresentations of what I said. Through the years though, I’ve learned that unbelief is seldom satisfied, and that few people make an honest attempt to understand their opponents’ views before dismissing them as mere “flim-flam.”
a couple of problems i have with this argument:
if you are looking for scientific proof, you have to remove all elements of religion. for the sake of simplicity, “religion” is a human construct, so scientific evidence would have to be nameless and faceless. it’s a fatal flaw to try and use, as far as we know, a human creation to scientifically prove something.
the qur’an was written by man/humans. so if this test spit out the qur’an letter for letter, it would prove nothing more than a man made experiment, for whatever reason, spit out data created by man to begin with.
this is my personal opinion, not an error in the argument: i like to ponder things these days in more of a potentiality vs. possibility frame of mind. sure, all things are possible…but the potential for anything you said actually happening is…plain and simple, not going to happen. thinking about the what if’s in life are one thing, but why throw it out there as an argument?
i noticed you capitalized God and Qur’an, which poses the question of whether or not this test would be impartial…seeing that you may hold a bias towards religion.
if you dig Descartes at all, read (if you haven’t already) his “meditations on first philosophy.” in it he says that because we are imperfect, we have an idea of what true perfection is, thus we can understand god…not a religious God, but completely scientific.
if god is unprovable through science, then this particle accelerator you speak of would do nothing more than get insanely lucky by spitting out the qur’an. and more importantly, if this test was truly scientific, and god can not be proven through science…you would have a lot of pissed off Muslims because they would have been debunked.
and lastly, following Descartes’ idea and also contradicting it…what is god, who is god? you have to have some idea in that sense of “god” to know what you’re looking for. if you don’t know what “god” is, then naturally you’ll never find/prove it. it could be staring you in the face and you would have no clue. so unless he came down and confirmed all that we thought, we have no concept of what god is…other than the self-fulfilling prophecies of our own falsities.
so sorry if i sound like a jerk, but your argument, although interesting, has way to many holes in it to really go anywhere. i don’t say that in any “i’m the super philo dude” kind of way…it’s constructive criticism, not an insult. when you learn how to put together better, more solid arguments, you’ll be amazed at where your brain takes you.