Evidence for God from Science

Thadeyus wrote:*Flicks metaphysical elastic band @ Icthus' head*

Icthus wrote:I don't quite get what you mean. You say that "colour is an intrinsic part of said element in said spectrum," but this is exactly the opposite of what most materialist philosophers actually argue (that color as common sense understands it exists only subjectively in the human mind and that there is nothing in the physical characteristics of the visible spectrum that is identical to what we see when we look at it. In other words, visible light has certain properties we construe as colour, but the idea that there is something a "colour" "looks like" is an illusion).

The world 'is'. We agree on this? We are transferring information through the medium of our shared language. There are inherent ideas/concepts etc literally built into said language that have meanings tied to them within our backgrounds/education/upbringing etc (The whole gamut of living/growing up/education etc). Within the shared definitions of our inherited language are words with meanings/definitions attache. hence something is 'green'...or 'red'. I type said words, you read them and there emerges a pattern within your mind from which you draw understanding.

*Flicks metaphysical elastic band @ Icthus' head*

Icthus wrote:I don't exactly follow the logic between introducing a discussion of language into the issue, but it may be my fault for mentioning "what we term color." I am not referring to language per se but to colour as common sense understands it (i.e. that something "looks" red, or green, or what have you). Although no one is denying that the visible spectrum exists, most materialist philosophers would deny that colour is inherent in anything (to do so, even when it has been attempted, will almost without exception lead to a position bearing more resemblance to something like Aristotelianism), being merely a subjective projection by the human mind (which I might add, an eliminativist, who I hold to be the most consistent materialist, would consider to be an illusion itself).

Except when I type a word (Purple) your mind automatically assigns 'something' to said word (Go on, DO NOT think about the purple elephant behind you. I dare you!) Colour is an inherent property of the way light refracts from everything. It's a break down of the whole spectrum emitted (Generally by the fusion ball about which we orbit) into what is reflected/refracted. Again getting back to 'The world is'.

(Go on, DO NOT think about the purple elephant behind you!)

*Flicks metaphysical elastic band @ Icthus' head*

Icthus wrote:The point of Kurieuo's fifth point is to highlight the way that the mechanistic conception of the world often employed by materialists inherently rejects what we perceive in the world as merely the product of our own minds, that only what can be described by physics exists. Under physicalism waves and particles exist but colours, sounds, scents, etc only exist subjectively. It is possible, for instance, for scientific equipment to detect light at the frequency corresponding with "red," but it cannot "see" red as qualia aren't actually real. This leads to a great deal of trouble as A) it is difficult if not impossible to form a cogent worldview if the reality of the world as you perceive it doesn't correspond with reality as it is and B) it requires such things as qualia, the content of language, and intentionality to be swept under the rug somewhere, which is quite problematic.

Colours, sounds etc may have 'subjective' mental constructs attached to them....but, since we are typing about/transferring shared information and have communal understanding of said information/concepts being transmitted. (As I said, the concepts/ideas/information is part of the very construct of the information we are sharing) they exist and we experience them. Our development/education.society etc give us the mental tools to do anything with them.

So...colour (which ever part of the spectrum you like) exists as inherent properties of that which is light interacting/reflecting/refracting with/from/against everything around us.

(DO NOT think about the purple elephant behind you!)

*Flicks metaphysical elastic band @ Icthus' head*

I still don't see what language has to do with this. The fact that we can form concepts about something and divulge that information through language has nothing to do with wether or not it exists. In fact, your argument presupposes (without any evidence) that language, the information it carries, and concepts we create exist themselves. To a non-theist that can't be a given. You say that "the world 'is,'"
and I don't disagree with that (it would be silly to do so), but that doesn't mean that the world in your head, the patterns in your mind, the common conceptual frameworks shared by humans, etc also exist. If I were an eliminativist, for example, I would think that not only do colours and sounds not exist, but that your mind is merely an illusion (even less, in fact, since an "illusion" implies that something exists to be fooled), and since, in my humble philosophical opinion, eliminativism is the most consistent form of materialism were I an atheist I'd be forced to reject your notions about the ontology of semantic content as silly.

I am not an atheist, however, and I actually do agree with you (being an Aristotelian) that colour, sound, scents, and other features of the universe are quite real and can't be simply cast aside, but with (I believe) a majority of philosophers I don't think that their existence can be neatly reconciled with the sort of physicalism that Kurieuo was addressing in the initial post. If you wish to posit a way that materialists can do so without giving up on the cherished belief that the only facts that matter are the physical facts, then you are free to try, and I won't argue with you.

I know not what constitutes a "metaphysical" elastic band (I suspect it is a misnomer) but fortunately for myself, I am not a realist with regards to such dubious entities and am therefore quite secure in the knowledge that I shall not be hit by one. Having thus sidestepped your barrage I bid you adieu.

Icthus wrote:Having thus sidestepped your barrage I bid you adieu

*Waves* Okay...bye.

Thanks Icthus, for responding on my behalf.

You elaborated very well the points I was driving at in my original post even better than I could have.

Sadly, it seems to me that many everyday Atheists often have an emotional issue with God, so I don't expect the points by such people to be given much thought beyond a wave of their hand, cynicism or scoff.

And yet, I always find it interesting to read what philosophers have to say on either side of the debate across different philosophical issues. I was normally surprised to find an Atheist/Agnostic making their arguments and often admitting to the strengths of the other side or some issues they do find problematic with their own positions.

Professional dialogue is normally more open and honest, perhaps because they are more read and have thought more deeply than say your average everyday Atheist. Many leaders of New Atheism movement also appear clueless when it comes to such rational philosophical dialogue. Krauss (a Dawkin's friend) in particular, recently made some snide remark about philosophers as he quoted from an Atheist one. Where do such "scientists" believe their logic is founded? Empiricism? LOL.

In any case, for those who are willing to think, I rattled off several inconsistencies Atheists rarely think about. To those affectionate of Atheism who say I'm simply setting up strawman, such is to ignore the deeper philosophical discussions that actually go on. I find the irony here quite amusing of who is really setting up a strawman. Perhaps a bit more reading on their part is needed?

I highly encourage any Atheist taking up a introduction to philosophy and philosophy of religion class at some college. You'll at least find that not every issue is always so black and white against Theism. If your here posting at this board, than I'd expect you to find such classes interesting, and even eye-opening if you are mature enough to take them with some seriousness.

DowTingTom wrote:I don't actually understand much of this, but I can tell enough to see a straw-man argument. The clue is the repetition of the phrase 'Atheists often ...' Atheism isn't a belief-set. To be atheist means you don't believe in God. It doesn't mean you do believe x,y and z. It is defined by what you don't believe in - and that is God, so it's meaningless to try and create a list of beliefs atheists have. There is one common belief. Atheists believe there is no God.

I am quite familiar with Flew's The Presumption of Atheism.

The moment an Atheist asserts God does not exist, is the moment they make a positive claim that forms a belief. The logically consistent person will attempt to bring their beliefs into alignment with one another where they impact upon each other and/or cross over.

Flew's paper, which is where many draw the idea that Atheism is not a belief, basically asserts that an Atheism is one who is not a Theist and without belief of God. Babies therefore start out as Atheists. But this is a very weak form of Atheism. And I don't agree with Flew's paper in any case, since many people assume Theistic foundations across a broad range of issues without even realising. Thus, it is not the case that someone positively starts out Atheist, or Theist, but rather more a case that we hold to many Atheistic and Theistic beliefs -- whether or not we realise that is another thing.

Now you assert there is one common belief amongst all Atheists -- the belief that there is no God. Flew did not make this claim. Rather the Atheism Flew had in mind is one that simply lacks a belief in God. It is only on this definition of "Atheism" that you could claim (possibly) that a bare minimum Atheism has no belief-set.

But you do not claim this form of Atheism. Indeed, the moment one reflects upon God's existence, is basically the moment that they are forced into a positive position of belief or disbelief. And as Flew discovered, to remain a consistent Atheist, one must make sense of a range of beliefs across a broad range of topics. Flew could not do this, and was moved to Agnosticism, even Deism, through modern teleological arguments from ID philosophers.

So you may believe Atheists have no "belief-set", but any who don't have not thought deeply at all about their Atheism nor the coherency of their other beliefs. For to believe "God does not exist" carries with it some set of beliefs.

For example, unless you wish to speak meaningless words, to believe "God does not exist" carries within some definition of God. What is this "God construct" you or the Atheist doesn't believe exists? If it is some pie in the sky "god" that lives in the clouds you are Atheist on, then hey I'm an Atheist too. Or some mythical "god" like Zeus, let me join your group. Were you aware that early Christians were called Atheists? That puts a spin on matters of "Atheism" doesn't it?

And then to believe God does not exist, one also needs to define "existence". What is existence? Is it something real, something empirical, something physical...??? What is the ontology of things that exist?

Hopefully your beginning to see Atheism can not be held to in a vacuum of beliefs. Many other beliefs are necessarily entailed.

To those who believe Atheism requires no set-beliefs, well the form of Atheism they must embrace is so weak that they wouldn't have thought very deeply on matters of God, at least no more than a baby would have. Indeed, your typical Atheist who debates against God's existence cannot be this form of Atheist due to their positive beliefs and assertions.

Dear Kurieuo.

I must admit to being confused by some aspects of your last post (Also being drop dead on one's feet after many, ong days at work is admitedly not helping) BUT...


When you say,

Kurieuo wrote:For example, unless you wish to speak meaningless words, to believe "God does not exist" carries within some definition of God.

Are you saying that as soon as I say I do not believe something exists....it then exists...?

I admit that when I use the word 'God' even generally I am 'thinking' of pretty much a gamut of images/ideas/notions/concepts. Everything from Thor to Kali (In random degrees) do attach themselves as the word is generally spoken/written.

Does this suddenly mean that all such thence exist to my self?

Just trying to get a rather admittedly fuzzy grip upon what you're saying. Perhaps sleep will help as well.

Very much cheers to all.

Thadeyus wrote:Dear Kurieuo.

I must admit to being confused by some aspects of your last post (Also being drop dead on one's feet after many, ong days at work is admitedly not helping) BUT...


When you say,

Kurieuo wrote:For example, unless you wish to speak meaningless words, to believe "God does not exist" carries within some definition of God.

Are you saying that as soon as I say I do not believe something exists....it then exists...?

I admit that when I use the word 'God' even generally I am 'thinking' of pretty much a gamut of images/ideas/notions/concepts. Everything from Thor to Kali (In random degrees) do attach themselves as the word is generally spoken/written.

Does this suddenly mean that all such thence exist to my self?

Just trying to get a rather admittedly fuzzy grip upon what you're saying. Perhaps sleep will help as well.

Very much cheers to all.

I think you're taking it beyond what he meant.

Maybe you should reread when you're a bit more awake? That post in particular wasn't about whether or not God exists.

It was about belief VS absence of belief. The point is that denying that something exists is an active belief, not an uncertainty or lack of belief.

Much like the statement "truth denying is truth affirming", which I don't think applies in this context, it could be simplified to "denying something is affirming something else. (as in: that something is not.)"

At least, that's what I thought I read from it.

Thadeyus,

I believe Kurieuo was trying to show you that you were wrong when you said:

Atheism isn't a belief-set

Once one thinks about God, and His existence, one either comes to the conclusion that God exists, or doesn't exist. By coming to the conclusion that God doesn't exist, you now have a belief-set. Your belief is the positive claim that God doesn't exist.

Kurieuo wrote:

The moment an Atheist asserts God does not exist, is the moment they make a positive claim that forms a belief. The logically consistent person will attempt to bring their beliefs into alignment with one another where they impact upon each other and/or cross over.

Thad, unless you are DowTingTom, I wasn't responding to you. You are free to take up DTT's argument though if you like.

I said many things, but the main point is what RickD noted... which is DTT claiming that "Atheism isn't a belief-set."

DTT's whole case against my original post seems to be that I am over-complicating Atheism with a number of beliefs. DTT claims that Atheists simply believe God does not exist, nothing more and nothing less. There is no belief-set an Atheist holds to. So I am wrong (setting up a strawman) to write about these other beliefs being unsustainable within Atheism.

Yet, in my previous post, I argued that to believe God does not exist carries a "belief-set" (aka set of beliefs) on the following topics:

1) Who/what "God" is or entails (even Atheists can define who/what God is if God were to exist, otherwise their statement "God does not exist" is nonsensical)

2) Nature of "existence" (a particular ontology)

3) Only once the Atheist has formed beliefs on (1) and (2) can they logically form the belief that "God does not exist" which is something you state all Atheists believe.

Thus, I argue that DTT is wrong: Atheism does entail a "belief-set" or set of beliefs.

So my original post still stands.

Ah, interesting.

Of course, you can add 'Which' to your list of "Who/What".

My point always starts from the base line that 'Existence' and thence 'nature' exist.

And, since you've put your pints across that way, then yes. I do agree that those two points, taken together, seem convey the idea/concept of 'belief'.

I do not, however, think such usage of the word in that particular way is not the same as that used as generally held by those who are of organized religions.

Very much cheers to you as well as very much cheers to all.

Question:

Does Atheism really have two feet?

Or is it a simple philosophy of denial with roots deep in skepticism ?

Would we say militant atheist are merely skeptics with attitude ?

Take David Hume's skeptical conclusion that there 'is' no reason to believe in the existence of the external world. How is that, any different than atheism's - no reason to believe in the existence of God other than substituting Hume's the concept of world for atheism's concept of God?


-
-
-

B. W. wrote: Take David Hume's skeptical conclusion that there 'is' no reason to believe in the existence of the external world. How is that, any different than atheism's - no reason to believe in the existence of God other than substituting Hume's the concept of world for atheism's concept of God?

Well...I for one believe the pain in my foot when I stub my toe on an external world rock......seems a lot of trouble to go through if the whole thing is just a set up.

Denying the bus/train/etc that's about to hit you seems far more 'immediate' (As just an example) than "The god(s) will punish you in either very obscure ways or after you've passed on."

(Note*: At least I don't think there's a case of some one blaspheming and immediately being smote by lighting etc...? *Ponders*)

Also, why are people only using the term 'Militant Atheist'? Does this mean I have to go and put on a uniform or something?

I would kind of agree with the idea of 'Philosophy of denial'. "I think there is(are) no god(s)." Seems to be such a term to fit said 'denial' idea/statement.

Thadeyus wrote:

B. W. wrote: Take David Hume's skeptical conclusion that there 'is' no reason to believe in the existence of the external world. How is that, any different than atheism's - no reason to believe in the existence of God other than substituting Hume's the concept of world for atheism's concept of God?

Well...I for one believe the pain in my foot when I stub my toe on an external world rock......seems a lot of trouble to go through if the whole thing is just a set up.

Denying the bus/train/etc that's about to hit you seems far more 'immediate' (As just an example) than "The god(s) will punish you in either very obscure ways or after you've passed on."

(Note*: At least I don't think there's a case of some one blaspheming and immediately being smote by lighting etc...? *Ponders*)

Also, why are people only using the term 'Militant Atheist'? Does this mean I have to go and put on a uniform or something?

I would kind of agree with the idea of 'Philosophy of denial'. "I think there is(are) no god(s)." Seems to be such a term to fit said 'denial' idea/statement.

put on a uniform - no... thanks I needed your humor - it cheered me up!

Let me answer as to why I use the term militant atheist. I do this to define terms do to the fact that there are atheist out there who don't make an issue of Christian faith, the respect it, they'll even defend our rights to worship, and place a Nativity scenes on the Court house lawn. They are easy to talk with, and reasonable. They actually will think a matter through.

Militant atheist, on the other hand are opposite of the above. They demand all concepts of God be removed, and make the case that faith in God is a great moral evil that needs to be removed at all cost from the public and privet square. S Hawkings, R Dawkins, C Hitchens come to mind. No - they don't wear uniforms but they are uniform in thought and purpose. Maybe an actual uniform would be nice, blue Mao slacks with matching peasant shirts?

You do bring up a good point about atheism might be a type of 'Philosophy of denial' - to me it is. Not as Hume but Hume's concept of not looking at the rock that stub the toe but the principle of denial of evidence.
-
-
-

You're most welcome.

Ah...the evidence. I must admit to being in the view that over-whelming claims kind of need over-whelming evidence.

I s'pose I might just toddle down to the fabric shop and see what colours they have available.

*Wonders how they should stop acting reasonable to get some good 'Hate Atheist' attention.*

I could make do with an empty flower pot on my head for the time being?

Very much cheers to all.

Prescript:
I've been posting a lot on your forums since I've found them, and I apologize if it seems overwhelming. I thoroughly enjoy discussions on (a)theism, so I'll throw my 2 cents in here as well, after all, K wrote "I know I'm writing to the choir here, but I'm happy for an Atheist or two to try and defend against my statements if moderators allow." I can tell I'm not well received, but hey, isn't everyone, when "thinking outside the box"? ... To borrow a quote from A Bug's Life, "Thadeyus, don't go in to the light!"

Kurieuo wrote:Atheism is kind of funny. We all naturally tend to believe certain things like being able to know truth, morality--some things really are bad like perhaps the crusades, "we" exist and are responsible for our decisions--even our thinking ability, justice ought to be served and the like. Because of this, I doubt there is an Atheist alive who is not an inconsistent Atheist. For to believe in many of these things, such beliefs have a basis in Theistic foundations that an Atheist must unwittingly borrow from.

Just because we naturally tend to believe it, doesn't make it true. We should search for the truth, even though we may never find it. Be wary of the fallacy of the appeal of the natural. Also, again, atheists are simply people who don't believe in god(s). There's not a lot for us to defend, and it's usually not too hard! Although, the challenge is always nice.

Kurieuo wrote:So let me get started with some. I know I'm writing to the choir here, but I'm happy for an Atheist or two to try and defend against my statements if moderators allow.

I'm happy to try to defend against your arguments!

Kurieuo wrote:[*]Atheists often say they accept what can be seen, smelt, touched, heard or tasted (i.e., accept truth about the world via physical senses). Yet, they fail to justify how that truth can be known without embracing fideism.

I believe you are speaking about the glass fish bowl problem here. I expect everyone is familiar with it, if not, let me know, and I'll explain the basics. Anyone who wants any resemblance of a normal life will say that. It has nothing to do with god(s).

Kurieuo wrote:[*]Atheists often say that God would be morally wrong to allow pain and suffering in the world if He is all-powerful and all-benevolent (or say "send people to hell"). Yet, the reality of concepts are not physically sensed--including objective moral concepts that some things really are wrong while other things really are bad regardless of what anyone thinks. Such wreaks of Theism.

Ohhh, morality, one of my favourite topics! Your opinion that some things "really are wrong", is commonly held by theist, but I believe it is incorrect, and medical science has nearly completely dis-proven it. A simple example is the legal defence of being under duress. If you steal something for someone while under duress (say they had a gun to your head), it would be bad, but not wrong. Even if your claim of universal morality is correct, that doesn't mean that two wrongs make a right (a fallacy of relevance). Surely it is wrong to torture someone in a burning pit of fire for all eternity... or do you believe that such behaviour is moral? Really, this is a claim against anti-theists though, not atheists. Atheists don't say "God would be morally wrong", or they'd be believing in the existence of God, now wouldn't they? Sneaky!

Kurieuo wrote:[*]Atheists often claim to be free thinkers, while embracing that we're the product of entirely physical processes and could not be other than what we are (Determinism).

I have to disagree with you, I've never heard an atheist say "we're the product of entirely physical processes and could not be other than what we are." Besides, what does that have to do with god(s)? That's an argument against determenists.

Kurieuo wrote:[*]Atheists often claim moral superiority in doing "good" for goodness sake rather than God's sake, yet what is the superior morality of which they speak and how is it they stand above the physical processes that constructed them to be "morally superior"?

How petty! Does it really matter who is "morally superior"?

Kurieuo wrote:[*]Atheists often adhere to Physicalism, yet then believe what we sense of the world is true of the world. Yet Science, particularly physics, forces us to conclude that the world contains colourless particles and waves. Colour is therefore an illusion, a mental abstraction of the physical world that in fact nowhere exists in the physical world. A tinge of inconsistency here perhaps?

Well, I wrote about a page on this point, and decided to scrap it. I believe you're just talking about the fishbowl problem again, and making it more complicated with an example of vision.

Kurieuo wrote:[*]Atheism is built upon the hypocrisy of beliefs it pretends to have, but ultimately cannot sustain.

You seem not to understand the term atheism. Atheism doesn't pretend, or hold any beliefs.

Yet again, it is impossible, not to mention a fallacy, to try to defend something that doesn't exist (the lack of belief in god(s)).

Thanks for the post, I enjoyed pondering over your questions!

Any Atheists want to respond to Lunalle on my behalf? Seriously though.