Knowledge and Belief

[DogmaHunter]

The existence of the universe itself.

Is only evidence of the universe existing. Not of how it came into existence.

The existence of persons and consciousness.

Is again only evidence of those things existing, not of how they came into existence.

God's miraculous works in history such as the exodus event and the resurrection of Christ.

First of all, the exodus event has 0 evidence for it and lots of evidence against it. Just about every related data points suggests it never happened.
Having said that, that point was a blatant assumed conclusion.

The Bible.

... is just a book like many others. And the source of the claims that you are being asked to support. You don't support your claim with your claim.

The existence of moral norms.

Is only evidence of the existenc of moral norms. Which, btw, aren't even universal throughout human cultures. Not to mention that we have a perfectly fine evolutionary explanation for them.

The existence of natural law.

Is again just evidence of the natural laws existing - not of how they came to be.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well let's start more simply. What do you suppose the evidence for a creator would be like? What would qualify as evidence for you?

I've been asked that question and I've thought about it extensively. My answer is that I have no clue. And the reason for that is because I've never seen god being defined in proper ways.

Every time someone attempts to do it, the definition itself seems to try and make sure that it's an unfalsifiable idea. It can't be supported or proven by definition. How then can I come up with a criterion for what would convince me?

I used to think things like god appearing in my room and talking to me would be evidence. But would it? People see entities appear in their room and talk to them all the time. We call them schizofrenics. How would I know I wasn't one of them?

When something is defined as undetectable, how could it ever be detected?

Then I realised that the question is irrelevant. Because IF god exists and IF that entity is indeed all knowing, then that god knows exactly what it would take to convince me. So as far as I am concerned, the ball is in his court (if he exists).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In some way that is true.

You know what else it doesn't eliminate?

The matrix, leprachauns, Draconian Yesterdayism, unicorns, Elvis still being alive, alien abductions followed by anal probes, ....

Or just about any other thing your imagination can produce.

True. I agree 100%. I am not sure if "God" is a special case philosophically, or just another one of those possible, but untestable ideas. Still I believe in part because I have "spiritual eyes" and like to clean up the clutter. At least my belief is aestetically pleasing, if nothing else.

I think its pefectly possible that I cant face the reality of secualr failure, and my faith is a crutch of sorts. Or maybe I am just to playful to be serious.

 

[DogmaHunter]

True. I agree 100%. I am not sure if "God" is a special case philosophically

I am. In case you wonder: it isn't

At least my belief is aestetically pleasing, if nothing else.

Not really a good reason to believe something, now is it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Fair enough. I agree that our model building has improved. But I dont think you can eliminate god, just like you cant eliminate other "skeptical alternatives" to scientific realism, like the brain in the vat idea of Putnam, or the evil genius idea of Descartes. They are logically possible, but empirically unfalsifiable. IIRC I saw an formal proof somewhere showing as much.

If one must have a positive belief in deities that can not be disproved, then christians have a lot of gods to believe in.

 

[Loudmouth]

God is certainly capable but he by no means owes them to us. We should be satisfied with the evidence that he has chosen to provide.

What evidence?