What type of "evidence" of God would an atheist accept?

[Subduction Zone]

Can you demonstrate that falsification requirements apply to concepts like QM definitions of gravity or even a 'popular' idea like the LCDM model?



Presumably the same way an astronomer decides that "space expansion" is a viable potential 'cause' of photon redshift.

Don't worry, some day you may get it.

Why don't you try to understand the metric expansion of space instead of running to your long refuted beliefs?

 

[Michael]

The observed accelerating expansion of the universe:

Accelerating expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

Do you have any type of empirically demonstrated cause/effect form of evidence rather than multiple metaphysical interpretations of photon redshift from distant objects in the sky?

 

[Michael]

Don't worry, some day you may get it.

Oh, I "get" that it's metaphysics, not empirical physics.

Why don't you try to understand the metric expansion of space instead of running to your long refuted beliefs?

You're confusing the idea of "understanding" a concept with the idea of "accepting it as true". I understand it just fine, I simply lack belief in the claim. I prefer a purely empirical explanation for the same redshift observations, and there are actually *many* to choose from.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes. We would also see red shift if there was no real movement, but the space in between was expanding.

Thanks!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have any type of empirically demonstrated cause/effect form of evidence rather than multiple metaphysical interpretations of photon redshift from distant objects in the sky?

I see that you still do not understand the nature of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I "get" that it's metaphysics, not empirical physics.

Now you are merely repeating your error.

You're confusing the idea of "understanding" a concept with the idea of "accepting it as true". I understand it just fine, I simply lack belief in the claim. I prefer a purely empirical explanation for the same redshift observations, and there are actually *many* to choose from.

Please, you don't accept certain aspects of science for some very very strange reason that no one can fathom here.

 

[pshun2404]

I'm merely using an example to point out that a "prophecy" and "fulfillment" does not have to come from an Almighty, Eternal, Omniscient being.

No, I do not know that it is not all second-hand information. I was not at the alleged crucifixion, I have no personal knowledge of Jesus' alleged life, nor of his direct disciples' alleged lives.

It is historically validated so I would recommend you delve in and really study this. That they lived and the types of lives they lived is accessible. That Jesus of Nazareth was a REAL living human who was crucified under Pontius Pilate no rational historian denies. That He was believed by many who were there to be this Messiah is also a historically archaeologically validated FACT. Thst Titus (another prince) came in later and destroyed the Holy Place (in fact the entire city) and that the sacrifices and oblations so important to early Judaism ceased at that point and have never again been instituted is also a known historically and archaeologically established truth. Sorry you have been dissuaded if in fact you have (in which case I apologize you may not be an evil atheist just not educated in this area or perhaps brainwashed by evil atheists).

"I'm merely using an example to point out that a "prophecy" and "fulfillment" does not have to come from an Almighty, Eternal, Omniscient being."

Indeed and if this were the only such case (I did provide two other possible candidates) I would agree but there are far too many IMO...however I sense you now agree that at least you would not disagree that there is more to reality than just matter/energy...and that is a good thing.

The experience of life in this world has given us much evidence that "outside the natural order" is actually more natural (and more common) than many would admit.

 

[ananda]

It is historically validated so I would recommend you delve in and really study this. That they lived and the types of lives they lived is accessible. That Jesus of Nazareth was a REAL living human who was crucified under Pontius Pilate no rational historian denies. That He was believed by many who were there to be this Messiah is also a historically archaeologically validated FACT. Thst Titus (another prince) came in later and destroyed the Holy Place (in fact the entire city) and that the sacrifices and oblations so important to early Judaism ceased at that point and have never again been instituted is also a known historically and archaeologically established truth. Sorry you have been dissuaded if in fact you have (in which case I apologize you may not be an evil atheist just not educated in this area or perhaps brainwashed by evil atheists).

The standards for "historical validation" that may adequately pass muster for historians and archaeologists are not the standards I require. I have much higher personal standards regarding spiritual matters.

"I'm merely using an example to point out that a "prophecy" and "fulfillment" does not have to come from an Almighty, Eternal, Omniscient being."

Indeed and if this were the only such case (I did provide two other possible candidates) I would agree but there are far too many IMO...however I sense you now agree that at least you would not disagree that there is more to reality than just matter/energy...and that is a good thing.

The experience of life in this world has given us much evidence that "outside the natural order" is actually more natural (and more common) than many would admit.

The only reality that I can say definitively exist - in its own way - is the totality of phenomena I experience in my consciousness.

 

[Michael]

I see that you still do not understand the nature of evidence.

Actually it's quite clear that you don't understand the *subjective* nature of the term "evidence", particularly when that term is applied to hypothetical constructs.

A simple Occam's razor argument would tend to eliminate your metaphysical explanation for photon redshift because there are already *many* other known and empirically demonstrated causes of photon redshift to choose from.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually it's quite clear that you don't understand the *subjective* nature of the term "evidence", particularly when that term is applied to hypothetical constructs.

A simple Occam's razor argument would tend to eliminate your metaphysical explanation for photon redshift because there are already *many* other known and empirically demonstrated causes of photon redshift to choose from.

Michael, I gave you what you asked for. Now you are simply spewing nonsense.

 

[quatona]

A subjective answer. I was just pondering it's implications out loud. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to define the term God, or the term evidence. I'm actually curious learn how various atheists define those terms for themselves.



No, but I mentioned that term in the OP and I was pondering the implications of his explanation.

Then why don´t you ask that question, and instead ask other questions that don´t answer the question that you have?

 

[Michael]

Now you are merely repeating your error.

No, I'm simply repeating my choice to "lack belief" in your metaphysical claim.

Please, you don't accept certain aspects of science for some very very strange reason that no one can fathom here.

Really? It's very easy to understand and to explain my choices, especially to an atheist.

I typically hold tentative belief in all areas of science which are related to *empirical lab demonstrated physics*, including the standard particle physics model, evolutionary theory, electromagnetism, general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.

I typically "lack belief" in aspects of science that defy empirical cause/effect evidence in the lab or controlled experimentation. I typically opt to "lack belief" in all such claims, though I do 'entertain' the possibility of some of them, like future potential QM definitions of gravity.

It's simply a choice based on the distinction between empirical lab demonstrated physics, and hypothetical constructs.

 

[Michael]

Then why don´t you ask that question, and instead ask other questions that don´t answer the question that you have?

You're right.

 

[quatona]

I don't believe that an atheist has to hold belief in God simply to ponder possible definitions of the term which they *might* entertain, and to describe the type of 'evidence' which they might accept to support such a definition.



Man, I'm telling you it's *really hard* for me to keep myself on topic in this thread. It's killing me.

I was simply trying to point out that there are definitions of the term God which his empirical preferences might find more appealing.

I'm trying hard to stay on topic, and I'm telling you, it's not easy. I'm trying to bite my tongue because I'm actually enjoying the 'education' that I'm getting in terms of what various atheists are willing to at least 'consider', and what they'd expect as evidence to support it. I generally find myself in agreement about what kind of evidence I'd expect from their specific definitions of the term God actually.

Thanks for explaining, and kudos for your self control.

But again: I can easily define the term "God" in an appealing way, and I can define it in a way that points to something I believe exists. However, since that wouldn´t make any difference to my worldview or metaphysical ideas (but would be just a change in the use of a word), I´m not quite seeing the point in the question "What evidence would you need to accept.....?", since I have already accepted it.

Personally, in terms of evidence for metaphysical ideas, my demands are pretty low. I guess I am applying different criteria when it comes to this field.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I'm simply repeating my choice to "lack belief" in your metaphysical claim.

I made no metaphysical claim.

Let's add that term to words that you do not understand.

Really? It's very easy to understand and to explain my choices, especially to an atheist.

I typically hold tentative belief in all areas of science which are related to *empirical lab demonstrated physics*, including the standard particle physics model, evolutionary theory, electromagnetism, general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.

Sorry, but you just proved that you do not understand the scientific method. It is not limited to the laboratory. For astronomy various telescopes can be said to be "the laboratory".

I typically "lack belief" in aspects of science that defy empirical cause/effect evidence in the lab or controlled experimentation. I typically opt to "lack belief" in all such claims, though I do 'entertain' the possibility of some of them, like future potential QM definitions of gravity.

It's simply a choice based on the distinction between empirical lab demonstrated physics, and hypothetical constructs.

No, you simply reject science.

 

[Michael]

I made no metaphysical claim.

Let's add that term to words that you do not understand.

Oh, you can point me to a real experiment with real control mechanisms where 'space' did expansion tricks which were demonstrated to have an effect on photons or the distance between objects? By all means, cite that experiment for me.

Sorry, but you just proved that you do not understand the scientific method. It is not limited to the laboratory. For astronomy various telescopes can be said to be "the laboratory".

I fully understand the method, but that doesn't change my preference for empirical physics. There are no control mechanisms which apply to observations from space, and therefore the term "evidence" takes on subjective qualities when the scientific method is applied to events in space.

No, you simply reject science.

No I don't. I'm not the one who is forced to reject the standard particle physics model, or empirical lab tested physics simply to describe photon redshift and various observations from space. I simply prefer a different "scientific" cosmology theory, and I'm using "science" to support it, so I'm certainly not rejecting science as whole. That's a strawman argument, and a rather lame argument at that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, you can point me to a real experiment with real control mechanisms where 'space' did expansion tricks which were demonstrated to have an effect on photons or the distance between objects? By all means, cite that experiment for me.

You have an incorrect and limited concept of the scientific method. Your demand is not valid. Try again.

I fully understand the method, but that doesn't change my preference for empirical physics. There are no control mechanisms which apply to observations from space, and therefore the term "evidence" takes on subjective qualities.

Your opening demand here demonstrates this claim to be wrong.

No I don't. I'm not the one who is forced to reject the standard particle physics model, or empirical lab tested physics simply to describe photon redshift and various observations from space. I simply prefer a different "scientific" theory, and using science to support it, so I'm certainly not rejecting science as whole. That's a strawman argument.

And we are back to denying science and the scientific method.

This might help:

Do you see any demand for a "lab" in there?

 

[pshun2404]

The standards for "historical validation" that may adequately pass muster for historians and archaeologists are not the standards I require. I have much higher personal standards regarding spiritual matters.

The only reality that I can say definitively exist - in its own way - is the totality of phenomena I experience in my consciousness.

How totally post-modernist of you. So you do not accept the validation of the totality of phenomena others experience in their consciousness? Hmmm? Interesting! Perhaps you could go and experience the phenomena of 1st century Jerusalem, Bethany, and Mount of Olives grave markers uncovered by people like Begatti and Sukinek. Though they were phenomena of their consciousness they are there now to become part of your's should you really want to know.

 

[ananda]

How totally post-modernist of you. So you do not accept the validation of the totality of phenomena others experience in their consciousness? Hmmm? Interesting! Perhaps you could go and experience the phenomena of 1st century Jerusalem, Bethany, and Mount of Olives grave markers uncovered by people like Begatti and Sukinek. Though they were phenomena of their consciousness they are there now to become part of your's should you really want to know.

I am ultimately agnostic about the existence of other minds, since I cannot prove that they truly exist outside of my own consciousness.

 

[Michael]

You have an incorrect and limited concept of the scientific method. Your demand is not valid. Try again.



Your opening demand here demonstrates this claim to be wrong.



And we are back to denying science and the scientific method.

This might help:

Do you see any demand for a "lab" in there?

Well, let's look at how you approached the concept of a "test" with respect to the topic of God back on page 1, shall we?

The odds are huge that you did not test these ideas properly. Your own bias would have altered the results. To test such concepts properly you would need to set up a double blind situation, where neither the person being tested or the person doing the test could know the philosophy behind the tests given to them.

When it comes to mainstream religion a proper test that would give meaningful results is almost impossible since people tend to have a knowledge of the religious philosophies that they grew up with.

Sorry, but the problem with bias is that you can't recognize it when it influences your tests. Your "tests" are worthless because of that. To be of any value at all the human element of tester and even observer must be minimized.

And I can't test properly either. I know that I have an inherent bias that would affect such tests.

You need to find a valid way of testing.

*Without* first having to "assume" that space expansion is possible by being indoctrinated into LCDM dogma, how did you intend to 'test' your claim while ensuring no inherent bias? How do you know that the LCDM bias and indoctrination has not influenced the result of any "experiments" you come up with which begin with the *assumption* that space does expansion tricks?

How *exactly* are you defining the term "experiment"? Does that include any sort of control mechanism, or does anything go with respect to affirming the consequent fallacies with respect to 'cause'? Is there any respect for Occam's razor arguments in your 'experiment'?

There are numerous known and empirically demonstrated causes for photon redshift, and 'space expansion' isn't one of them. Why do I even need to resort to such a silly concept when it cannot ever be demonstrated here on Earth, in our solar system, in our galaxy, or even in our galaxy cluster and supercluster?

Talk about extreme "acts of faith". How did you intend ensure that there is no inherent bias for a metaphysical claim when there are already several other empirical options to choose from?

I'm not "denying" science at all, I'm simply showing a preference for *empirical science* over "hypothetical science" at worst case. Stop burning that ridiculous strawman already. It's burnt to a crisp.