quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:

The problem I face when confronting a philosophy such as Christianity is that as a sceptic, I need to be shown evidence.

But, I do not just accept anything as evidence. I accept objective, falsifiable(OF) evidence as showing that something exists, and without that, I feel I can safely ignore it.

---

But surely that's your problem. Faith exists without proof. Besides, I've looked at your website, and I'm sure you're up on at least a bit of philosophy, so I think I must turn the question back at you.

All evidence that I have for God's existence is objective. From my perspective. That same evidence is, from your perspective, totally subjective, and you can feel free to rationalise it away.

At the same time, everyone else's objective evidence is viewed, by me, with suspicion unless it parallels mine, because I'm a sceptic at heart (truly!).

At the same time though, Christianity has, we claim, its foundation as a historical event. For a short period of time, and that period only, the event would have been falsifiable.

wood said "How do you prove anything?"

I guessed I would get this one. I said I am not looking for proof, but evidence. I admit that there is only proof of ourselves (cogito ergo sum). Even what we call relity cannot be proven. There is quite strong evidence that it exists, though. I am trying to find out at what level we can say God exists. It is quite obvious God does not exist in the same way as this computer does, so in what way can we know he exists?

Now then, evidence for Atheism.

That is a tricky one. It all comes down to Occams razor. If we can explain everything around us without the need to invoke God, then adding God in just increases the hypotheses.

I like your ' my evidence is objective to me'!

Your point about justice is valid, to a certain extent. Justice is a 'Universal', and as such does exist in a non-falsifiable way. The trouble is, if God is only a universal, then it limits exactly what God is.

They aren't. Faith is more equivalent to trust than lack of knowledge. In this case, it's trust in a Person who has proved, to me 100% reliable with what I know of him and the what he's done (from my limited perspective, of course!).

I would never, ever trust God to do something that I don't know he would, like stop me from hitting the rocks after I've leapt of the cliff in the hope that he'll catch me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
David,
Your point about justice is valid, to a certain extent. Justice is a 'Universal', and as such does exist in a non-falsifiable way. The trouble is, if God is only a universal, then it limits exactly what God is.

God is surely more than just a term to describe his features.

---

Sort of; I wasn't really trying to draw a comparison between the two, just trying to show the general category inconsistency.

God is not, I would hold, unknowable, but wholly unknowable - but I think you said this in your last sentence.

You raise some interesting points. It has been worthwile posting here. Wood and Nightlamp have too.

Thank you all, I will go away and digest. I will probably be back with a new batch of questions, but in such a short time I have achieved more knowedge than weeks on a fundy board.

Thanks again.

quote:

---

It all comes down to Occams razor. If we can explain everything around us without the need to invoke God, then adding God in just increases the hypotheses.
...
I would disagree that Atheism takes faith. It takes faith to believe in something.

---

Perhaps, as you say, atheism doesn't require faith per se, but I'd argue that believing that we can explain everything around us without the need to invoke God most certainly does - it's an unproveable axiom.

Let me make that a little more clear. There is an alternative explanation to all the things we know of.

We then have the two world views:

1) It just happened.
2) God made it happen.

Occams razor can be applied and the second one removed.

Of course, Occams razor only applies if two theories explain the same data equally as well. If there is evidence that I have missed that makes God the better method of explaining the world, then this falls apart.

And 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … + 16 + 17 = 153. And /0.9 = 170.

So I do believe there is an objective reality. I do believe that this reality adheres to certain laws. I do believe in the principle that God shows Himself by way of scientific formulae.

And so to the truth of light. The word light is mentioned 272 times in the Bible, and so 17 x 16 lots. Not forgetting the hard brass, that called gun-metal has a weight per cubic foot, of 534 pounds, and /Pi is 170 pounds, hence the ‘brazen serpent’ on a pole planted in the Sinai wilderness for the healing of those Israelites with snake bites.

OK, the seventh prime number is 17, and 170 less 10% is 153, and 1,530,000,000 x 3/2 and divided by 1,760 yards is 186,282.4675mps x 7 seconds of time. So light velocity in a vacuum is found to be made up of the number ‘17’.

And the Heavenly number 12, at 1.20000e+169 x 1.20000e+169 x 1.20000e+169 and /20 the square root 5 times and cube root once is 186,282.483mps the velocity of light.

Thus light can be woven out of the numbers 12 and 17.

Window of light: And the Rose Window at Chartres Cathedral has a circumference of 137.7 feet, the same as the Tholos in ancient Greece, meaning Altar of Serpents.

And light velocity in a vacuum is 186,282.4675 miles per second, x 14 seconds x 1,760 yards x 3 feet is 1.3770000e+10 feet.

So the Rose Window has the ID137.7 and 1.3770000e+10 feet and /9 is 1,530,000,000 feet the ‘sons of God’ and /9 is 170,000,000, the Serpent.

And this is without showing the wavelength spectrum.

The point I was trying to make was that (in the terms of the clarification) you'll never be able to tell whether God caused it, but it looks like it just happened because of the underlying assumptions we bring to the table, or the other way around.

Douglas Adams has a nice line on this about Babel fish ..............

Changing tack slightly have you ever tried (from C.S Lweis) the "suspension of dis-belief" ?

And changing tack again did you sometime inhabit "Yahoo Christian Chat" where the fundies do abound (as well as many other types of wierdo). You're right it is very nice on this site. Good Luck

By using modern science and Occams razor there is a solid foundation for an atheists position.

If you assume that God does not exist, you are very unlikely to discover that he does. In the same way, if you assume that every human being is untrustworthy, you will never discover that many are trustworthy.

Our assumptions dictate our thought processes and behavior. Our thought processes and behavior, in turn, dictate our experience. This makes it very difficult to discover that our assumptions are wrong.

Your point is valid. That is why I am very careful to show exactly what evidence I would find acceptable. If someone comes up with that evidence, it will be very obvious that I will have to eat my words.

Am I allowed to offer the fact that you obviously want to pursue this discussion as evidence?

I'm a Sceptical Christian, actually. Some of my friends are very worried by my insistence that my faith is a hypothesis - albeit a working hypothesis, very much so, as far as I'm concerned.

I think there might be a few people who would come out of the woodwork and admit, if I say it first, that we are more certain of Jesus and God than we are of 'Christianity' in its various modern guises.

(Might there? )

I'm sure you will know that there is ample evidence for Jesus' existence. And once you apply the 'Mad, Bad or God' theory you get some interesting results.

Two more things:
Many of us also go round in circles when confronted with 'fundies'.

I don't think you'd enjoy 'Alpha'!!

Please keep posting - we all need each other to find some kind of integrity.

Dear sceptical atheist, if you have been arguing with fundies then

(a) congratulations on retaining your sanity (they drive me up the wall); and

(b)you may have missed out on more rational and less fideistic writings by theists such as various books by Keith Ward, Hans Kung, John Hick, Maurice Wiles, John Macquarrie. All of which i can highly recommend. At least they are aware of the many arguments against theism and don't reduce objections to theism to being just wilful and sinful unbelief.

P.S. Occam's razor is a methodological tool which is often useful. But is it always correct? - I am sceptical! So are you i believe.

quote:

---

I would disagree that Atheism takes faith

---

At one level, as I have said, we cannot prove the existence of reality.

So at that level, I have faith in this chair I am sitting on. I cannot prove even to myself let alone you that this chair exists.

This means we cannot look for proof. We need to rely on evidence.

I have evidence that this chair exists. I can see it, touch it and put my weight on it. That is not proof it is there, but it is good evidence (I think).

We do not live by proof, we live by evidence. You cannoty prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but you would be able to put forward a good inductive argument to show there is evidence that it will.

I said in my first post, right at the end, that I am not after proof, but evidence, because this keeps cropping up.

So, I do not base my atheism on proof that God exist, but on the evidence. I interpret that evidence to show that there is no God. You interpret it to say that there is.

Between those two viewpoints as they stand, they are both based on the same evidence interpreted differently.

That is when Occams razor is applied.

By using that, I claim atheism is the best system.

Just wanted to see if it looks as ridiculous the other way round...

Evidence, Schmevidence! You don't want evidence - at least, nothing you'd admit as such.

I notice you are a 'Militant Atheist'. Why? Isn't being right enough?

Why Christianity? Are you also battling to understand why people eat oysters, dress in furry animal suits or take naturist holidays? What is it about Christianity which bugs you? Could just be you'd find your evidence for God if you thought about that for a while...

Glenn said (I wish I could find out how to include the attribution!)

quote:

---

(But I also have problems with the 'mad bad or who he said he was (God)' argument about Jesus. One can be merely mistaken without being mad or bad, and the argument relies too much on uncritical acceptance of the gospels as giving us Jesus actual words).

---

Anyway, S.A. I return to my original question:

quote:

---

Am I allowed to offer the fact that you obviously want to pursue this discussion as evidence?

---

You say that you want "ojective, falsifiable evidence", but I don't think you are putting yourself in the way of gathering such evidence.

I'd like to go back, for a moment, to the analogy of the trustworthiness of human beings. If you assume they are not trustworthy, you will never find any evidence that many are trustworthy.

I don't think you can find evidence of God's existence without sticking your neck out.

quote:

---

So, I do not base my atheism on proof that God exist, but on the evidence. I interpret that evidence to show that there is no God. You interpret it to say that there is..

---

Genesis1;1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The Bible presumes assumes God. It spends no time or energy giving evidence or proof of God's existence because their is none. The Bible is written for those who have the same presupositions as the Bible, that God exist and is the creator and sustainor and redeemer of the universe. It is for persons who already believe and want to believe and need encouragement to believe. Believing is a matter of faith not fact. If it were fact then who would need faith; we would just need an accountant. In fact anything we see as evidence of God's existence actually grows out of our faith. What those of us with faith look at as evidence of Gos's existenc might be seen by others, believers as well as non believers, ludicrous or not evidence at all. Evidence of God's existence is subjective and personal at best. For if it were not so then God,s existence would be a umiversal fact like H2-O.

But, how far are you prepared to admit the possibility and authenticity of a personal experience of God ... or will you always "win" and put it down to indigestion?

Consider this .... the only people who are prepared to die for Irregular Digestive Conditions are the delusional. Should we be treated? That's the logic. Listen to Solly on the Gulag.

Don't rationalise your existing state. Experiment ... and be prepared for a shock / pleasant surprise. That's how God hit me when I was 12. An experiment. How empirical can you get?!

It can mean a belief that God exists. It can also mean a belief that God exists and has certain characteristics. These include a loving concern for us, and the ability to act on this concern.

I presume that right now you are concerned with the first meaning--the question of whether God exists.

quote:

---

...what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made , so that men are without excuse...

---

Oh, can't I argue God from the Bible? Isn't it admissible? That's fair - and you have to hand in Occam's bloody Razor to the Umpire! And your rather subjective pick'n'mix approach to Science!

BTW do you accept discoveries which were made by scientists who were searching for rules on the assumption that God had ordered the universe, or do you only regard the others as sound?

Still, the great advantage of your position is, you don't have to go out and play music in church now instead of lazing in the sun!

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
Just a quick note to say thanks to all of you for your responses.

I will tell you why you are all wrong soon.

---

Oooohhh, goody. Some proof that God doesn't exist!

Sorry, Pyx_e I missed your message yesterday.

This is getting into a bit deeper theology than I was hoping to right now. I would query this in one way. If there was one piece of excellent evidence that was relatively innocuous then that would not affect the ability to have faith, but it would increase dramatically the number of people that did believe. It's not like the Babel fish (I was thinking of that this morning actually!). I am not talking about incontrovertible evidence, just very good evidence.

As an analogy, I have used this before: Imagine of God never let anyone who believed in him get the common cold. That would not stop people not-believing if their 'heart was hard' as the Bible puts it, but it would give all of you something to say to the like s of me.

I'm sure you will know that there is ample evidence for Jesus' existence. And once you apply the 'Mad, Bad or God' theory you get some interesting results.

Once again, this is getting into theological subjects, so I will answer in general terms

I am not one of those that deny Jesus existed (though they do exist, I believe ). This whole point does come down to my presupposition. I don't accept that God exists, so any reading of any supernatural event, I admit is tainted by that presupposition. This means I would require good evidence before I accept the supernatural. The old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

That means I deny the miracles of the Bible a priori. I do not think the Bible constitutes extraordinary evidence. I don't want to discuss the Bible itself too heavily in this thread, but I am always happy too spout my opinions of it generally. I think I should let this thread take its course before starting on the Bible and Christ as a main topic.

You don't want evidence - at least, nothing you'd admit as such.

Actually, I do. Seems silly but when I ask a question, I do hope for an answer.

I notice you are a 'Militant Atheist'. Why? Isn't being right enough?

It’s a little tongue in cheek. I think I have been influenced too much by the fundies. They tend to make extremists in other camps.

Being right is never enough. I want to rule the world [oops, that slipped out. Memo to self: Gill knows too much. Eliminate her]

Am I allowed to offer the fact that you obviously want to pursue this discussion as evidence?

It took me a while to work out what you were saying here. I think I understand what you mean. There is obviously evidence that people believe in God. I am trying to find out if there is evidence for the thing that they believe in. It is a very good question though.

I also have problems with the 'mad bad or who he said he was (God)' argument about Jesus. One can be merely mistaken without being mad or bad, and the argument relies too much on uncritical acceptance of the gospels as giving us Jesus actual words).

Thanks Glenn, you give an atheist hope if a Christian can fight his battles for him 

Thanks for the book rec.'s too. I will see if I can find any.

Firstly, I will reiterate that my conclusions are from a reasonable position that does not require faith. Occams razor and all that. I have yet to see any counterexample of this, except to say that it may be flawed. I accept totally that I could be wrong (in public at least ). We both have a world view or paradigm. Yours is based on faith, mine is based on reason (I do not mean that in a prejudicial sense, obviously you are all reasonable, but I am trying to find the terminology to show the difference of general approach).

This is a great summary of the position, Moo, and the sort of evidence that I would accept is objective and falsifiable (OF for short).

If it were fact then who would need faith; we would just need an accountant.

I don't think so. If there was some good OF evidence, but not incontrovertible evidence, then the need for faith would still be there, and, which is more, there would be loads more believers.

On the need for no evidence for faith, what about:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

See, Gill, I know this bit!

So, Paul is clearly saying there is evidence out there, and there is no excuse for not believing. So this idea that evidence denies faith doesn't stand up.

As an aside, the last time I quoted this, just to bug the funies, I combined it with

John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

I then asked them, if I was blinded by God, how could I see the invisible things that are the evidence I require?

he still had what he wanted,and indeed was not afraid to amend his scepticism in the light of somewhat overwhelming observational evidence.

Exactly. I have long been of the opinion that St Thomas should be the patron saint of sceptics and atheists. He is my kind of guy.

This is where the 'Falsifiable' bit comes into play. Is it possible to believe one has been touched by God, when in fact it was really indigestion?

How can anyone tell the difference?

Experiment ... and be prepared for a shock / pleasant surprise.

Once again, science uses objective falsifiable theories, because it is the only way to find out if an experiment works. A non-falsifiable theory would never be effective. A subjective theory would not be open to peer review.

quote:

---

Oh, can't I argue God from the Bible? Isn't it admissible? That's fair - and you have to hand in Occam's bloody Razor to the Umpire! And your rather subjective pick'n'mix approach to Science!

BTW do you accept discoveries which were made by scientists who were searching for rules on the assumption that God had ordered the universe, or do you only regard the others as sound?

Still, the great advantage of your position is, you don't have to go out and play music in church now instead of lazing in the sun! P.S. Don't forget to answer my previous question...

---

Hope the quote thing works…

Arguing from the Bible is permissable to a certain extent. If you are talking about God, you need to be able to say something about him. You point out a piece of scripture and I will read it. What I object to is when people expect me to believe in what is said because it comes from the Bible. The Bible is a source, and it should be treated with the same scepticism as any other source. It contains a lot of truth but I don't think that necessarily makes it all true.

Now, can I have Occams razor back? Please? I won't hurt anyone else with it. It just slipped out of my hand, honest.

If I rejected science because of the belief in God of the scientist I wouldn't have much science left! The obvious example is Newton. Just because Newton believed in God does not invalidate his science in the slightest.

quote:

---

This is getting into a bit deeper theology than I was hoping to right now.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA

Sorry.

Please forgive me.

If God posted on this board claiming He existed, would that constitute 'objective, falsifiable' evidence?

quote:

---

This means I would require good evidence before I accept the supernatural. The old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

---

It is old, and very very worn.

Pray tell, offer an example of extraordinary evidence that would not in and of itself be classified as an extraordinary claim!

I am almost certain that the parameters you've set yourself positively preclude finding God. You are after physical evidence of the metaphysical (non-physical, really). God is a moral agent, not a physical one. The truth is philosophical, rather than material. Since all philosophy is externally subjective, it follows that OF evidence doesn't exist.

Add to this the status of the incarnation/crucifixion/resurrection as an historical event (non-OF by definition), you end up searching for something with the wrong tools.

quote:

---

We then have the two world views:

1) It just happened.
2) God made it happen.

Occams razor can be applied and the second one removed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
Erin, your point about ID and chance would take too much space in this already too long post. This one doesn't fall into the 'too difficult' category, it is actually a strawman, but it would tale too long to point out why here. Sorry, I have enough on my plate at the moment, but I will gladly return to this crucial point.

---

Really. A strawman? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not say that it takes no faith to believe it just happened (ie, random chance) than to believe that an Intelligent Designer (ie God) did it all? My point is that, IMO, it takes a boatload more faith to believe that than to believe that God was the author of the universe.

So I am not quite seeing how this is a strawman, when it came in direct response to statements you yourself made:

quote:

---

There is an alternative explanation to all the things we know of.

We then have the two world views:

1) It just happened.
2) God made it happen.

---

and

quote:

---

By using modern science and Occams razor there is a solid foundation for an atheists position.

That position could still be wrong, but it need not be held on faith.

---

quote:

---

If you are (objectively ) serious about this, you will need to review your tools.

---

Sorry. I'm still 'being renewed...'

Hey S.A., I want evidence for Occam's razor.
It's no good showing me it written down. People who believe it put all that stuff together.

I WANT EVIDENCE. NOW!!!!

It works for you? Well hey, belief in God works for me - but that ain't evidence. Apparently.

quote:

---

Am I allowed to offer the fact that you obviously want to pursue this discussion as evidence?

It took me a while to work out what you were saying here. I think I understand what you mean. There is obviously evidence that people believe in God. I am trying to find out if there is evidence for the thing that they believe in. It is a very good question though.

---

Too good for an answer, eh?

quote:

---

Memo to self: Gill knows too much. Eliminate her

---