Evidence for God: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Evidence for God » Evidence for God

Evidence for God
Who determines what types and amounts are sufficient?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Last

Evidence for God

aufbau87
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 77

Posted 07/01/09 - 02:50 AM:	#101
aletheist wrote: That seems like a pretty irrational statement to me. Okay, thanks for the clarification. However, your paraphrase of Russell was that you can be irrational in believing something that turns out to be true. Although both are important and desirable, and the first usually leads to the second, which is rationally better--being rational (by one's own assessment), or being correct (in the absolute sense)?[/quote] I don't understand what it means to be "correct (in the absolute sense)". And even I suspend suspicion of its significance, it's epistemological features are entirely elusive. How could we ever come to have any right to assert that some proposition is correct in an absolute sense? I am well aware of the limitations of any one "evidential argument for the existence of God." However, the cumulative case of the various evidential arguments, taken together, is obviously much stronger. I think that it is perfectly reasonable to believe in the existence of God on that basis. I also think that God provides other evidence, which does not necessarily lend itself to being framed as an argument. The cumulative case fails for the reason the single cases fail. The problem is that for any given piece of evidence, we don't have suitable auxiliary assumptions that aid the hypothesis of God's existence in conferring a probability on the evidence in question. And by a SUITABLE auxiliary assumption I mean an auxiliary assumption that does not assume the evidence or hypothesis in question. In general, we'd have to know what God desires, in particular, which might lead to the auxiliary assumption "If God exists, then He wishes to transform nonliving matter to living matter" or "If God exists, then He wishes to create evil" (in both cases, we also would need to assume He has the power to do so - but we assume as the get-go that He is all-powerful). The problem is that we really are utterly ignorant when it comes to what a being of God's magnitude would DESIRE for the world. We'd need independently established hypotheses confirming this - not the evidence in question, be it the amount of evil in the world or the existence of biological entities. Thus, the cumulative case is no better than the cases taken in isolation. What standards are those? What makes you think that it is appropriate to impose them in this context? Can you use "the standards of scientific inductive logic" to justify "the standards of scientific inductive logic"? Besides, by definition, "scientific inductive logic" is only capable of providing natural explanations for natural phenomena. It is enormously effective and valuable for this purpose, but it is an unwarranted presupposition to limit all legitimate knowledge or all concrete reality to that which is accessible to "scientific inductive logic". If one wishes to proportion their beliefs to the evidence, then it would be appropriate to apply scientific inductive logic in this case. Anyway, it is necessary if we'd like to make a cumulative case for God's existence, as you (mistakenly) think is feasible. We can't talk about evidential strength without fleshing out an inductive logic and the best we have is scientific inductive logic. One standard of scientific inductive logic is that if one hypothesis has more explanatory power than another, the former is confirmed and the latter disconfirmed. Another is that an explanation is sufficient only if the auxiliary assumptions are suitable, as I've already alluded to above. You seem to be equating "rational" with (empirically?) "testable". Why? The word "rational" is inextricably tied to scientific reasoning and the foundation of scientific reasoning is testability. And the only assumption I am making here is that if a belief is rational (and nonempirical) then it is empirically testable; and if a proposition is nonempirical, but rational, then it is a logical truth.

longfun
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 04, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 253

Posted 07/01/09 - 02:51 AM:	#102
mric wrote: No, being mistaken is not an option. If I am mistaken, then, by definition, God has not provided sufficient evidence for me, sufficient being enough to drive through my natural obtuseness. If I gave an undergraduate level summary of the evidence for Bell's theorem in QM to my non-physicist brother, that would not count as sufficient to persuade him of its validity, despite it being actually sufficient for a physicist. Punishing him for his continued lack of understanding would be arbitrary and cruel on my part - evidence for my lack of benevolence. I accept that God may provide sufficient evidence later. My observations would suggest it is a deathbed provision if it occurs, and is a mystical one - most people in the world don't gain access to significant new evidence on God in the normal way of things. It is certainly a route out of your conundrum to believe that the Imam is granted a Christian revelation on his deathbed, delayed to that point in his life perhaps as a sort of joke that only God understands. It seems a little odd that God would withold that revelation until the end, allowing people to wallow in a disbelief he could help them avoid. I've seen 10 pages of discussions and none can define god... without definition "god" does not exist. Any definition can be or disproven or is useless to us or even to a religion. Let's say that god has the potential to be all: as he should be in that case the sum of all potential and objective properties at the same time. it would enable him to be to be the stone he can't carry and the power that lifts anything..... but as he only is this in a potential form, you can as outsider or observer only see this in one objective form as you are only one observer at once.. you will never see it... now the fun part This comparison I used is the same you can use for a singularity, filled with all potential dimensions or other potential singularities. This places any"god" out of time... and in such out of our objective world... Conclusion: 1) any god you can define will be automatically placed within time and within this frame work of potential properties and from that point alone he/she is in such no longer the god you even want to worship... it would become a tyranny or dictatorship based on less than the whole. 2) As all potential properties at once only emerge outside time and space, many religions will run into another problem... "there is no separation from the first god ever... so they who claim human separation... are again talking to a smaller god...and base separation on a difference in used time frames and not on the potentially almighty "god", which is eventually useless to us as potentiality, and part of us as objectivity... So how does your god look like?
I'm Long and I'm playing the greatest game of all.

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 934

Posted 07/01/09 - 06:58 AM:	#103
Kwalish Kid wrote: Almost nothing agrees with the New Testament. Many historians and archaeologists would beg to differ. Kwalish Kid wrote: So your argument is that, the accounts are more reliable because they disagree on important details? Suppose you ask four different people to watch a movie--one that you have not seen yourself--and then have each of them independently prepare a detailed summary of what they considered to be the most important plot points. They are able to talk to others who have seen the same movie, including one another, before they sit down to write. Would you expect to get back four identical texts, or is it likely that there will be some stylistic differences and minor discrepancies? If you want to know what the movie was about, which account should you consider to be the most reliable--any one of them by itself, or the composite that you will get from comparing and integrating all four?
"Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 934

Posted 07/01/09 - 07:23 AM:	#104
mric wrote: If I am mistaken, then, by definition, God has not provided sufficient evidence for me, sufficient being enough to drive through my natural obtuseness. We seem to be defining "sufficient" differently. To me, "sufficient" means enough that someone should believe (from God's omniscient perspective), even if that person (currently) does not believe, for whatever reason. mric wrote: Punishing him for his continued lack of understanding would be arbitrary and cruel on my part - evidence for my lack of benevolence. According to Christian theology, God does not punish anyone for "lack of understanding"; the problem is our lack of moral perfection. We all deserve permanent alienation from God, but his desire for each one of us is a mutually voluntary and permanent love relationship with him as Lord, and he has done everything objectively necessary--most notably, his incarnation, death, and resurrection--to make that possible.
"Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 4125

Posted 07/01/09 - 07:30 AM:	#105
aletheist wrote: Many historians and archaeologists would beg to differ. Not honest ones. Suppose you ask four different people to watch a movie--one that you have not seen yourself--and then have each of them independently prepare a detailed summary of what they considered to be the most important plot points. They are able to talk to others who have seen the same movie, including one another, before they sit down to write. Would you expect to get back four identical texts, or is it likely that there will be some stylistic differences and minor discrepancies? If you want to know what the movie was about, which account should you consider to be the most reliable--any one of them by itself, or the composite that you will get from comparing and integrating all four? You are offering an example of four people who you know, before the fact, all saw the same fictional portrayal. This does not help your case. We seem to be defining "sufficient" differently. To me, "sufficient" means enough that someone should believe (from God's omniscient perspective), even if that person (currently) does not believe, for whatever reason. Nobody is defining this differently. The problem is that people do not have sufficient evidence, given your definition. For any given set of religious doctrine, there are a set of people who will hear and experience none of this doctrine. So whatever religion you pick, God is denying them sufficient information to make what you define as a choice. And why are you dodging the most important question: Why aren't you out there killing in the name of God?
"I don't mind if Christians honor the moment by displaying, and singing about, reindeer (a hard species to find in the greater Jerusalem/Bethlehem area). Same for the pine trees that also don't grow in Palestine. I wish everybody joy of it." - Christopher Hitchens

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 934

Posted 07/01/09 - 08:06 AM:	#106
aufbau87 wrote: I don't understand what it means to be "correct (in the absolute sense)". And even I suspend suspicion of its significance, it's epistemological features are entirely elusive. How could we ever come to have any right to assert that some proposition is correct in an absolute sense? Those are fair points. What I meant to suggest is that holding an unjustified true belief is better than holding a justified false belief; but obviously the best case is holding only justified true beliefs. Justification and truth are two different things; the first is usually, but not always, a good indicator of the second. aufbau87 wrote: The problem is that for any given piece of evidence, we don't have suitable auxiliary assumptions that aid the hypothesis of God's existence in conferring a probability on the evidence in question. Yes, and this is why we cannot rely exclusively on traditional evidential arguments for the existence of God. aufbau87 wrote: The problem is that we really are utterly ignorant when it comes to what a being of God's magnitude would DESIRE for the world. Unless God actually exists and has revealed his desires to humans. If we assume this for the sake of argument, we can then adjust our search for evidence in accordance with those alleged desires. aufbau87 wrote: If one wishes to proportion their beliefs to the evidence, then it would be appropriate to apply scientific inductive logic in this case. Again, why? Not all evidence is scientific evidence. aufbau87 wrote: We can't talk about evidential strength without fleshing out an inductive logic and the best we have is scientific inductive logic. But like I said before, scientific inductive logic only applies to the natural realm. aufbau87 wrote: One standard of scientific inductive logic is that if one hypothesis has more explanatory power than another, the former is confirmed and the latter disconfirmed. Many theists hold that the existence of God is a valid inference to the best explanation for various specific aspects of reality. aufbau87 wrote: The word "rational" is inextricably tied to scientific reasoning Certainly not. "Scientific reasoning" is a relatively recent development in human history and is clearly a subset of rationality in general. As my signature quote suggests, I favor Bernard Lonergan's "generalized empirical method"--attentive experience, intelligent understanding, reasonable judgment, and responsible decision--of which "scientific reasoning" is a paradigmatic example. (See this thread for my summary of Lonergan's ideas and some discussion thereof.) aufbau87 wrote: And the only assumption I am making here is that if a belief is rational (and nonempirical) then it is empirically testable; and if a proposition is nonempirical, but rational, then it is a logical truth. Did you mean "(and empirical)"? What about the assumption (belief) that you just stated? It is neither empirically testable nor a logical truth. Does this mean that it is not rational?
"Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

mric
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Location: UK

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 1185

Posted 07/01/09 - 08:31 AM:	#107
aletheist wrote: We seem to be defining "sufficient" differently. To me, "sufficient" means enough that someone should believe (from God's omniscient perspective), even if that person (currently) does not believe, for whatever reason. But if God has done sufficient for me to believe, given his complete knowledge of my psychological limitations, what could be the reason for my disbelief? According to Christian theology, God does not punish anyone for "lack of understanding"; the problem is our lack of moral perfection. We all deserve permanent alienation from God, but his desire for each one of us is a mutually voluntary and permanent love relationship with him as Lord, and he has done everything objectively necessary--most notably, his incarnation, death, and resurrection--to make that possible. So if nobody knew of God's incarnation, death and resurrection (say all the records were lost), then God would have done everything objectively necessary to make that possible? If you had never been informed of Christ's presence on earth, you would have been just as well treated as in your current state? The point here is that God's incarnation, death and resurrection are not incontestable facts, not even remotely. The fact that the vast majority of mankind don't believe in them is a strong indication of the reasonable implausibility of those events as facts. You have to take a very uncharitable view of both man and God, that two-thirds of humanity knowingly, wilfully and culpably rejects evidence most of them have only a passing acquaintance with.

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 934

Posted 07/01/09 - 09:11 AM:	#108
Kwalish Kid wrote: Not honest ones. So, all experts who reach conclusions with which you disagree are simply being dishonest? Kwalish Kid wrote: You are offering an example of four people who you know, before the fact, all saw the same fictional portrayal. This does not help your case. Did you really miss my point, or is this changing of the subject deliberate? My example was intended to show that four different people who witnessed the same thing could, and almost certainly would, produce accounts with "divergent (but non-contradictory) details". To address your latest objection, suppose you come across four different biographies written by four different authors that all purport to be about the same person. They are generally consistent, but include stylistic differences and minor discrepancies. Would you reject all of them on that basis? Or would you compare and integrate them in an effort to develop a reliable composite? Kwalish Kid wrote: aletheist wrote: To me, "sufficient" means enough that someone should believe (from God's omniscient perspective), even if that person (currently) does not believe, for whatever reason. The problem is that people do not have sufficient evidence, given your definition. Given my definition, you cannot possibly know this, unless you are omniscient.
"Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 4125

Posted 07/01/09 - 09:46 AM:	#109
aletheist wrote: So, all experts who reach conclusions with which you disagree are simply being dishonest? No, but the ones that you seem to be trusting aren't. Did you really miss my point, or is this changing of the subject deliberate? The conclusion that you were trying to support was that inconsistent testimony is better than consistent testimony when we are trying to judge whether or not an event happened. You gave an example where we already knew that the event happened. Don;t blame others for your poor examples. My example was intended to show that four different people who witnessed the same thing could, and almost certainly would, produce accounts with "divergent (but non-contradictory) details". To address your latest objection, suppose you come across four different biographies written by four different authors that all purport to be about the same person. They are generally consistent, but include stylistic differences and minor discrepancies. Would you reject all of them on that basis? Or would you compare and integrate them in an effort to develop a reliable composite? Again, your example is about a person that we know existed and about specific details. Jesus probably existed, but many of the supposed events in his life demnand extra evidence because they are the sorts of events that have never been recorded elsewhere with any credibility and they are the sorts of events that we have good evidence for believing are fictional attributes rather than actual events. Given my definition, you cannot possibly know this, unless you are omniscient. Unless everyone who claims not believe in God is a liar, and unless distant tribes in Papau New Gunea are part of a grand conspiracy and have actually been exposed to the Bible, your claim here is simply not true. Now, again, stop dodging the question: Why aren't you out there killing in the name of God?
"I don't mind if Christians honor the moment by displaying, and singing about, reindeer (a hard species to find in the greater Jerusalem/Bethlehem area). Same for the pine trees that also don't grow in Palestine. I wish everybody joy of it." - Christopher Hitchens

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 934

Posted 07/01/09 - 09:50 AM:	#110
mric wrote: So if nobody knew of God's incarnation, death and resurrection (say all the records were lost), then God would have done everything objectively necessary to make that possible? Objectively, yes. If the witnesses had failed to record these events, or if others had subsequently failed to pass on those accounts to the next generation, it would not change what God had actually done for their sake. Besides, God could certainly use other means to "spread the word"; but for whatever reason, he generally (though not always) prefers that those who already know him be the ones to introduce him to others. mric wrote: If you had never been informed of Christ's presence on earth, you would have been just as well treated as in your current state? What do you mean by "well treated"? mric wrote: You have to take a very uncharitable view of both man and God, that two-thirds of humanity knowingly, wilfully and culpably rejects evidence most of them have only a passing acquaintance with. My view of humans (myself included) is very low in comparison with my view of God. No human deserves to be reconciled to God; every human deserves to spend eternity separated from him. To me, the fact that any humans at all have the opportunity to know and love God personally demonstrates his omnibenevolence. This hymn expresses my sentiments well. Daniel Webster Whittle (1840-1901) wrote: 1. I know not why God's wondrous grace to me he hath made known, nor why, unworthy, Christ in love redeemed me for his own. 2. I know not how this saving faith to me he did impart, nor how believing in his word wrought peace within my heart. 3. I know not how the Spirit moves, convincing us of sin, revealing Jesus through the word, creating faith in him. Refrain - But "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I've committed unto him against that day." The refrain quotes 2 Timothy 1:12, and the key word there is whom--not what.
"Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.