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

[Ygrene Imref]

Interesting thread...

 

[Michael]

If you accept the premise that God has ultimate universal sovereignty, then there can be no free will in the absolute sense.

That seems too black and white for my tastes. I accepted my father as being the sovereign of our house as a child, but I still had free will. The fact he *could* impose his will doesn't mean he *must* do so.

I've often heard Christians talk about finding God's plan for their lives. Isn't this a tacit admission that they don't have truly free will?

I guess it depends on how you look at it. My parents had 'plans' for my future, but I'm sure I made decisions in there somewhere which didn't necessarily conform to those plans.

I suppose God may allow them to choose different paths, but they will all end at the same destination in accordance with God's will.

Ultimately I believe in universal salvation. In that context the path might be individually chosen, but the outcome is assured.

I agree fully. I consider myself an honest religious skeptic. And as I think about, I always have been. Even as a child--attending the usual Bible school for a time, and going to services occasionally--I never connected with religion. In the back of my mind, I always thought it was just make believe. I know this may sound self-serving, but--in all honesty--I've never felt any need for religion.

Helen Keller would tend to agree with you. She seemed to experience God before she even had any exposure to 'religion'.

OTOH...though I don't believe in any god, I do have a higher power. It's called my wife.

LOL!

 

[stevil]

There are other examples of "accepted' theories which defy falsification. You'll find some examples in those threads.

I'm not a scientist by profession, so I can't categorically say that you are wrong.

But, regarding an epistemological approach, how is one to determine the truth of something if it can't be verified? If you can't create a test that can distinguish whether your claim is true or false? How can you simply proclaim some unverified thing to be "truth"?

 

[Michael]

I'm not a scientist by profession, so I can't categorically say that you are wrong.

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

But, regarding an epistemological approach, how is one to determine the truth of something if it can't be verified? If you can't create a test that can distinguish whether your claim is true or false? How can you simply proclaim some unverified thing to be "truth"?

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

 

[pshun2404]

Unfortunately that does not answer my question - this seems to be all second-hand information which you have faith in ... but not personal knowledge.

I'd rather give the example of (if possible) preaching to a colony of ants, that in 3 generations they will be wiped out by a flood. And then, a couple of months later, I come by and dump a bucket of water into their anthill. Does that make me Almighty God?

No it makes you an evil atheist. What did the ants ever do to you. In God's story He gave us dominion over all things on the earth and we have a will to choose and thus are responsible for our own eternal destiny. WE desire to lord it over one another (be our own god) and THIS is what causes all dispute, divorce, war and so on. Man over woman, clan over clan, tribe over tribe, nation over nation, political or religious persuasion over any alternate persuasion....deciding what is right in our own eyes.

And though in denial you KNOW it is not "all second-hand information" I have faith in, it is historical fact and provided exactly what you asked for...so now do you believe? Of course not because all the evidence in the world cannot change your heart. You are the lord of "self" and you refuse to give that up.

 

[pshun2404]

I'm not a scientist by profession, so I can't categorically say that you are wrong.

But, regarding an epistemological approach, how is one to determine the truth of something if it can't be verified? If you can't create a test that can distinguish whether your claim is true or false? How can you simply proclaim some unverified thing to be "truth"?

Not my conversation but that is a ridiculous question. What constitutes verification? If 20 people experience the same thing or follow the same set of protocols and come to the same conclusion via the scientific method we say it is true. So it is with spiritual things.

Now even though no one can “prove” a God, gods, or anything outside of what materialists call “the natural order” by merely natural means (THAT”S ABSURD to even imagine such a thing….) so also no one can “prove” by the materialist’s limited definition of “proof” that God is not, but that however does not mean there is not evidence for a spiritual or alternative aspect of reality other than the purely material…they just will not accept empirical evidence as valid…

Here is my definition of the materialist by way of analogy. They are like a person inside a small corner of an infinitely huge box with total and sole faith in their quite limited perceptual faculties, their limited instrumentation that they intelligently design, and by experiments they always and only intelligently engineer. From these they draw limited and later altered conclusions...the same dichotomy exists in the extreme theist camps.

Philosophical reason however has given us 15 or 20 lines of reasoning that indicate there must be a God/Intelligence/creator…and zero lines of philosophical reasoning that indicates there must not be such a realm.

Further empirical evidence is shown in the conclusions of many, many, people (of every culture, both genders, all ages, different social strata, with varying degrees of education some very brilliant in their respected fields) that indeed this aspect of reality is on fact actual.

Because millions throughout the ages have personally experienced God/gods/higher intelligent force etc. (as well as other phenomena outside of what YOU would call the natural order), observed the effects of such being on themselves, others, and even society as a whole…and the many that have tested what He has claimed and found it to be true…(regardless of whether or not you have)!

This historically verifiable fact alone (not even considering other things like the purely prescient nature of Biblical prophecy, and other matters) IS empirical evidence that there is a God…

Thus if one follows a set of outlined protocols and comes to a certain conclusion, it is usually sufficient to establish cause for experimentation by others. If in the course of time millions of others who followed the same protocols come to the same conclusion, it is almost readily accepted as factually true. Now in fact millions of people throughout time have done just that in relation to this God and according to the protocols He has established. They have followed the protocols provided to the letter and have come to the same conclusion regarding the result. How is that?

 

[stevil]

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

Generally QM is testable/verifiable. Many of the paths that scientific knowledge of small things have gone down have been because of verified data. The data didn't show what we expected using classical physics, so we had to accept the QM explanations.
General transitivity explains gravity quite well I don't think quantum theory of gravity has been sufficiently formulated yet.

I know very little about LCDM, is this the generally accepted theory? Is it still a work in progress? Are there other competing theories?

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

What other causes are there for redshift? Are these viable explanations of what they see when they look at distant galaxies from all directions?

 

[ananda]

No it makes you an evil atheist. What did the ants ever do to you. In God's story He gave us dominion over all things on the earth and we have a will to choose and thus are responsible for our own eternal destiny. WE desire to lord it over one another (be our own god) and THIS is what causes all dispute, divorce, war and so on. Man over woman, clan over clan, tribe over tribe, nation over nation, political or religious persuasion over any alternate persuasion....deciding what is right in our own eyes.

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.

And though in denial you KNOW it is not "all second-hand information" I have faith in, it is historical fact and provided exactly what you asked for...so now do you believe? Of course not because all the evidence in the world cannot change your heart. You are the lord of "self" and you refuse to give that up.

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.

 

[pshun2404]

Generally QM is testable/verifiable. Many of the paths that scientific knowledge of small things have gone down have been because of verified data. The data didn't show what we expected using classical physics, so we had to accept the QM explanations.
General transitivity explains gravity quite well I don't think quantum theory of gravity has been sufficiently formulated yet.

I know very little about LCDM, is this the generally accepted theory? Is it still a work in progress? Are there other competing theories?

What other causes are there for redshift? Are these viable explanations of what they see when they look at distant galaxies from all directions?

Not my area so I will ask you both...If we were moving away from the distant object would we see it as red shift?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not my area so I will ask you both...If we were moving away from the distant object would we see it as red shift?

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

 

[quatona]

That seems like a highly subjective,

What do you expect when you ask "What evidence would you accept and find compelling?"?

and somewhat cryptically defined definition of the term evidence.

I didn´t even see the attempt to define the term "evidence" in his post.

 

[quatona]

There are some definitions of God which are purely empirical by design and could presumably be studied in a purely empirical manner.

Of course, we can always try to define the word "God" in a way that makes it point to something we believe exists.

But how did I know that you´d eventually answer like this even though you initially refused to give your definition for purposes of your question and left the definition to the respondents?

 

[stevil]

How is that?

I'll get back to this post soon, you have obviously put some effort into it, so it deserves a response, bed time now though.

 

[Michael]

Generally QM is testable/verifiable. Many of the paths that scientific knowledge of small things have gone down have been because of verified data. The data didn't show what we expected using classical physics, so we had to accept the QM explanations.
General transitivity explains gravity quite well I don't think quantum theory of gravity has been sufficiently formulated yet.

You're right that various aspects of QM can be verified, but we've never seen a graviton particle. Even though other options remain on the table to explain the phenomenon of gravity, and which remain more 'popular', the QM concept of quantum gravity based on a carrier particle of gravity can't be falsified.

I know very little about LCDM, is this the generally accepted theory? Is it still a work in progress? Are there other competing theories?

Yes, yes and yes.

As the QM definition demonstrates however, there isn't necessarily a method of falsification available for hypothetical particles like gravitons, and LCDM actually includes four such hypothetical processes/entities, not just one. Even still, it remains the most 'popular' cosmology theory, and there's no logical way to falsify it even if some other theory eventually becomes more popular over time.

What other causes are there for redshift? Are these viable explanations of what they see when they look at distant galaxies from all directions?

Edwin Hubble offered two potential solutions/explanations for cosmological redshift, expansion and "tired light", a coin first termed by Fritz Zwicky.

Today we know of many different types of inelastic scattering and we have a few hypothetical processes that need to be verified, which result in the photons losing some of their momentum to the plasma medium. The photons essentially 'bump' into things along the way, like temperature gradients and EM field gradients, and they experience what's called "inelastic scattering'. Scattering has been verified in the lab. Yes, tired light theories also describe events in space which are consistent with the observation of redshift/distance (Hubble relationship).

The maintream tries to rationalize away the tired light option, but that's what ultimately causes them to require three different hypothetical solutions to that same problem/observation. I'll stick with empirically demonstrated explanations thank you.

 

[Michael]

What do you expect when you ask "What evidence would you accept and find compelling?"?

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.

I didn´t even see the attempt to define the term "evidence" in his post.

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

 

[Michael]

Of course, we can always try to define the word "God" in a way that makes it point to something we believe exists.

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.

But how did I know that you´d eventually answer like this even though you initially refused to give your definition for purposes of your question and left the definition to the respondents?

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.

 

[stevil]

You're right that various aspects of QM can be verified, but we've never seen a graviton particle. Even though other options remain on the table to explain the phenomenon of gravity, and which remain more 'popular', the QM concept of quantum gravity based on a carrier particle of gravity can't be falsified.



Yes, yes and yes.

As the QM definition demonstrates however, there isn't necessarily a method of falsification available for hypothetical particles like gravitons, and LCDM actually includes four such hypothetical processes/entities, not just one.

As far as I understand, science is a method of discover and it involves many things such as "theoretical" and "experimental". If something is theoretical only and not backed up by experimental then I would be highly skeptical. I am highly skeptical about string theory. I don't have the education and math and physics competency needed to evaluate the theoretical side of it, but if this isn't backed up by experimental results and isn't falsifiable then I will be highly skeptical of it.

The Higgs particle was theoretical only at one stage, the scientific communitity put heaps of money and effort into the LHC in order to gain some evidence for it's existence. It shows how important experimentation is to science. Not just a theoretical model.

The maintream tries to rationalize away the tired light option, but that's what ultimately causes them to require three different hypothetical solutions to that same problem/observation. I'll stick with empirically demonstrated explanations thank you.

Thanks for all this information. I do love science. I am keen to keep my mind open to plausible options rather than just picking one.

 

[Michael]

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

What empirical evidence can you present to support the belief that the 'space' between objects can expand without the movement of objects?

 

[Michael]

As far as I understand, science is a method of discover and it involves many things such as "theoretical" and "experimental". If something is theoretical only and not backed up by experimental then I would be highly skeptical. I am highly skeptical about string theory. I don't have the education and math and physics competency needed to evaluate the theoretical side of it, but if this isn't backed up by experimental results and isn't falsifiable then I will be highly skeptical of it.

That's pretty much where I stand with current cosmology theory. I share your skepticism of string theory as do most.

The Higgs particle was theoretical only at one stage, the scientific communitity put heaps of money and effort into the LHC in order to gain some evidence for it's existence. It shows how important experimentation is to science. Not just a theoretical model.

Agreed. It was hypothetical at one point, but since subatomic particles show up in the lab, it was never beyond the scope of empirical physics. The same can't be said of string theory.

Thanks for all this information. I do love science. I am keen to keep my mind open to plausible options rather than just picking one.

Me too. I love science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What empirical evidence can you present to support the belief that the 'space' between objects can expand without the movement of objects?

The observed accelerating expansion of the universe:

Accelerating expansion of the universe - Wikipedia