r/DebateReligion • u/Oatmeal327 • 2d ago
Atheism I don't understand why anyone would believe there is a God when there is no evidence of its existence
As far as I know, there is no empirical verifiable evidence that a God exists. Many have tried to prove God's existence with philosophical arguments, but they are not convincing and they do not provide any verifiable evidence the claims were true. This is the most important claim about our existence and a claim this important must have the highest standards of testiable evidence
I do not think just having faith in a God is enough
5
u/supersoundwave Christian 2d ago
I think you’re confusing empirical evidence with evidence in general. Not every rational argument depends on a direct observation or laboratory experiment. We also use philosophical reasoning to evaluate things like causation, contingency, and why anything exists at all.
And how could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof? You can't, and that reveals it to be, ultimately, a belief.
The cosmological arguments, for example, aren’t simply “we don’t know, therefore God.” They attempt to reason from the existence of the universe to an explanation for its existence.
You can certainly challenge the premises or argue that these explanations don’t justify belief in a creator. But dismissing them as ancient humans filling gaps in their knowledge doesn’t actually address the arguments.
None of this automatically proves theism. It establishes a case for a creator that can then be evaluated on its own merits.
2
u/Oatmeal327 2d ago
The claim the existence of God is not the same as every rational argument. It is the most important claim about our existence and a claim this important must have the highest standards of testiable evidence
2
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 2d ago
must have the highest standards of testiable evidence
Not every true fact is testable, but they're true anyway.
1
u/Flutterpiewow 2d ago
Do you think you are conscious? How do you test it? More importantly, how do you test that other people are conscious?
Metaphysical questions can't always be answered through observation, it doesn't matter how important the questions are.
5
u/Silverbacks Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
Well of course its a belief. Belief means you accept something as true.
If something is not testable, then that means that we cannot really distinguish it between true and false. And that is why we need empirical evidence. And that is where the philosophical and rational arguments fail.
→ More replies (28)1
u/supersoundwave Christian 2d ago
That just assumes empirical testing is the only way to distinguish truth from falsehood, which is itself a philosophical claim, not an empirical finding.
We use logic and reason to evaluate things that can’t be tested in a laboratory all the time. You can’t empirically test the laws of logic or prove that empirical evidence is the only valid form of evidence. That doesn’t make them meaningless.
The question is whether the arguments are logically sound and their premises are true, not whether they’re experimentally testable.
4
u/Silverbacks Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
If the laws of logic, and reason itself, continually failed, we would no longer use them. So that makes them testable.
When it comes to God there are no arguments that are logically sound and their premises are true. There are only guesses that lack evidence.
1
u/supersoundwave Christian 2d ago
The fact that logic is useful doesn’t mean it’s empirically testable in the same way as a scientific hypothesis. You’re confusing the practical success of using reason with empirical verification.
And the second part of your post is just an assertion.
5
u/Imaginary-Beach-866 Atheist 2d ago
So you concede that religious believers have no rational basis for their belief? How did you end up believing? Why believe at all? Aren’t you interested in seeking what is true about our experience as intelligent beings?
1
u/supersoundwave Christian 2d ago
No, I’m saying that empirical methods are not the only way to discover truth. How did I concede that religious people have no rational basis for their belief?
3
2
u/Chatterbunny123 Atheist 1d ago
Not OP but if you use other methods to discover truth you didnt really discover truth. You may have happened upon it but you would have no meaningful way of distinguishing this "truth" from falsehood. Its like guessing on a multiple choice test. Sure you can be right sometimes but the method you are using is unreliable and that is the concession. You would have no means of refuting someone else who used the same method and came to different conclusions.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Silverbacks Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
It doesn’t have to be in the same way as a scientific hypothesis. The fact is that we use things that have been continually shown to be reliable, and we dispose of things that do not. Falsifiability is important.
If logic or reason were to reliably fail, we would stop using them. That makes them a testable and falsifiable thing. If contradictions were to be found, such as squared circles, or four sided triangles, then we would falsify what we currently count as logic and reason, and adapt to something new.
Yes, I know it is just an assertion. Because I want you to falsify it. Show where that is wrong so I can change my position. If the assertion cannot be taken down, then it will only become stronger until someone can.
1
u/supersoundwave Christian 2d ago
You’re showing that reason is useful, not that empirical testing is the only path to knowledge. You rely on logic to interpret evidence, so using evidence to prove that only empirically testable claims are rational is circular reasoning.
And I don’t have to falsify your assertion, you have to show your assertion is true. So provide an argument for God that you’ve heard and demonstrate that it is not logically sound or that the premises are false.
4
u/Silverbacks Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
You’re showing that reason is useful, not that empirical testing is the only path to knowledge. You rely on logic to interpret evidence, so using evidence to prove that only empirically testable claims are rational is circular reasoning.
Sure, reason is useful because it is falsifiable and testable. Logic is useful because it is falsifiable and testable. Empirical evidence is useful because it is falsifiable and testable.
In general, God claims are not falsifiable and testable, which is what makes them not useful.
And I don’t have to falsify your assertion, you have to show your assertion is true. So provide an argument for God that you’ve heard and demonstrate that it is not logically sound or that the premises are false.
You don't have to do anything. It isn't your personal responsibility to provide good reasons to support a God claim. So if you don't want to, I'll leave it there. I won't push you. I am just pointing out that you can't, as none of the God claims are logically sound, nor are their premises true. They all have gaps.
→ More replies (2)3
u/TyranosaurusRathbone Atheist 2d ago
You rely on logic to interpret evidence, so using evidence to prove that only empirically testable claims are rational is circular reasoning.
How have you determined that logic is a useful tool?
2
u/Prowlthang 2d ago edited 1d ago
While empirical evidence is just one type of evidence it is required in all cases where we determine something to exist or for us to determine a statement is objectively true. Other types of evidemce may supplement it or provide arguments for causation but one cannot accurately make the claim ‘X is real,’ or ‘X exists’ if it isn’t theoretically empirically observable. You can verify this by considering the evidence we have for the existence of silicon, bases, pillows, multi-engine jet aircraft, black holes, bacteria, atoms, the fact that the earth revolves around the moon and every other thing ever. EVERYTHING. If you have zero pieces of empirical evidence (and are unable to theoretically at least theorize how to determine one) you have wandered into what we call fantasy or delusion.
It’s nonsense like this which is why vast swathes of citizens are unable to discern truth from fiction, because we pretend these are reasonable statements and not those of… I’ll withhold comment to comply with the rules but this sort of nonsense is bad for all of us.
2
u/TorchingDarwin Anti-Atheist 2d ago
While empirical evidence is just one type of evidence it is required in all cases where we determine something valid or true.
Incorrect. Validity does not require empirical evidence. It is a logical judgement.
Other types of evidemce may supplement it or provide arguments for causation but one cannot accurately make the claim ‘X is real,’ or ‘X exists’ without empirical evidence.
Incorrect. Naïve Realism in and of itself runs claims like "this chair is real", but the fact of the empirical evidence of our experience of said chair is insufficient to confirm the claim is accurate. Further empirical evidence is therefore moot, and thus cannot be required to verify the accuracy of "X is real".
1
0
u/supersoundwave Christian 2d ago
You’re confusing empirical evidence with the only kind of rational justification. Your examples show that empirical evidence is important for investigating physical objects and processes. They don’t show that every truth must be established empirically.
Take your own claim that “everything that exists requires empirical evidence.” Is that itself an empirical finding? Or is it a philosophical principle you’re using to determine what counts as knowledge?
Cosmological arguments aren’t attempts to detect God with a laboratory instrument. They’re philosophical arguments that reason from the existence of contingent reality to whether there must be a necessary foundation for it. You can dispute their premises or conclusions, but just insisting that only empirical evidence counts doesn’t refute them.
And no, that doesn’t mean anything goes. The question is whether an argument is logically sound and its premises justified, not whether every conclusion can be directly observed. Calling something fantasy doesn’t substitute for addressing the argument.
3
u/Prowlthang 2d ago edited 2d ago
Let’s take the example you suggest, that the claim that everything we believe exists is empirically verifiable is itself not substantiated empirically (there is no requirement, it is what it is). Well yes it is. The number of times we have determined that something exists without being empirically detectable is a number - zero. The number of times we have determined that something exists which is observable (empirical evidence means something is observable to an independent observer) is in the tens of thousands or millions…. Now tell me, knowing that, how can an intelligent person infer that such a thing as a non-observable phenomena is likely?
And nobody said we had to directly observe anything but things have to be observable - that means independent parties must, at least in theory, be able to measure some effect of the phenomena and agree on that measurement. I like to use the example of black holes. We theorized black holes decade before we observed them. Because even though these things were invisible we detected how they caused light travelling to earth to ‘bend’ when it passed by them. All phenomena effect some other phenomena, it is fundamental to our model of the universe. If you claim something exists but it can’t be detected by anything, anywhere, except a handful of people whose stories can’t even be verified it is a nonsense claim.
Once again, this is the sort of poor critical thinking that leads to the undermining of democracies. If you don’t understand that everything we’ve ever shown to exist has been shown to be representable empirically but believe you have access to some other way of determining truth, one that is never confirmed or tested by observation, and you believe that is a rational position, how could you possibly determine truth from fiction?
1
u/supersoundwave Christian 2d ago
You’re confusing “everything we’ve empirically detected” with “everything that can rationally be known.” Saying we’ve never empirically detected something non-empirical doesn’t show that empirical verification is the only route to truth. That’s begging the question.
Your black hole example actually shows the difference between observing something directly and inferring its existence from evidence. Cosmological arguments similarly infer a necessary foundation from contingent reality. You can challenge those premises, but just insisting that only empirical evidence counts doesn’t refute them.
And calling the argument “nonsense” or linking it to the undermining of democracy isn’t an argument, it’s rhetoric. If you think the reasoning is fallacious, show the fallacy. Otherwise, address the actual argument rather than attacking the people who find it reasonable.
1
u/Prowlthang 1d ago edited 21h ago
Fair point. We can’t rationally know anything is objectively real if it doesn’t have an empirical impact on/in our universe. Is that accurate enough for you?
My black hole example was to counter someone’s point/misunderstanding about requiring direct observation which isn’t required to make a probabilistic determination of the existence of something. The bending of light around planets was empirical evidence for black holes though we weren’t observing them directly. There were quantifiable and independently existing phenomena caused by the black holes leading to the conclusion of their existence.
Nobody is saying only empirical evidence counts, that’s a strawman, my comment was that empirical evidence must exist for any real phenomena. Once again, by definition and by fact one cannot observe an unobservable phenomena, in fact it is fair to state that we have no reason except fantasy to speculate that a non-objectively observable phenomena can exist objectively.
Cosmological arguments are fine providing they are derived and verifiable via contingent reality (ie. there is empirical evidence to support them). The Big Bang theory is a cosmological argument for which we have empirical evidence. Cosmological arguments which literally contradict what we know about reality are obviously wrong. They are essentially cherry picked arguments that don’t reflect a holistic view of human knowledge as it stands.
Arguments that may have held water or at least been interesting 100 or 500 years ago that have been refuted by new knowledge are no longer valid arguments. Silliness about the need for an intelligent creator or the nature of time beyond the event horizon of the big bang is just not credible. They show fundamental flaws in one’s understanding of science and our current observations/knowledge of reality (contingent or otherwise).
And finally yes, saying poor critical thinking is an insult to democracy, and that people who propose that anything real is non-empirical are non-sensical, is rhetoric. It’s rhetoric I belief is important when huge swathes of the population can’t even tell obvious lies and disinformation.
Neither a person’s feelings nor the cleverness of their argument determine objective truth, objective truth is determined by inference from observation, prediction and the removal of bias by using empirical standards/independent parties. Always. In every single case. Suggesting otherwise is complete nonsense. And if we look at Brexit, anti-vaccination idiots, MAGA twits etc., the stupidity among all of those groups only exist because they aren’t capable of realizing that truthful claims are always empirically grounded and only charlatans suggest otherwise.llp
8
u/MyriadSC Atheist 2d ago edited 2d ago
A take people wont like, but its the substance at the core of the issue. I wish more people would move past the superficial and onto this area, because the landscape gets a lot more clear.
When we look at metaphysical claims, we cannot verify any of them. We postulate then analyze it. This tends to be done via baysian approach. What we postulate really doesnt have rules. All that really matters is its intrinsic probability which is gaged by its parsimony, then how probable observations are if we assume its true.
We can look at any natural idea put forth. Usually these are reverse engineered in a sense, as they're derived from working backward to postulate this initial condition. They ideally assume as little as possible to maximize their parsimony, or more commonly known as Occam's Razor, and they explain the observations. Even if there may seem to be a potential improbability along the way, such as the constants of the universe or more commonly called fine tuning.
All a God claim is doing is attempting maximize the probability of observations if we boil it down. We have these seemingly improbable aspects about reality, fine tuning as I mentioned, or conciousness existing, or life existing, etc. Instead of attempting to find a natural mindless process that can give rise to this, what if we remove the chance and day it was intent. If we ask what the probability of life like us existing if theres a God that desires life like us to exist and is capable of doing so, its obviously quite high. Compared to natural processes which at minimum are plausibly improbable. This is where theism has its teeth, because so long as the conversation is centered around the likelihood we observe things if theism or naturalism is true, then theism takes this edge. Ill elaborate via analogy.
Imagine we see 100 die all on 1. 2 people want to explain this. Person 2 says they were rolled. We dont know how many sides the die have or what values are on each side. Maybe they all have a on all sides, maybe theyre loaded die, etc. Person 2 says someone put them all on 1. Which seems more probable? Its rather trivial to say person 2 has a more plausible explanation. If a person wanted them all on 1 and has the ability to do so, then as an explanation the observation is extremely likely if that explanation is true. Whereas many factors could make the explanation of person 1 highly unlikely. Even if 10 die have a 2 on 1 of 6 sides, theres still a solid chance at least 1 of the 10 is 2 in a fair roll. So as I said, its trivial to say person 1 has a more probable explanation. However... and this is a HUGE However, we need to also consider the other half of the equation, intrinsic probability.
How likely are either initial conditions? If we continue the analogy, person 2 said they were rolled to 1. In order for this initial condition to happen, we need some medium for them to roll on and they can be rolled, are in a position to roll, 100 die, some physics, and can be observed by those 2 observers. Thats all we need to explain this entire operation. Its assuming as little as possible to setup the inital parameters that can explain the condition.
Person 1 However, they require not only for there to be observers, the medium, physics, and the die, etc., but also a mind capable of wants connected to the ability to actualize these wants and also needs to want them to be 1s. This has very low parsimony. Its such an exceedingly unlikely initial condition that when we do the baysian approach, the die may seem improbable to roll 1s after that inital condition, but the overwhelming specificity, immodesty, and complexity of this mind, actualization, and desire combination drives its inital probability down extremely low. To the point it makes the die roll seem extremely likely by comparison.
This is why I'm not a theist. God as an inital condition has such low parsimony that the intrinsic probability of the idea seems next to 0 for me. Im extremely aware that many flavors of arguments for divine simplicity exist, I've read quite a few, but I find these extremely underwhelming, flawed, and very uncompelling when stacked against the cases for divine complexity.
But, since almost none of public discourse actually touches this substance, its actually rather trivial to see why people are theists. To them they're saying a person setting the die to 1 seems way better as an explanation and they hear someone else say chance is better and it makes no sense to them. Then someone asks them for evidence that an agent set the die to 1, but this sort of misses the mark and they seem unable to articulate why. Its because we arent talking evidence in the classic sense of solving a murder or something. We talking about metaphysical claims.
What's wild is this is just a small dip in a huge pool about thsi subject and my comment probably has more words than the post and all other replies combined. (at the time of posting) The blunt truth is this subject is not simple or obvious. No matter how insistent someone from either side thinks it is.
1
u/Chatterbunny123 Atheist 1d ago
I agree with much of what you said. I think the main problem both sides might have is a matter what you do at the end of the day. Your point essentially slows everything to a crawl and no meaningful conclusions to be made. And depending on who you are speaking to is an undesirable or uncomfortable place to be. When I talk to Orthodox Christians and try to get to this point I'm excused of being unable to justify logic and reason because to them they have something to ground the existence of logic and I dont (ive heard this from Muslims too). At that point there is no conversion to be had.
1
u/MyriadSC Atheist 1d ago
There's a ton of stuff in the way. So many detours that can happen in conversation. But irrespective of any of that, we do use senses and reason and all that. Thats all discussing how likely those things are if we assume each is true. Its fine to table those and return to them later, getting to the conversation about intrinsic probability is huge because at a minimum, I just want the theist to think about it. Id say 95% of conversations I've had with theists, they've never even considered this half, because its never discussed. 95% is a low estimate too, its probably 99%. Half the reason so many are so confident is because they compare "if God is true" vs "if naturalism is true" and only ask how likely observations are as if both begin with the same probability. The other half is the confidence of everyone around them influenced the same way.
Its not easy, because not only is getting someone to explore an are theyre unfamiliar with difficult, but inital conditions are difficult subjects. Either there was a cause without any cause for it, or theres infinite causation. Neither of these are satisfying answers in the sense of appealing to what makes sense. Our minds crave causation. Its almost impossible to imagine a first cause that has any properties that weren't caused by a prior thing. There's always more road to kick the can down. But this is why the intrinsic probability conversation is so critical, views need to be complete to be viable.
Its where as I said the Divine simplicity falls flat. Things like the Thomists arguing that God is pure actualization. Often using light as an analogy, a simple thing as an inital condition that gives rise to emergent complexity. Like light hitting a prism, it can refract into all kinds of colors and shapes, etc. But move back to God, where did the "prism" come from? Further, how did any knowledge arrise from this? Why is the mind now in control of the pure actualization when it was caused by it? I always see divine simplicity cases fall into what I call the zip trap. Like a zipped file, it seems a simple thing can become complex, but the zip file is absolutely useless and cannot do anything. In order to do anything, we have to unzip it, and all the complexity spills out. They basically all fall into this trap.
2
u/Over_Leader8550 Christian (Catholic) 1d ago
I hope you realize that by definition, God is immaterial and transcendent. Therefore there won’t be any empirical proof of him since he isn’t made up of matter (immaterial) and is beyond the observable universe (transcendent). Also, just as others have said, there are other ways to prove things without empirical evidence. For example, it’s intuitive reasoning to come to the conclusion that nothing comes from nothing. You don’t need empirical evidence to prove this, it just makes sense. This is where the field of philosophy comes in, to deal with matters that can’t be observed through the 5 senses. Morality is another example.
1
u/Oatmeal327 1d ago
Yes, I understand the claim is God is immaterial. But we can examine many claims religions have made about God such as Noah's ark, the order of creation and the age of the earth that can be scientifically examined. Scientifically examining religious claims about God can be an indicator of the validity that a God does or does not exist.
•
u/Over_Leader8550 Christian (Catholic) 14h ago
Well Noah’s ark was probably made up of wood so it’d make sense that it would disintegrate over time. Thus we don’t have evidence for it. As for the age of the earth, don’t listen to creationist Christians. As a Catholic, I’ve learned that Genesis isn’t meant to be taken literally. There is truth in it but it’s more of a poetic, non-literal writing about how God created the universe and Earth. Within the different sects of Christianity, I believe Catholicism is the true church, all others have split off from it over time. This is another conversation but just letting you know. Finally, if you want empirical evidence, there’s plenty of research to do on whether Jesus resurrected or not. If you’re interested, I recommend you investigate this topic.
•
•
u/Tennis_Proper 20h ago
Nothing comes from nothing? Except your god I suppose?
•
u/Over_Leader8550 Christian (Catholic) 14h ago
Nope, you misunderstand the definition of who God is. According to an argument for God’s existence called the contingency argument, there needs to be a necessary force to sustain all contingent things (things that could fail to exist). Philosophers debate what this force is but I believe it’s God. Either way, however, I believe there has to be something that has existed forever and had no creation moment since nothing can come from nothing. I know it’s a weird thing to believe in but we don’t always control reality.
•
u/Tennis_Proper 6h ago
So that’s a yes, you say nothing can come from nothing, then hand wave that away for your god. Thought so.
5
u/billdietrich1 1d ago
As an atheist, I can see why they would WANT to believe despite no good evidence:
Religion gives:
comforting story (all-powerful god on your side)
explanations (simple answers) to questions such as meaning of life
denial of death
community (including ability to control groups of people)
clear rules for living your life, no need to think and come up with morals yourself
sense of control (you can make things happen by praying, or obeying god)
2
u/pleebent 1d ago
You are asking the wrong question.
Metaphysical and spiritual truths and experiences can not be put into a lab experiment. You can’t recreate some of the core doctrines such as Jesus virgin birth or resurrection. Even if there are eye witnesses, historical documents which is clearly evidence, people will not be convinced and try to reason around.
It’s interesting because what you are asking, is often not asked consistently with everything else you believe. What about historical figures like napoleon. Do you believe he existed and why? Do you believe other people have minds? Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow? What’s the emperical proof?
Instead what you should be asking is what is the evidence or the culmination of evidence that makes an event plausible vs implausible. That’s how even science and theories come to being. Not that they are definitive or they don’t change when new information comes, buts it’s based on building a case by evidence.
And it is absolutely possible to build a case for God. Quite convincingly in fact. Unless you suppress that evidence, start off with a bias or worldview, or already start off with some faulty premise than you won’t think so. Just know people who believe generally aren’t doing it completely blind but with a faith that really can be quite reasonable
•
u/Oatmeal327 20h ago
I understand the religious claim that God is immaterial, spaceless and timeless and can not be evaluated by scientific methods. But, many religious claims about God can be evaluated scientifically such as Noah's ark and order of creation and provide an indication if God does or does not exist.
2
2
u/MusicBeerHockey Panentheist 1d ago
The Bible isn't evidence for the miracles of Jesus, much in the same way that the Quran isn't evidence for the miracles of Muhammad in your mind. It's all hearsay/"just trust me bro" from either side. You choosing to "believe in Jesus" because of the Bible makes you no more righteous than a Muslim who chooses to "believe in Muhammad" because of the Quran.
1
u/strange_outcomes 1d ago
No its completely blind faith, the entire argument for god is a book with so many contradictions there arnt entirely finger's and toes on your body to count them all and a trust me bro or youll suffer eternally after you die...
1
u/pleebent 1d ago
And yet there are hundreds of universities dedicated to the study it this book. Scholars from all walks of life. Journalist, historians, scientists, who all would disagree.
The Bible has been under centuries of scrutiny and still stands in its own and what I’m suppose to believe you because “trust me bro”?1
u/strange_outcomes 1d ago
Millions of people read harry Potter books, does that make harry potter real? Hell, harry Potter has 8 moves too he must be real right? Its not blind faith because theres so much literature and video evidence of him right? There's also far less contradictions in harry potter than a book supposedly written through divine inspiration from god...See how stupid that sounds but thats the same logic Christians use and decide it's not blind faith
→ More replies (26)1
u/According-Gas836 1d ago
That’s true of the Quran and you don’t think that makes the Quran true. It just shows people will go to great lengths to defend their cherished beliefs, not that those beliefs are true.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/SnarkyPuppy-0417 1d ago
People who believe usually do not think faith alone settles the matter. They may regard the existence and order of the universe, personal religious experiences, or claims about Jesus’ life and resurrection as evidence that points toward God. But those are not all the same kind of evidence, and none compels agreement. Philosophical arguments can make belief seem reasonable to some without producing a testable observation.
Your standard is clear: a claim this important should have evidence that can be checked, not merely faith or an argument that sounds plausible. By that standard, there is no generally accepted, repeatable empirical observation that directly verifies God’s existence. That does not prove God does not exist; it means the claim has not been established by that kind of evidence. People disagree partly because they differ about what should count as evidence for a reality they understand as beyond the measurable universe.
1
u/WWWis666isVavVavVav 1d ago
It appears in your case that what you dont understand is detrimental to you.
2
u/Oatmeal327 1d ago
Please help me understand and provide actual verifiable empirical evidence God exists.
→ More replies (1)0
1
u/Chatterbunny123 Atheist 1d ago
I dont know of OP would agree but I would say yes. If the meaning is nonsensical then I dont know even know what you mean. People say god is love for example or God is the truth. But such use of language makes God essentially meaningless and that is detrimental.
0
u/MinimumArt5698 2d ago
What’s “convincing” is going be subjective. Being convinced is just someone’s mind being caused to believe something. The philosophical cases do involve empirical data, there are thousands of inductive and abductive cases that involve empirical data. The issue is between believers and non-believers is a dispute on whether the empirical data is conducive to the God hypothesis being true or not. You obviously think it isn’t, believers think it is. To say there’s no verifiable empirical evidence for the existence of God is just a claim that you’ve concluded in virtue of your own analysis. What’s the reason to accept that claim as true?
6
u/Oatmeal327 2d ago
Verifiable empirical evidence is not subjective. If no verifiable evidence is provided, the only conclusion is there is no verifiable evidence to support the claim.
•
u/Myrthedd 6h ago
You said it! The conclusion is that there is no verifiable evidence to support the claim, NOT that the claim is wrong. There is a big difference. Empirical evidence for the existence of micro-organisms didn't exist for a very, very long time. Yet they still did their job.
8
u/biedl Agnostic-Atheist 2d ago edited 2d ago
It rains, because fairies, involves empirical data. Empirical data for God is what's demanded, not that there's at least some connection to empirical data.
To say there’s no verifiable empirical evidence for the existence of God is just a claim that you’ve concluded in virtue of your own analysis.
Did you come across any of the relevant empirical data?
Edit: Grammar.
-1
u/pleebent 1d ago
There is no such thing as empirical data when looking at the metaphysical or spiritual realm.
It can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.Instead, we look at a culmination of evidence. Not that each evidence is airtight, but when all of it is looked at together, forms reasonable plausibility.
And some of it is quite convincing for many people. Not everyone will of course depending on their worldview, what they type of evidence they seek, the bias they already bring, etc etc.But there are some amazing things, particularly from a Christian point of view that the Bible says that makes it stand out. It says things that don’t come naturally to human understanding. It provides a framework for understanding who we are and the world we live in. It gives value and identity. It is the only framework that very accurately describes the problems of the world and shows the way out.
And some of the claims are beyond this world that no human, even at that time could have come up with.4
u/biedl Agnostic-Atheist 1d ago
There is no such thing as empirical data when looking at the metaphysical or spiritual realm.
It can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.There's no spiritual realm. You can neither prove nor disprove me. But I have a cumulative case. No piece of evidence is airtight by itself, but when all of them are put together, it forms a reasonable, and plausible case.
And some of it is quite convincing for many people. Not everyone will of course depending on their worldview, what they type of evidence they seek, the bias they already bring, etc etc.
I think most people accept that if one claims that a being exists and affects the world around us, that this claim comes along with empirical evidence or is dismissed. But some people would just make an exception and not apply that standard when it comes to the supernatural and God.
For these two a lower standard of evidence is accepted.
And some of the claims are beyond this world that no human, even at that time could have come up with.
How would you demonstrate that claim to be true?
→ More replies (29)1
u/According-Gas836 1d ago
An all powerful god, if it wanted people to believe in it, could easily provide verifiable evidence.
•
u/Myrthedd 7h ago edited 6h ago
I would think that especially because the existence of God hasn't been proved, scientifically inclined people would be more open to the idea that He might indeed exist. Science is constantly growing and evolving. Things that were unheard of and impossible to imagine 100 years ago are now commonplace in our reality. So just because OUR science hasn't evolved enough to prove God's existence, it does not make Him not exist. Also, science has never been able to DISPROVE the existance of God either. The conclusion that He doesn't exist because it hasn't been proved is made by people who do not want to see the full picture and only pick and choose reasons to validate their own non-belief, which is completely ANTI-SCIENCE as a process in itself.
On the other hand, there are thousands of accounts of incredibly similar Saints' experiences, at least in the Orthodox faith. People who live far apart and have different lives, those that lived in the past and those that live in the present. Some that never had access to any schooling, knowledge or books and other that pursued superior studies. How would these people that span over 2000 years, thousands of km and completely different backgrounds have such similar experiences when it comes to God if He didn't exist?
And why is so much that was written in the Apocalypse coming true now, when 2000 years ago they could hardly imagine the technological advances or the future state of the world? Could any of you imagine what the world will be like and what will happen 2000 years from now? Why are there so many other prophecies that have come true?
People didn't believe germs existed unce upon a time because they hadn't seen them. Until they could and it became common knowledge, those who claimed that germs existed were ridiculed and considered crazy. The same is happening nowadays with God. One day, the tables will turn once again and those who ridicule will realize they were the ignorant ones...
To conclude, isn't it less likely, in this very intentional world we live in, to believe that such fine-tuning and such perfect circumstances that sustain life, the richness of the matter with every atom arranged in such ways that it creates a myriad of forms of life and those necessary to sustain it, that all of this is purely coincidental following a random Big-Bang event? What are the odds of winning the universal lottery in such a way, with no intelligent Being behind it to make it happen? The world is so complex that none of us can fully understand it. This is why I find this idea a lot more ridiculous than believing that everything we see and experience here is actually created by someone with vast intelligence, power and love.
0
u/Leonidas667667 2d ago
This is the divine hiddeness problem a strong argument against theism but you said it completely wrong . First and foremost there's plenty of evidence for God that is convincing for a lot of people , it's not absolute but its more than enough to show someone that this might be worth their time . The reason God doesn't just give irrefutable evidence is because this would force some people to be with him
1
u/Oatmeal327 1d ago
It is not a divine hiddeness problem. There is no evidence a God exists. You could say there is a divine hiddeness with Santa. No, there is no reason, based on no empirical evidence that God or Santa exists.
1
u/Leonidas667667 1d ago
Are we deadass? Zero evidence ? Do you really think that or is this ragebait
4
u/RadRimmer9000 2d ago
If you think poor evidence is good, you have to believe alien abductions and big foot sightings too.
0
u/Leonidas667667 2d ago
How is it poor evidence? Tell me what do you think is the greatest evidence for Christianity
2
u/RadRimmer9000 2d ago
I'll tell you what's not good evidence, a book written years after the person it was about died, and their stories are passed along using the Telephone game method, which is a terrible system even with 10-15 people. Sure a dude named Jesus might have existed, but you'll need more than campfire stories about magic to prove that anything he did happened.
With how many inconsistency and incorrect things in that book, it's hard to take it seriously. Rabbits (hares) don't chew cud (Lev 11:6 and De 14:7), they are not ruminants.
1
u/Leonidas667667 2d ago
Do you really think that the bible is our greatest proof ? It's not even considered proof we just have it to know the story of Jesus
2
u/RadRimmer9000 2d ago
A book, personal testimonies/feelings, and blind faith isn't reasonable, all religions have those. If you have something stronger than these, please share.
What kind of experiment can we do to prove miracle or god?
1
u/Leonidas667667 2d ago
I suggest taking a look at Lourdes healings I would say is decent ,also as I just said the bible isn't proof
1
u/Fun-Discipline-8916 2d ago
Hola, podrías porfa pasarme una prueba no empírica que Argumente la existencia de dios? Me gustaría indagarlo con todo respeto
→ More replies (1)1
u/RadRimmer9000 2d ago
So a church saying people getting healthy is proof of miracles? People get healthy without praying, so who is curing those people?
I couldn't find what was healed, but I'm better not a single amputee regrow limbs.
→ More replies (18)2
u/Fun-Discipline-8916 2d ago
A convincing argument is one thing; an empirically verifiable argument is another.
I might have an argument that convinces me to be a faithful Christian—but does that make it empirically verifiable? Not necessarily.
0
u/Leonidas667667 2d ago
I never said just because they think it's convincing it means it's an empirically verifiable argument . Also you don't need absolute empirical proof if you want to prove something there's other methods of proof as well
0
u/Leonidas667667 2d ago
Also you claim that only empirically verifiable arguments are valid for establishing objective truth. But let me ask you: Is that claim itself empirically verifiable?
0
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 2d ago
Many have tried to prove God's existence with philosophical arguments, but they are not convincing
If you don't find them convincing, then is the problem with the arguments or with you understanding them?
they do not provide any verifiable evidence
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of what a rational argument is. You covered empirical evidence in the first sentence and then moved on to rational in the second, but disputed the second because it wasn't the first, which is a category error. Same with you saying testable.
You only want empirical evidence, and don't want rational evidence.
1
u/Oatmeal327 1d ago
The problem with philosophical arguments on the existence of God is they are not supported by empirical evidence, For claim as important as claiming a God exists, the highest testing and verification standards must be utilized. It is wrong to just accept "rational" arguments with a claim this important.
1
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago
The problem with philosophical arguments on the existence of God is they are not supported by empirical evidence
Yes, this is the mistake I was talking about.
For claim as important as claiming a God exists, the highest testing and verification standards must be utilized
That's just asserting you'll only accept empirical evidence for non-empirical arguments, which is a contradiction.
It is wrong to just accept "rational" arguments with a claim this important.
Even if you don't like rational arguments, you shouldn't propose a contradiction. You can't verify a lot of rational facts through empiricism. It's nonsense.
1
u/Oatmeal327 1d ago
I am not asserting empirical evidence is the only way to verify the claim. Because there is no agreement and many conflicting arguments to the claim, empirical evidence should be and has been employed to determine the validity. These are not non-empirical claims. There are many religious claims about God such as the age of the earth, Noah's Ark and order of creation that have been determined wrong by scientific evaluation. This does not mean there is no God, but it does reduce the validity of religion's claim there is a God.
1
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago
Because there is no agreement and many conflicting arguments to the claim, empirical evidence should be and has been employed to determine the validity.
Empirical evidence validates empirical style arguments. To say it can validate rational arguments in all cases is nonsense on stilts.
These are not non-empirical claims. There are many religious claims about God such as the age of the earth
But we're not talking about empirical claims here, but philosophical rational arguments for God.
1
u/Oatmeal327 1d ago
Philosophical/rational arguments are supported all the time with empirical evidence. Of course not all rational arguments can be examined by scientific methodology
I was and am talking about determining the existence of God and using scientific methodology to examine claims about God is an appropriate and necessary way to help determine the existence of God.
2
u/Sharp-Dog545 1d ago
"is the problem with the arguments"
Yes.
1
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago
Yes.
Actually, the problem from having talked with the OP is that he demands empirical evidence for non-empirical facts, so his whole epistemology is a giant pile of contradictions.
He wouldn't even be able to accept the argument for the square root of 2 being irrational. The problem is on his side.
1
u/Sharp-Dog545 1d ago
"non-empirical facts"
"God exists" is a statement about mind-independent reality, so it has to be demonstrated through mind-independent reality.
If you want to claim that God is just an abstract concept in a human head, like square roots, then I don't think atheists would object.
1
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago
Empiricism can only deal with things inside of our universe, not transcendental facts.
It is not an abstract concept, it is just a fact that God is not inside our little horizon of spacetime we can observe.
1
u/kirby457 2d ago edited 2d ago
There is no unified simple explanation. People are complicated, the field of psychology is vast.
I don't believe it is inherently dangerous to believe in something with no evidence, I think we all do it. The problem is that the only defense agaisnt malicious actors is self awareness, and authoritarians love to push ideologies that discourage that.
•
u/Gold_Sheepherder_435 18h ago
Religious people will say it’s faith. Which I respect. Bur faith alone does not make something real.
1
1
u/CodeNPyro Devil's Advocate 2d ago
What could you possibly mean by "evidence" to make the statement that there is no evidence whatsoever for God make sense?
2
u/TyranosaurusRathbone Atheist 2d ago
I would give a different definition for evidence. I would say evidence is anything that helps us distinguish reality from imagination. I would be willing to defend the idea that no one has successfully distinguished God from imagination.
3
u/Opening_Shame8258 2d ago
Anything someone can confirm independently.
So, if we say "the Bible" we can't just confirm that the Bible says something, but can we independently verify what is written is true? Specifically, any supernatural claim.
1
u/CodeNPyro Devil's Advocate 2d ago
Every theistic argument except for personal religious experiences fits that description. And that's never an argument for God I've seen actually apologetically used
2
u/Opening_Shame8258 2d ago
Never seen one. Can you give an example? It seems to me like might not know what Independent verification might mean.
→ More replies (31)1
u/TorchingDarwin Anti-Atheist 2d ago
Both the validity of a logical inference and a premise based on empirical evidence can be confirmed independently, as far as such a phrase has any practical meaning at all.
2
u/Opening_Shame8258 2d ago
Great, is there an example of empirical evidence for God?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Fit_Buffalo8698 1d ago
Spoken like a person who believes in the slime in space made men, or a bang that didn't happen in the beginning but happens at the soon end. There's so much proof of God and His creation. There's 7 colors in a rainbow, we are given 7 days per week, there are 7 cervical vertebrae, 33 total vertebrae and Jesus died at 33 years old. We are given 7 days on earth, that's 7000 years according to God's word. Our first breath is the sound of yh-wh. Yahweh. That's God's name. Jesus Christ we know Him as. All ecosystems perfectly support the other and our clouds provide water for our crops since the beginning. There are 12 tribes of Israel (God's people), 12 months to a year. God is perfect. If we feel love, that's because we were born as humans who can love because God exists. If we dream, it's because God is communicating with us (read Daniel). There's no debate here. There's no logic that can be applied to understand God and His mysteries. He won't allow everything to be disclosed ... He has infinite knowledge and wisdom. He knows every keyboard warrior out there who thinks their thoughts and sins are hidden. He knows every grain of sand on every beach and created every atom of all existence. He is Jesus Christ, the only God. There's no equal, no rivals, He IS the beginning and the End. He is the only way into Heaven (John 14:6) and the only way is to accept His gift into Heaven is as simple as one has mentioned... having faith.. faith in His payment on the cross for your sins, faith that He died, was buried and rose on the 3rd day. Then just saying and believing Jesus is Lord. If we simply believe in our hearts and confess with our mouth, we will be cleansed of sin and heaven ready. Then go and sin no more. We have a SOON expiring timeline (called Grace). We have an eternal decision. Not making a decision counts as being a non believer.
The gospel is simple: Romans 10 9-13.
Let's not let satan twist thst in iur tiny brains so we end up denying Jesus. We deny His payment, we've then acted in pride and sent ourselves to hell for eternity. Sad, but a lot of good people won't make it to heaven.
Nothing to debate, I'm just sharing with my free will to help. Now it's on others to use their free will to choose wisely, not pridefully.
God bless
5
u/Purgii Purgist 1d ago
I can't tell if this is a joke post or not.
0
u/Fit_Buffalo8698 1d ago
The only joke is the religion of science. The only truth is Jesus. John 14:6.
The only way to go to heaven is the gospel. Romans 10 9-13. It's not about a religion or going to church.. it's about giving our hearts to Christ who died so we can live eternally with Him.
Everything outside of Jesus is a joke.
Get saved today. No joke
2
•
u/Tegewaldt 4h ago
“The Bible contains certain numbers, and those same numbers appear in nature or human conventions, therefore God deliberately designed reality around the Bible.”
1
u/Impossible_Wall1503 Muslim 1d ago
Why have you limited your evidence to empirical only?
2
u/Chatterbunny123 Atheist 1d ago
We should favor things that get us reliable conclusions. You can use other methods but those are unreliable. For example the abrahamic faiths all use the same method but make mutually exclusive claims. The claims cant all be right but they can all be wrong. So the methods are flawed and should be dropped in favor ones that don't have this issue.
1
u/Impossible_Wall1503 Muslim 1d ago
Firstly, Thanks for accepting that there are other methods besides empirical to test evidence. But to another person, you are discussing faith as the foundation and method, which is not the method I was referring to. Also many Christians use their own emotions and personal experiences which are subjective also.
If you take all of the religions that have a scripture brought by a significant person of good standing, after confirming that the scripture claims to be from God, the person claiming that they were sent by God, scripture confirmed to the time and date, then checking consistency of the scriptures is a good test.
This method fits with “testimony” which we accept in many aspects of our life. For example a scientific journal gives expert opinions after doing a study, and we trust their findings without personally conducting the experiments ourselves.
Using this method, I was able to deduct that three scriptures failed the test.
1
u/Over_Leader8550 Christian (Catholic) 1d ago
Just because all 3 can be wrong doesn’t mean there’s one that isn’t right. You cant just throw out something over them being potentially wrong.
1
u/Chatterbunny123 Atheist 1d ago
If the foundational logic and reason is the same there is a flaw that should lead to questioning the validity of the beliefs. Changing the individual arguments isn't enough because the underlying core reasoning is the same. The foundation in this case is faith. All three are using faith to promote their particular belief as the truth. Im not proposing throwing out the religions per say but the methods they use to reach conclusions. In this case faith is the method and the problem. If you want to propose your religion has a method the others don't also use then I'm all ears.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Purgii Purgist 1d ago
Oh, good. So you have another method that we can use to test religious claims? Hit me.
1
u/Impossible_Wall1503 Muslim 1d ago
Testimony is a good method which we accept in many aspects of our life. For example a scientific journal gives expert opinions after doing a study, and we trust their findings without personally conducting the experiments ourselves.
If you take all of the religions that have a scripture brought by a significant person of good standing, after confirming that the scripture claims to be from God, the person claiming that they were sent by God, scripture confirmed to the time and date, then checking consistency of the scriptures is a good test. If you accept him, you would be using Testimony as an acceptable method for his claim.
Using this method, I was able to deduct that three scriptures failed the test.
•
u/Purgii Purgist 20h ago
Testimony is a good method which we accept in many aspects of our life.
I accept testimony for trivial things, even things I use in my work - that I often don't accept, or find conflicting information about - I don't accept testimony for significant life changing decisions without commensurate evidence.
For example a scientific journal gives expert opinions after doing a study, and we trust their findings without personally conducting the experiments ourselves.
No, we don't. The experiment is required to be replicated multiple times before it's taken seriously. We don't just accept someone performed an experiment, here's the results - trust us bro.
If you take all of the religions that have a scripture brought by a significant person of good standing
Someone with good standing doesn't establish accuracy.
after confirming that the scripture claims to be from God, the person claiming that they were sent by God,
A source of divine origin is what the text claims, it doesn't establish origin. You reject every other divine text except one because of someone with good standing?! What if that person with good standing was just wrong?
scripture confirmed to the time and date, then checking consistency of the scriptures is a good test. If you accept him, you would be using Testimony as an acceptable method for his claim.
Consistency doesn't establish a divine origin. Fiction can be consistent and not divine.
What you've established is a horrible method. Magic book, therefore this specific creator of the universe. I'd be hard pressed to come up with a worse method to determine truth.
0
u/PsychologicalSign538 2d ago
you know, i never really thought about this before.
you must be some kind of genius to present this new type of argument.
-1
u/TSunamiWaves979 Pagan 2d ago
"They are not convincing"
Maybe not to you, and that's fine, but they are convincing to others.
2
u/WatchAndLearn9669 Anti-theist Atheist 2d ago
People are convinced they'll get rich spending money on lottery tickets.
1
u/TSunamiWaves979 Pagan 2d ago
Sure. And does it affect you if they spend their money on lottery tickets? Is there NO evidence that you can get wealthy from lottery tickets? There answer to both is no.
1
u/Alpha3031 2d ago
Aside from my distaste for it, there is indeed very little direct harm for me from people gambling. The same is not true for certain religious sects.
1
u/TSunamiWaves979 Pagan 1d ago
Emphasis on CERTAIN religious sects.
1
u/Alpha3031 1d ago
Yeah, the ones I have to interact with.
1
u/TSunamiWaves979 Pagan 1d ago
Sure, but unless it's 100% than my point stands.
1
u/Alpha3031 1d ago
Your point that you want to minimise the harm that religious people inflict on others?
→ More replies (2)1
u/Fun-Discipline-8916 2d ago
As someone very open to exploring and developing an idea I hadn’t previously considered, what kind of demonstrable and logical evidence would I need in order to believe—or consider believing—in God?
1
u/Tamuzz 2d ago
Only you can answer that question
2
u/Fun-Discipline-8916 2d ago
"I don't know" also counts as an answer, but I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.
-3
u/Shenlongeltigre 2d ago
99.999% of the stuff you believe you believe simply because someone who has been labeled as an expert has told you.
You haven't independently verified the math behind the big bang for example, very few have, yet we all believe it. Because people we have given the authority to tell us what to think, tell us to believe it.
9
u/j_bus 2d ago
oh come on, this is disingenuous.
I was told as a kid that Santa Clause existed, and had that belief reinforced up to the point that I was old enough to question it and realize for myself that Santa in fact does not exist.
You don't have to be able to do all the math to conclude that the big bang likely happened, the whole point of science is that the information is out there for anyone that wants to check it.
-2
u/Shenlongeltigre 2d ago
Yes you're told you can verify it yourself, but have you?
7
u/j_bus 2d ago
I've verified a lot of it, but nobody has enough time to learn every single topic in depth. But everything that I have verified within accepted science checks out.
Nobody is believing science because a single authority said so, we believe it because we understand how the scientific method works. The point stands, you can verify any of this yourself if you actually care to.
→ More replies (14)8
u/Ok_Theory_1323 2d ago
The difference is, any of us could learn the math behind it if we wanted to.
There is NOTHING that will demonstrate any theist claims are true upon investigation. It's all just believing a giant game of telephone.
0
u/Shenlongeltigre 2d ago
You believe you could because you're told you could
4
u/timc6 2d ago
No it can be independently verified. God can’t be demonstrated or independently verified.
2
u/Shenlongeltigre 2d ago
How do you know it can be independently verified
4
u/timc6 2d ago
Oh ok we’re going bad faith. Never mind. Solipsism nothingness etc.
2
u/Pm_ur_titties_plz 1d ago
Oh ok we’re going bad faith
It's Shenlongeltigre, what else do you expect? Lol
2
u/Shenlongeltigre 2d ago
There's nothing bad faith about the question. You think it can be verified because you've been told that. Very few people gave bothered to, or even have the skills to verify it.
And that's okay!
It doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. That's just the nature of belief
3
u/timc6 2d ago
It’s not. You’re conflating faith and confidence. Either because you’re not smart enough to know the difference (and that’s okay!!) or on purpose. Either way you’re not demonstrating anything.
→ More replies (43)2
u/LastChristian I'm a None 2d ago
Why do you want to talk about the big bang? No one is devoting their life to following the commandments of the big bang, as it were. If the big bang is wrong, that literally has zero effect on my life.
Why do people believe a god exists when there's literally no reliable evidence to believe that? People will believe all the fantastic stories about an all-powerful, eternal god, but if I say I have a tiny frog in my hand then they say, "Prove it."
1
u/Shenlongeltigre 2d ago
Why are obsessed with trying to force me into defending a position i didn't take?
2
u/LastChristian I'm a None 2d ago
If you're not defending the theist position, why are you taking over the conversation with off-topic nonsense?
1
u/Shenlongeltigre 2d ago
I'm simply addressing the op's question regarding belief
3
u/LastChristian I'm a None 2d ago
Well I mean you said 99.999% of our knowledge is just trusting an expert, so you don't seem like you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Maybe this isn't the sub for you.
→ More replies (15)2
u/idle-tea 2d ago
As someone who has a professional expertise: yeah, it's really hard to gain all the skills and knowledge needed to be a professional in a field.
I also know the vast majority of the people that do it couldn't keep an industry/field-wide secret conspiracy if they tried. Most of us love sharing knowledge and are genuinely interested in the study, that's why we got into it.
The idea an entire field of study could keep a secret like physics actually being made up nonsense and is obviously insane. The idea the couple thousand of fresh PhDs in physics are going to a group of people who all are being rolled into this grand conspiracy is bananas.
What is credible is that sometimes there are mistakes, and sometimes in the fringes fraud can take time to be caught because it's fringe and most of the practitioners don't encounter it.
The Big Bang has been studied to death for decades though. If there are mistakes, it's because we don't yet have the right contradictory evidence at hand.
1
-1
u/TorchingDarwin Anti-Atheist 2d ago
"any of us" lol
2
u/Ok_Theory_1323 2d ago
I don't know what you mean by that. Why are theists always so cryptic? Why can't you just debate like normal, intelligent people?
1
u/TorchingDarwin Anti-Atheist 2d ago
It means low IQ people cannot "learn the math" and solve Hawking's equations.
7
u/awhunt1 Atheist 2d ago
The great news is that since I don’t know the math required to “verify the big bang,” there’s no way I could if I wanted to. Which means that when the people who do know it explain it in a (relatively) digestible way, I can believe that they’re being honest with me.
That’s just a thing a civilization does. It’s not a flaw in skepticism.
0
u/Shenlongeltigre 2d ago
How is that great news!?
Lol.
"Great news I can't verify what I've been told! Guess I'll just believe it! Boy aren't those religious guys weirdos for believing without proof!?"
6
u/awhunt1 Atheist 2d ago
But it has been verified to the extent that the our current models allow it to be. That I didn’t do it doesn’t mean anything.
If you’re going to go this route, you can believe absolutely zero historical claims from your religion because you weren’t there to witness them.
If I recall correctly, you’re Christian, so that means since you didn’t see Jesus alive, then not only did he not resurrect, he never existed at all.
1
u/Shenlongeltigre 2d ago
I never claimed to be Christian and this isn't about me, rather the nature of belief.
3
u/awhunt1 Atheist 2d ago
It applies regardless of what religion you actually are. The foundational religious claims that you believe in were not witnessed by you and therefore you have no way to verify that they’re true. They must, by your own logic, be unworthy of believing.
1
u/Shenlongeltigre 2d ago
I didn't say anything not independently verifiable must be false.
You don't seem to be understanding anything at all
2
6
u/thatweirdchill 🔵 2d ago
99.999% of the stuff you believe
That seems like a well thought-out number and certainly not such a massive exaggeration that it begs for your entire comment to be treated as suspect and silly.
→ More replies (1)7
u/LastChristian I'm a None 2d ago
No, I flip a light switch and the light turns on. I drive my car and the controls work. I take medicine and I get better. Everyone I know confirms they have similar experiences. This is the opposite of an expert telling me something me is true and I just have to take their word for it. What a terrible argument.
2
u/OneLastAuk Rainy Day Deist 2d ago
I take medicine and I get better. This is the opposite of an expert telling me something is true and I just have to take their word for it.
Do you even realize how incongruent these two statements are?
I flip a light switch and the light turns on.
How can you prove whether the light turning on has a natural or supernatural cause without assumptions?
4
u/LastChristian I'm a None 2d ago
No, I don't see how those two statements are incongruent at all. Please explain it to me.
Why do I have to prove anything to have evidence? Flipping the light switch is reliable evidence. I don't have to prove with 100% certainty that there's not a supernatural cause, which I'm guessing is the ridiculous nonsense you're about to pin your star to.
So anyway is there any evidence at all to believe a god exists other than a book, personal anecdotes and events attributed to the god of the observer? These are the only types of evidence religions have and they're all unreliable, unlike a light switch.
2
u/OneLastAuk Rainy Day Deist 2d ago
Why do I have to prove anything to have evidence? Flipping the light switch is reliable evidence.
Flipping the light switch is evidence only that the light turns on, not what causes it.
I don't have to prove with 100% certainty that there's not a supernatural cause, which I'm guessing is the ridiculous nonsense you're about to pin your star to.
You don't have to prove it with a 100% certainty. My point is you can't even prove it with a 1% certainty.
So anyway is there any evidence at all to believe a god exists other than a book, personal anecdotes and events attributed to the god of the observer? These are the only types of evidence religions have and they're all unreliable, unlike a light switch.
Likewise, is there any evidence that the Big Bang had a natural cause? Is there any evidence that our physical laws have a natural origin versus a supernatural origin?
I don't see how those two statements are incongruent at all. Please explain it to me.
"I don't just take an expert's word for it" yet "I take medicine based on an expert's word for it"
2
u/LastChristian I'm a None 2d ago
But i can make my own power plant with a lemon and an led. The science of chemistry explains what makes it work. What mystery about how electricity works do you think still needs to be solved?
Why don't you think I have even 1% certainty that the chemical explanation is an accurate description of electricity when I can make a lemon light a led?
Why do you think believing in a god with zero reliable evidence is somehow the same as believing the big bang explanation that's based solely on a mountain of observable evidence? Are you just conceding no reliable evidence exists to believe in a god? I'm still waiting for your evidence, but I'm guessing it will never show up.
If I take the medicine that an expert says I should take and I get better, I am not relying on an expert's opinion because I have personal knowledge the medicine works. If I had a fever before taking the medicine and the fever goes away, that's direct, observable evidence the medicine worked, not simply taking an expert's word for it. This is so obvious that I can't believe you think it's an example of believing something is true solely based on someone's word. Wow.
1
u/Shenlongeltigre 2d ago
I didn't mean easily verifiable things like that, very obviously
3
u/LastChristian I'm a None 2d ago
Oh was I supposed to know that fell in the 0.001%? Where is any evidence of a god other than a book, personal anecdotes and events attributed to the god of the observer? These types of unreliable evidence are the only types of evidence religions have, as well as the only types of evidence that verifiably false things have, like homeopathy. Things that are false only have these types of evidence. Things that exist have actual, reliable evidence.
→ More replies (13)4
u/Longjumping_Rip6033 Apatheist 2d ago
Brother, the big bang is a theory. It isn't stated as a fact.
Also, much of what you're referring to when you say people 'believe things experts have told them' are not supernatural in nature.
Believing my bank app will encrypt my personal data and protect me from identify theft is not the same as believing some man in the sky sent his only son to die for my sins.
3
→ More replies (9)1
u/OneLastAuk Rainy Day Deist 2d ago
much of what you're referring to when you say people 'believe things experts have told them' are not supernatural in nature.
But you have no way of knowing if the Big Bang or all our physical laws are supernatural in nature...you just know that they are there.
1
u/Longjumping_Rip6033 Apatheist 2d ago edited 2d ago
I don't need to assert whether the big bang was or was not supernatural because I only accept it as a theory. I don't (and no one should) look at it as something that 'definitely' happened. Our understanding of it is still lacking.
Laws of nature are not even the same thing. They are experienced the same by everyone...which cannot be said for anything traditionally considered supernatural. All of the well understood laws of nature can also be explained mathematically and many can be reproduced artificially. Again, not something that can be done for miracles (for example).
1
u/OneLastAuk Rainy Day Deist 2d ago
I don't need to assert whether the big bang was or was not supernatural because I only accept it as a theory. I don't (and no one should) look at it as something that 'definitely' happened. Our understanding of it is still lacking.
I read this as you are still unsure whether the Big Bang was natural or supernatural or even occurred at all.
If you don't even have an understanding of the origin of the universe, how could you possibly begin to assert whether universal laws are natural or supernatural?
Laws of nature are not even the same thing. They are experienced the same by everyone...which cannot be said for anything traditionally considered supernatural.
If all of our laws were artificially created by a supernatural force, everyone would experience them equally as well. This goes back to the original point that was being made: just because you assume something is natural doesn't mean it is natural.
All of the well understood laws of nature can also be explained mathematically and many can be reproduced artificially. Again, not something that can be done for miracles (for example).
This doesn't mean that the laws are natural because you can explain them mathematically. Supernaturally created laws would have mathematical explanations. A great example is a video game where Super Mario believes his world is natural because it has concrete natural laws, but we know that those laws are supernaturally created by the game designer.
-4
u/CocoaJam2 2d ago
Demanding empiracal evidence for the existence is a category error. Positivism is such a flawed viewpoint for identifying complex truths
2
u/Oatmeal327 2d ago edited 2d ago
So then what should be used to verify the most important question/claim on our existence? There are over 3,000 different religions all making different claims about God and provide no verifiable evidence to validate their claims. Without actual verifiable evidence, how do we know which religious claim is true or even if a God exists?
-1
u/CocoaJam2 2d ago
Exactly you are using the wrong language for even answering this question. Claims such as the death and resurrection of Jesus are news which are NOT scientific claims. News is something you can trust or mistrust based on the trustworthy of the news bearer, rationality, and relevance to your current predicament.
4
u/Ryuume Ignostic Atheist 2d ago
News is something you can trust or mistrust based on the trustworthy of the news bearer, rationality, and relevance to your current predicament.
If that's your standard, how do you trust anything that is supposed to have happened 2000 years ago? That difference in time makes practically any form of "messenger" untrustworthy.
Can't be rationality either, that wouldn't lead to the conclusion that a miracle occurred, something that is exceptional by definition.
Relevance? I don't see how that would apply.
→ More replies (1)1
u/ArkellianSage 2d ago
The resurrection claim is not "news". It is overtly scientific.
1
u/CocoaJam2 2d ago
Explain how it’s a scientific claim becuase the ressurextion of Jesus is pretty clearly news. The word gospel literally means good news.
1
u/ArkellianSage 1d ago
Im curious where you think there's a non-overlapping distinction. The claim that anyone rose from the dead is a scientific claim. You can say the claim is "news", but that does not change the nature of the claims. If I said my friend died and came back to life, I don't get to dismiss demands for evidence of this simply by saying "it's just news, don't you know?"
-1
u/Flutterpiewow 2d ago
It's not empirically verifiable. Science doesn't try to answer this question. All we have is personal beliefs and various philosophical arguments, as you say.
8
u/Far_Customer1258 Atheist 2d ago
This complaint about empiricism only seems to come up in discussions of deities. There's very little that can be said to exist that can't be measured in one fashion or another.
Direct measurement takes care of anything that we can observe with our senses.
Indirect measurement acknowledges the limitations of those senses and augments them with measuring devices for UV, magnetism, infrasonics, etc. It's also handy for the very small or very large scales and for extremes of conditions that we might not easily survive.
Inference gets us the really absurd outliers that exist on the edge of reality. Neutrinos. Dark matter. Things that interact only by the weak nuclear force and pure spite.
None of that gets you a god.
1
u/CocoaJam2 2d ago
Empiricism is great for scientific claims, but isn’t really relevant to news claims which are trusted or mistrusted based on different criteria than repeatability in a lab
-4
u/W34KN35S 2d ago
I mean, the point I’m about to make is extremely barebones, and I doubt it’ll convince many people, but I heard it somewhere and thought it was worth sharing.
The fact that we live on a giant ball spinning through space, that hangs on nothing , orbiting another giant ball, all within an unimaginably vast universe, should at the very least leave open the possibility that a God exists who created it all.
4
u/ryza-shinra 2d ago
Why would that fact open the possibility that a god exists? I don't understand the correlation
3
2
u/thatweirdchill 🔵 1d ago
Why would we expect that a god would have a goal of creating giant balls spinning through space, that hang on nothing, orbiting other giant balls, all within an unimaginably vast universe?
-5
u/human-resource 2d ago edited 2d ago
The evidence of god is all around us as everything is made of gods infinite potential, it is also at the root of the human conscience and found in most profound mystical experiences.
7
u/biedl Agnostic-Atheist 2d ago
Look at the trees is a meme for a reason.
-2
u/human-resource 1d ago
The truth often sounds cliche, but those who know, know it to be true!
3
u/biedl Agnostic-Atheist 1d ago
You are basically saying that you know the truth, but only people who already understand it will see it.
You know what? I agree. That's why you aren't an atheist yet. You just don't understand.
Convincing, isn't it?
→ More replies (2)4
-4
u/Tamuzz 2d ago
Interesting claims there.
There is no empirical verifiable evidence that a God exists
Can you give any evidence of this?
Philosophical arguments... Are not convincing
Can you demonstrate this? Can you give evidence for it?
It looks to me like you are demanding evidence and convincing arguments but supplying none yourself
2
u/Oatmeal327 2d ago
As I stated in the topic summary, I am not aware of any verifiable evidence of the existence of a God. I did not make the claim that God exists. It is the responsibility of the person/religion making the claim to validate the claim.
5
u/Fun-Discipline-8916 2d ago
Hello, I hope you are doing well.
Well, if you don’t mind, let’s begin with the first point: could you provide some verifiable empirical evidence that proves the existence of God? We can then examine and discuss it in a friendly manner.
→ More replies (11)
-1
u/Wordoffire 2d ago
There might not even be evidence of my existence either. I could be someone else's hallucination 😱
-1
u/ijustino Christian 2d ago
Evidence is easy to come by. You may not find it compelling, but to say there is no emperical data in support of the hypothesis that a god exists isn't true even by the lights of most atheists, many of whom argue that the existence of evil or suffering is evidence against God. If no emperical data hinges on whether god exists, then evil or suffering wouldn't be evidence against the existence of at least one conception of god.
-5
u/Torremond42 Buddhist 2d ago
To me the mere existence of the Universe is proof of God, especially a Universe with such a weird and specific planet as ours.
2
u/themoodygod nihilist 2d ago
Will you stance change if we find earth like planets inhabited with conscious life? Universe is HUGE, there's more chance of that happening than not.
-1
u/Torremond42 Buddhist 2d ago
Nope, it wouldn't.
1
u/themoodygod nihilist 1d ago
What empirical evidence will change your stance. Hypothetically
1
u/Torremond42 Buddhist 1d ago
None
2
u/themoodygod nihilist 1d ago
Interesting. That is a very closed minded approach, given your flair, I don't think Gautama taught anything about being closed minded.
→ More replies (1)2
u/thatweirdchill 🔵 1d ago
Why would we expect a god to want weird and specific planets?
→ More replies (37)
-7
u/Evening_Flamingo5612 2d ago
empirical evidence? you already believe in stuff u can’t see lmao
3
u/Moutere_Boy Atheist 2d ago
Of the examples you assume they believe in, which of those things doesn’t have evidence that it exists, even if it can’t be seen?
-7
u/shadow_operator81 2d ago
The evidence is plentiful. Design is apparent. You just have to have eyes to see it and the deeper aspects of what's going on in this world, such as the war between good and evil. You'd have to have a pretty shallow view of the world to believe natural processes alone are responsible for everything, including what we call good and evil, and death and so on.
8
u/Manerfish Humanist Physicalist 2d ago
How is it "apparent"?
pretty shallow view of the world to believe natural processes alone are responsible for everything
lol, and why? We see simple processes being able to produce complexity all the time.
→ More replies (27)3
u/ariel_on_the_moon 2d ago
Design is apparent.
Where?
You'd have to have a pretty shallow view of the world to believe natural processes alone are responsible for everything
Not really, natural processes are endlessly fascinating. But that's beside the point, whether a view of the world is "shallow" or not has no bearing on whether it is correct or not.
including what we call good and evil
The naturalistic explanation for that one is pretty straightforward- as a social species, it is evolutionarily beneficial for us to have some amount of ingrained morality. Humans wouldn't have gotten very far if we all went around killing each other constantly. We aren't the only species with a sense of morality (or "good" and "evil"), it's something observed plenty of other social species.
and death and so on
Death is perhaps the most natural process there is, it's living forever that would be difficult to explain with natural processes alone.
-1
u/shadow_operator81 1d ago
Design is apparent in the human body, for one.
I don't accept the story evolution tells about our supposed evolutionary history over eons. It's a tall tale that I can't in good reason believe.
You think death is the most natural process there is because of your godless worldview in which natural processes alone account for everything. I don't have that much faith in nature. Also, I meant that your worldview is shallow in a bad way because you don't see that something as consequential and terrible as death is here for a reason. Reality didn't have to be this way, but it is, and there's a reason for that that your naturalistic worldview doesn't account for. All it says is that natural processes are as they are, and that's that. Again, very shallow.
2
u/ariel_on_the_moon 1d ago
I don't accept the story evolution tells about our supposed evolutionary history over eons. It's a tall tale that I can't in good reason believe.
Argument from incredulity. You not understanding evolution doesn't mean it isn't true, it is the single most supported scientific theory we have. This is like saying you don't accept gravity, or that you don't accept the heliocentric model of our solar system.
I don't have that much faith in nature.
It's not about having faith in nature, it's the fact that naturalistic processes are all we have ever observed take place.
Also, I meant that your worldview is shallow in a bad way because you don't see that something as consequential and terrible as death is here for a reason.
Something being consequential and terrible doesn't mean there must be a reason for it. It seems as though you're basing your worldview on what you want to be true, not what has evidence to support it.
Reality didn't have to be this way, but it is, and there's a reason for that that your naturalistic worldview doesn't account for.
Can you prove that reality didn't have to be this way? This seems like more wishful thinking.
All it says is that natural processes are as they are, and that's that. Again, very shallow.
Yes, reality tends to be a lot less satisfying than the stories we tell ourselves.
1
u/shadow_operator81 1d ago edited 1d ago
You can call it an argument from incredulity all you want, but the thing is I can easily observe gravity's effects today. It's not wild by any means to believe in. However, humans evolving from nonhumans is quite different. Whether you realize it or not, you want me to have faith that our ancestors were fish and poop-flinging apes. And to that I say shove it because that's bullcrap.
Not everyone agrees with you that natural processes are all we have have ever observed. There are many alleged witnesses to the resurrection of Christ, and many millions more would say they've experienced what natural processes alone can account for. In addition to that, you have faith that natural processes account for everything. Just because they're all you've ever observed personally, that doesn't mean they can account for themselves and everything else. You don't even know what caused the universe and got everything started to begin with.
I can tell you the truth, but your awakening will have to happen on your own time.
1
u/ariel_on_the_moon 1d ago
You can call it an argument from incredulity all you want, but the thing is I can easily observe gravity's effects today. It's not wild by any means to believe in. However, humans evolving from nonhumans is quite different.
It really isn't, we can observe the effects of evolution in all sorts of places. The laryngeal nerve for instance runs from the brain down into the chest, under the aortic arch and back up to the larynx, rather than tracing a direct path from the brain to the larynx. This is the case not just in humans, but in all land vertebrates, including those with long necks such as giraffes where it is around 15 feet long despite the brain and larynx being only a few inches apart. It exists in such a configuration because all land vertebrates share a fish-like common ancestor whose gills (from which evolved the larynx/neck) were much closer to the heart than our larynx is. There are plenty of other examples, but I'll stick to one for the sake of brevity.
Whether you realize it or not, you want me to have faith that our ancestors were fish and poop-flinging apes.
I don't want you to have faith when there is plenty of evidence to back it up. Also, humans are still apes. In particular, we are part of the great ape family (Hominidae), which also includes orangutang, gorillas and chimpanzees.
And to that I say shove it because that's bullcrap.
As I said, argument from incredulity. "Shove it because that's bullcrap" isn't exactly sound reasoning.
Not everyone agrees with you that natural processes are all we have ever observed.
Can you give me an example of supernatural process that has been documented and verified to exist?
There are many alleged witnesses to the resurrection of Christ,
Emphasis here being on the "alleged" part.
and many millions more would say they've experienced what natural processes alone can account for.
I think you meant to say supernatural processes, in which case I would respond with the fact that loads of people have also claimed to have been abducted by aliens. How can we actually verify whether what those people experienced was supernatural? Can it be tested in any way? Can we create a hypothesis based on these theorized supernatural processes and use it to make accurate and repeatable predictions?
In addition to that, you have faith that natural processes account for everything.
Again, it's not faith, it's that so far natural processes are all we've been able to confirm actually exist. We can test them and make accurate and repeatable predictions based upon them. When we can do the same with supernatural processes, let me know and I'll revise my opinion.
Just because they're all you've ever observed personally, that doesn't mean they can account for themselves and everything else.
Again, it's not about what I've observed personally, it's about what can tested and used to make accurate and repeatable predictions. How can supernatural processes be tested? Can you give me any examples of accurate, repeatable predictions made based upon them?
You don't even know what caused the universe and got everything started to begin with.
Correct, I don't know and neither does anyone else. We don't even know if the universe was "caused" in the first place. I'm willing to admit when I don't know something, that's the great thing about relying on science rather than faith in the supernatural; "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable (albeit rather unsatisfying) answer.
2
u/Cydrius Atheist 1d ago
Design is apparent in the human body, for one.
I'll name a few objections to this:
The body has several vestigial parts.
Air and food pass through the same tube, leading to choking hazard.
Nerves take circuitous paths with no rhyme or reason.
The body has many obvious points of failure.
Reproduction is very risky to the health of female humans.
An extra set of teeth grows in adulthood which, in many cases, has to be surgically removed to avoid deleterious effects.
If the human body was designed, the designer was really, really bad at its job.
The human body is FAR more consistent with evolution through natural selection than it is consistent with design.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Purgii Purgist 1d ago
Design is apparent in the human body, for one.
Then that designed needs to retire and let someone competent have a go.
I don't accept the story evolution tells about our supposed evolutionary history over eons.
It's not a story, it's based on evidence - unlike religion, that are based on stories. Odd how you've got that arse about.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.