Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[KCfromNC]

I'm saying that science is fraught through with assumptions that cannot be proven scientifically.

Please list them and show other similarly useful ways of investigating reality aren't subject to the same issues.

 

[KCfromNC]

And it would be even more problematic for atheists.

Good thing then that lots of people believing something don't make the object of belief any more real.

 

[bhsmte]

Please list them and show other similarly useful ways of investigating reality aren't subject to the same issues.

The response to this (if you get one) will be interesting.

 

[Davian]

Why are you asking for a testable model of God?

What does that even mean?

Just some way to discern if this "God" you refer to is anything more than a character in a book.

Or, we can look at Bible stories, to see if they comport with observations of reality. I gather that they don't.

 

[Davian]

The causal principle is a metaphysical principle which methodological naturalism depends upon. IOW, scientists assume that effects have causes, regardless of whether or not the cause is testable.

I'm saying that science is fraught through with assumptions that cannot be proven scientifically.

Can you express exactly what you are trying to get at there?

It seems to me that you are trying to say that "scientific methodology must make some certain, tentative conclusions in order to proceed, therefore do not be so critical of that feeling I have in my head that assures me that I can't be wrong about my god beliefs."

 

[anonymous person]

Good thing then that lots of people believing something don't make the object of belief any more real.

On this we agree.

 

[anonymous person]

Please list them and show other similarly useful ways of investigating reality aren't subject to the same issues.

Perhaps the most basic assumption in science is the uniformity of nature's laws and processes over deep time and deep space. That the laws of nature now operating are the same throughout the universe and that such laws operate the same throughout time. This assumption cannot be proven empirically. It is assumed by scientists a priori.

For more, visit:

Http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com/2014/01/16/presuppositions-of-science/


Similar presuppositions will be found in any discipline which is involved in investigating reality.

 

[zippy2006]

That's another distinction I don't see the need to make. In any case, I'm glad you've conceded the point I made earlier: skepticism can help to improve reliability.

If you don't make that distinction then you can't understand my argument. But I've found that the distinction between local and global skepticism gets at a crevasse in the atheist's mindset.

I don't recall making such an argument. It seems to me that the fundamental difference between religious people and non-religious people is their religiosity.

Well you haven't made it, but I was just trying to speed up the conversation. I have argued that humans are generally reliable truth-telling instruments and that religion is rather ubiquitous. In the scientific community such a consensus would be significant. Supposing the theory of evolution, for example, enjoys such a consensus, it would follow that its opponents have the burden of proof. It seems to me that you must end up conceding the burden of proof or else making the argument I noted.

I don't think anyone has made this specific claim in this thread. Earlier, I did note that "some set the bar so low for their preferred religious doctrines, even as they remain skeptical of all others." Similarly, in another thread I noted that the religious tend to reserve skepticism only for the claims of other religions. So believers are able to approach these matters skeptically, but they often invoke faith to shield their own dogmas from criticism.

It seems to me that you are doing just what I said. You are granting critical thinking abilities while denying their application. I don't find that distinction helpful. Even if I grant your response, there is still apparently a significant difference in believers and non-believers, precisely in their ability to apply and act upon their critical thinking abilities, or else to apply their critical faculties uniformly. Either way I think we'd both agree that such persons are not fully rational.

 

[Davian]

...
I have argued that humans are generally reliable truth-telling instruments

Generally, but one could argue that they are generally unreliable in some areas.

"The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns. So we make two types of errors: a type I error, or false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it is not; a type II error, or false negative, is not believing a pattern is real when it is. If you believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (a type I error), you are more likely to survive than if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (a type II error). Because the cost of making a type I error is less than the cost of making a type II error and because there is no time for careful deliberation between patternicities in the split-second world of predator-prey interactions, natural selection would have favored those animals most likely to assume that all patterns are real."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/

and that religion is rather ubiquitous.

As are beliefs in Bigfoot, conspiracy theories, and extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth in the past and/or present.

In the scientific community such a consensus would be significant.

Indeed. It would be like scientific methodology gone off the rails.

Supposing the theory of evolution, for example, enjoys such a consensus, it would follow that its opponents have the burden of proof.

No, it would follow that its opponent are unable to falsify the underlying scientific theories. Comparing consensus of opinion to scientific consensus is like comparing apples to orange crates.

It seems to me that you must end up conceding the burden of proof or else making the argument I noted.

It seems to me that that was a rather complicated attempt to shift the burden of evidence from the religionist. I sense a theme here.

 

[The Cadet]

Perhaps the most basic assumption in science is the uniformity of nature's laws and processes over deep time and deep space. That the laws of nature now operating are the same throughout the universe and that such laws operate the same throughout time. This assumption cannot be proven empirically. It is assumed by scientists a priori.

For more, visit:

Http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com/2014/01/16/presuppositions-of-science/


Similar presuppositions will be found in any discipline which is involved in investigating reality.

That last sentence really kneecaps your argument. The fact is that any epistemology is necessary founded on certain axioms and assumptions, without which it cannot function. That said, the assumption that natural laws and processes are uniform is quite firmly backed by literally every observation made ever. It's possible that they change, but incredibly unlikely.

The fact of the matter is that science works. It has undoubtably shaped almost every aspect of your life, from how you communicate to how you work to how you eat to even how you partake of your religion. The idea that we somehow shouldn't privilege science as an epistemology because it is not self-affirming and has axioms is silly - every epistemology has axioms, and what matters is not whether they are circular, but whether they work. And science works.

 

[anonymous person]

That last sentence really kneecaps your argument.

What argument are you referring to? I am not aware of any argument that I have made that would be kneecapped by what I said.

The fact is that any epistemology is necessary founded on certain axioms and assumptions, without which it cannot function.

This is what I have been arguing all along, namely that some beliefs are properly basic, call them axioms or assumptions or whatever you will.

That said, the assumption that natural laws and processes are uniform is quite firmly backed by literally every observation made ever. It's possible that they change, but incredibly unlikely.

But this is moot. The question is not whether or not science has a good track record. The question is whether or not scientists have presuppositions about reality that are not subject to being scientifically proven. The answer is yes, they do. It is no discredit to science or scientists to say this.

The fact of the matter is that science works.

My God works too.

It has undoubtably shaped almost every aspect of your life, from how you communicate to how you work to how you eat to even how you partake of your religion.

It has had a great impact on my life. I thank God for creating a world that is rationally intelligible and for giving me the capacity and ability to interact with it and learn about it. The heavens declare His glory, and the earth is the work of His hands.

The idea that we somehow shouldn't privilege science as an epistemology because it is not self-affirming and has axioms is silly - every epistemology has axioms, and what matters is not whether they are circular, but whether they work. And science works.

Science is one way of investigating reality. Not the only way. That is all I am saying.

 

[The Cadet]

My God works too.

...To what degree does it "work"? Can we demonstrate that it works?

Science is one way of investigating reality. Not the only way. That is all I am saying.

...Okay, so outside of scientific empiricism, what other ways are there? I've asked this question at numerous points, but have yet to get a decent answer. Just to be clear, this "other way" should not rely on empiricism, and should produce reliable, testably correct results.

 

[anonymous person]

...To what degree does it "work"? Can we demonstrate that it works?



...Okay, so outside of scientific empiricism, what other ways are there? I've asked this question at numerous points, but have yet to get a decent answer. Just to be clear, this "other way" should not rely on empiricism, and should produce reliable, testably correct results.

These questions are indicative of your epistemological presuppositions. Your particular epistemology is one that holds that propositions can only said to be known if they are empirically verifiable. This is scientism and is self-refuting as an epistemology. For the proposition, we should only believe propositions which are empirically verifiable, is itself, not empirically verifiable and thus cannot be said to be known to be true.

Historiography is a discipline that comes to mind. Events that have taken place in the past, for example, the crucifixion of Jesus, are not repeatable, observable, or subject to being proven to have taken place empirically. Yet we come to sound conclusions about what has taken place in the past all the time. Geology is a discipline like this as well. Sociology, ethics, literary criticism etc. are all disciplines that are off limits to the empirical.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is no testable model for proving the proposition "science will one day tell us how and why life arose" true.

But science has a track record of working.

Science has been proven reliable in some measure. From this, you trust it will be reliable in the future, but you can't prove that it will. You trust and believe it will.

That's why we go by its track record.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What's your point?

 

[sparow]

Hmm. Can't even get through the first sentence without getting emotional. That doesn't bode well.


Hold up. I'll need a testable model of god(s) before I can accept this claim. Where can I find one?



The existence of this thread disproves your claim.



I fail to see the point here, other than demonstrating some sort of feigned superiority and smugness. That's not the best approach if you want to win people over. That's especially true here where you're hoping we'll be swayed by your personality - at least I think that's what you're trying to do since there's certainly not much logic or reason presented.

The problem that Christians have is they are unable to define a spirit in tangible terms especially to people who refuse to accept spirits exist.

If you be intellectually honest you will be aware that the only god that cannot be proved to exist is the living God of Israel. All Pagan gods require to exist is that a tangible entity be deemed to be a God, Nimrod existed and according to some sources his birthday was 25 Dec., When he died he went to live in the Sun, so he and the sun became one god, the sun really exists and has been deemed a god and is worshiped as such, the crescent moon really exists and the working model is people being beheaded left right and centre; unless you have an irrational perception of what a god is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you don't make that distinction then you can't understand my argument. But I've found that the distinction between local and global skepticism gets at a crevasse in the atheist's mindset.

You'll need to clarify exactly what you mean because what you've written is uncharacteristically vague.

Well you haven't made it, but I was just trying to speed up the conversation. I have argued that humans are generally reliable truth-telling instruments and that religion is rather ubiquitous. In the scientific community such a consensus would be significant. Supposing the theory of evolution, for example, enjoys such a consensus, it would follow that its opponents have the burden of proof. It seems to me that you must end up conceding the burden of proof or else making the argument I noted.

This is nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The ubiquity of religion should not be confused for a consensus among religions. There is little agreement between them on any of the fundamental questions of theology or even on the methods and results needed to resolve this and thereby move toward a consensus.

 

[Davian]

...
My God works too.

As do the fairies that live at the bottom of my garden.

It has had a great impact on my life. I thank God for creating a world that is rationally intelligible and for giving me the capacity and ability to interact with it and learn about it. The heavens declare His glory, and the earth is the work of His hands.

And if there were no fairies, how then would the garden grow?

Science is one way of investigating reality. Not the only way. That is all I am saying.

Exactly what is this alternate way of investigating reality that you are alluding to?

 

[Davian]

The problem that Christians have is they are unable to define a spirit in tangible terms especially to people who refuse to accept spirits exist.

Well, if you cannot define what you are talking about, how can I even consider the question of its existence?

If you be intellectually honest you will be aware that the only god that cannot be proved to exist is the living God of Israel. All Pagan gods require to exist is that a tangible entity be deemed to be a God, Nimrod existed and according to some sources his birthday was 25 Dec., When he died he went to live in the Sun, so he and the sun became one god, the sun really exists and has been deemed a god and is worshiped as such, the crescent moon really exists and the working model is people being beheaded left right and centre; unless you have an irrational perception of what a god is.

That begs the question: how does one have an irrational perception of something that is not coherently defined?

 

[The Cadet]

These questions are indicative of your epistemological presuppositions. Your particular epistemology is one that holds that propositions can only said to be known if they are empirically verifiable.

Or properly basic. This is why the idea that scientism is self-refuting is wrong. The fact that an epistemology is not circular does not invalidate it in any way.

For the proposition, we should only believe propositions which are empirically verifiable, is itself, not empirically verifiable and thus cannot be said to be known to be true.

Actually, I'd argue you can verify it empirically, at least to a certain degree. How? Simply go to a used car dealership and take the dealer at his word, then see how well the car you get stacks up against what you were promised. Take things in your life on faith, and see if they stack up better than what random chance would expect. Empiricism works, that's why we use it, and that's why we should privilege it when it comes to the evaluation of claims.

Historiography is a discipline that comes to mind. Events that have taken place in the past, for example, the crucifixion of Jesus, are not repeatable, observable, or subject to being proven to have taken place empirically. Yet we come to sound conclusions about what has taken place in the past all the time. Geology is a discipline like this as well. Sociology, ethics, literary criticism etc. are all disciplines that are off limits to the empirical.

This is a very common misunderstanding, claiming that empirical discoveries based in the past are somehow not observable. In fact, we can observe the past by observing the present, and drawing inferences based on the available evidence. Geology is absolutely empirical, the same way that history, paleoclimatology, and the like are. You're confusing the hypothesis with the observation. The hypothesis need not be repeatable; the observations must be. In this case, "this rock is X years old" would be the hypothesis, and the repeatably observable evidence would be the isotopes of radioactive minerals present therein. Sure, we can't directly and repeatedly observe the rock being formed, but we can repeatably observe the evidence that leads, inexoriably, to that conclusion.

Meanwhile, sociology is, when it works, grounded in empiricism. Ethics is heavily grounded in empiricism, as empiricism tells us what is, and we necessarily form what ought to be from the results of what is - we ought not stab people because we know that stabbing hurts and we would dislike being stabbed, but it is often combined with pure logic. Literary criticism is, again, based on empiricism over our subjective responses to literature. There's no knowledge being gained there outside the realm of empiricism and pure logic.

So what methods do you use outside of empirical observation and logic to determine truths about reality?