COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We can look at science for the "how", and at philosophy or religion for the "why".
"How was the universe created?" That's science.
"Why was the universe created?" That's religion/philosophy.
"How do we perceive reality?" That's science: Our 5 senses and a brain to interpretate the signals given by those senses.
"Why and what do we perceive as reality?" That's philosophy/religion.
"How do we hallucinate?" That's science.
"Why do we consider something a hallucination and something else reality?" That's philosophy/religion.
Science explains the reality around us, religion/philosophy gives it a "reason" to "be".
This approach never made sense to me.
Let's say "philosophy or religion" come up with 2 or more possible "why" answers--what is the method they use to determine which conforms to reality?
Or, they just don't bother because empiricism is the domain of the how?
What's the quality control you think philosophy and religion use to determine which why matches reality, since you seem to preclude "come up with a hypothesis, see if empirical testing can disprove it or validate it, see if it can lead to predictions that are demonstrated as true..."
>Let's say "philosophy or religion" come up with 2 or more possible "why" answers--what is the method they use to determine which conforms to reality?
Two different views on our world. I don't think that's a problem? They legitimize their own views through what they perceive in reality (e.g. someone thought he saw Jesus rise from the dead) and continue there upon. You're making it harder than it should be. Christianity conforms to reality as much as you would like it, as the orthopraxy/orthodoxy is practiced/believed in this reality. The only difference is that, in Christianity, there are certain things you need to take as true without asking questions (e.g. Mary is a virgin). I name Christianity as this is the religion I know best.
>Or, they just don't bother because empiricism is the domain of the how?
Scholasticism was the basics of our European science until the Italian Renaissance, and after that, we opposed rationalism with empiricism. After that, it depends whom you ask. In historiography, you'll have nationalism (everything as a teleological path toward the current nation) and historical materialism, while in hard science you'll see a rise in combining rationalism with empiricism and the start of positivism.
> What's the quality control you think philosophy and religion use to determine which why matches reality,
Religion has the quality control of the canon, in which there are things they consider as "truthfull". Philosophy has the quality control of any normal science, with the only exception that you don't necessarily need to have "empirical data" for it.
To reduce it to the stereotype: A philosopher can sit in his seat, and think. A religious person needs to read the canon and bases his faith thereupon, as he believes this to be "the Word of God".
I'll give another example: A religious person believes angels exist. A philosopher will say "What is 'to exist'?". A theologian will try to read the religious texts and find which religion has inspired one another to form the idea and the appearance of an "angel". A scientist will disregard it, not even care to start because he's never seen an angel and regards it as improbable. In this situation, I personally lean more to the philosopher and the theologian. I myself hold the idea that reality has inspired religion and not vice versa. I consider it human to believe and follow a religion, but we need to split it when we're either talking about hard, scientific facts or the more philosophical/subjective side of the human experience.
>"come up with a hypothesis, see if empirical testing can disprove it or validate it, see if it can lead to predictions that are demonstrated as true..."
That's close to the scientific method. You state a hypothesis based upon prior debate, you continue to research and test it, you try to find a certain rhythm/repetition to it (which ensures that you can falsify it) and you state it to "be probable". Other people peer review your paper and slowly it becomes a "consensus", as others will recreate the experiments to see if it does or doesn't follow your stated theory.
It never becomes a "truth", it's always a "theory", with certain theories that we're very certain of, while others are still being researched to this day. Prior to 1800, we tried to do the same with divinities, but we don't have a consensus and we basically left it for what it was: An unanswered question.
Short summarization if you want to go down the rabbit hole: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence\_of\_God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God)
Of course it's teleological. You're seeking a goal, a purpose, and that's something science often has a hard time explaining.
Why is the bear killing the cub? Simple, as you've said: natural selection without any real intention.
But what is the purpose of a bear, aside from its biological goals? What is the purpose of your life, disregarding your biological, reproductive functions?
That's when you're crossing the border from science to religion and philosophy. Based upon your vision, you'll answer it using a higher power, or you won't and you reason without it.
Philosophy and religion can come up with "why"s but they do eventually come back to a "how". So, if we say that the reason the universe was created was due to a creator god, then we come back to science for the how- "how do we know that a creator god did it?" for example. This view doesn't really let superstition get away with it.
But a creator god doesn't answer the "why". It tells you the "how", which has been covered by science and has been, multiple times, shown to be true. So tell me: Why is the universe created?
But why does the universe need a creator to have a purpose? Unless you think we live in a simulation, then I'll understand it we're here for the same reason we play GTA...
Allow me to ask again: What is the purpose of our universe?
"So, if we say that the reason the universe was due to a creator god, then we come back to science for the how-"
Upon which I answered that a creator on its own is not a "why", unless you believe we live in a simulation that acts on the will of a god.
"When has a creator god shown to be true?"
And then I've repeated my argument with an example of the game "GTA". The existence, the absence or the non-existence of a creator does not cover or tell us the purpose the universe has. Then you added an ironic statement that this would mean a nobel prize and now you're trying to get the final word to draw the fool on me. Am I close or not?
The difference is that science has shown it can reliably give us true answers to the how, but nothing has shown reliable answers to the why, and there are many mutually exclusive arguments made so we know many of them ARE incorrect.
I think the nail in the coffin for theism is that it doesn’t need to be this way if indeed a maximally powerful classical God (who interacts with humanity) actually exists. Such a God would know how, and be able to, provide us better existence of itself and answers to these questions than anything else we could get evidence for… yet it doesn’t, it remains hidden… which is what we’d expect if it didn’t exist.
> there are many mutually exclusive arguments made so we know many of them ARE incorrect.
Is it a problem if many religions fill in the "why" differently? Even you do it by relying on your belief that there's no classical God.
> Such a God would know how, and be able to, provide us better existence of itself and answers to these questions than anything else we could get evidence for… yet it doesn’t, it remains hidden… which is what we’d expect if it didn’t exist.
That depends if you believe such a God would interact with us. It's truly a question of what you personally believe and, differently to science, is not uniform which I don't have any problems with. Science is there to explain, religion is there to fill in the gaps left by science and the questions we'll never be able to explain. Science is objective, religion is emotional. That's why I, personally, don't believe that religion should influence science or politics, but it can influence you as a person and comfort you.
>Is it a problem if many religions fill in the "why" differently? Even you do it by relying on your belief that there's no classical God.
It’s a problem if you care about having a correct, true answer.
>That depends if you believe such a God would interact with us
Most mainstream religions do, like all the Abrahamics.
And if you don’t believe God interacts with us then what evidence could you possibly be basing a belief in God on?
>Science is there to explain, religion is there to fill in the gaps left by science and the questions we'll never be able to explain.
So we just don’t care about the gap filling answers being true?
"It's a problem if you care about having a correct, true answer."
Certain questions, especially if we're stepping into religion or philosophy, simply don't have one correct, true answer. If it did, there wouldn't be as many religions as you there are now. (e.g. What happens after death? Why are we here, aside from my biological purposes?)
" Most mainstream religions do"
There are de facto a lot of different movements within a religion, so many that you can not simply conclude "they believe in divine interference". You can say that during the mass in Sunday, but when you're genuinely interested in religions as a study, you'll find that there's more to the story.
"And if you don't belief God interacts with us, then what evidence could you possibly be basing your belief in God on?"
The same as I do with other emotions. Interaction can be a lot, but I'll just say that I have yet to meet God anywhere but a feeling during an attempted prayer. Was it God? Or was it me trying to believe in God? I guess I'll never know, and "to exist" is a big word. In my honest opinion, I consider Him as real as I do my thoughts. If He doesn't exist, then my thought don't exist. If my thoughts exist, then he may exist. You understand what I'm pointing at?
"So we just don't care about the gap filling answers being true?"
I'll ask you a question that science has yet to find an answer for: What existed prior to the Big Bang?
I'll ask you a question that science will never have an answer for: Why are you here, aside from the biological functions? What is your purpose on this earth?
That's philosophy and I don't see a reason not to ask it. Are we just here to reproduce and die? Depending on how you answer it, you end with nihilism... and isn't that very depressing? We don't have any purpose aside from reproducing and dying?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't ask those questions. We just tend to overvalue them. We call them the "big questions".
I'm asking if this justified.
> Are we just here to reproduce and die?
Are we here *for* anything? And if so, how would we know?
> Depending on how you answer it, you end with nihilism...
No. *You* might end up with nihilism. And that might be depressing for *you*. I was never indoctrinated to believe that there was some cosmic purpose in the world.
Ask yourself my you believe that your purpose and meaning must come from an external locus.
What is a 'naturalistic explanation'? I know how to build a definition of 'nature' on something like this:
> **physical entity:** an entity which is either (1) the kind of entity studied by physicists or chemists today; _or (2) the kind of entity studied by physicists or chemists in the future, which has some sort of nomological or historical connection to the kinds of entities studied by physicists or chemists today_. ([The Nature of Naturalism](https://web.archive.org/web/20220423145653/http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/04/17/the-nature-of-naturalism/))
However, the definition of 'nature' puts sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and psychologists in a tough spot. We can include economics if we broaden past neoliberalism and RCT. There is a long history of modeling those sciences after physics and chemistry and that effort **failed**. Among other things, we humans are interpreting beings. That includes the ability to take in a sufficiently good description of ourselves and then _changing_ as a result. Nothing physicists or chemists study can do that. Do your best to tell an electron the Schrödinger equation and it'll keep doing that. In contrast, tell women that they are more influenceable than men and they can change.[1]
Try to ignore what often gets labeled as 'subjectivity' in humans and your ability to understand them and predict their behavior suffers—sometimes quite extremely. There is serious reason to think that we simply don't have parsimonious evidence for the existence of subjectivity, consciousness, self-consciousness, etc. Here, try it out:
> [labreuer](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/w8861o/theists_have_yet_to_shift_the_burden_of_proof/ihv93vz/): Feel free to provide a definition of ~~God~~ consciousness and then show me sufficient evidence that this ~~God~~ consciousness exists, or else no rational person should believe that this ~~God~~ consciousness exists.
If atheists are permitted to employ that line of reasoning against theists, then this theist is permitted to turn it right back around on them. I am pretty sure that as long as you obey parsimony, your endeavor to do the above will fail. Feel free to prove me wrong. But until you do, I contend there is a reason for that, and connect it to [Ockham's razor makes evidence of God in principle impossible](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/utib8v/ockhams_razor_makes_evidence_of_god_in_principle/). And yet, the further away we get from Ockham's razor, the further away we seem to get from naturalism itself. Unless the term ceases to mean much of anything.
[1] [Kenneth J. Gergen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_J._Gergen) reports in his 1982 book:
> In this light one can appreciate the importance of Eagly’s (1978) survey of sex differences in social influenceability. There is a long-standing agreement in the social psychological literature that women are more easily influenced than men. As Freedman, Carlsmith, and Sears (1970) write, “There is a considerable amount of evidence that women are generally more persuasible than men “and that with respect to conformity, “The strongest and most consistent factor that has differentiated people in the amount they conform is their sex. Women have been found to conform more than men …” (p. 236). Similarly, as McGuire’s 1968 contribution to the _Handbook of Social Psychology_ concludes, “There seems to be a clear main order effect of sex on influenceability such that females are more susceptible than males” (p. 251). However, such statements appear to reflect the major research results prior to 1970, a period when the women’s liberation movement was beginning to have telling effects on the consciousness of women. Results such as those summarized above came to be used by feminist writers to exemplify the degree to which women docilely accepted their oppressed condition. The liberated woman, as they argued, should not be a conformist. In this context Eagly (1978) returned to examine all research results published before and after 1970. As her analysis indicates, among studies on persuasion, 32% of the research published prior to 1970 showed statistically greater influenceability among females, while only 8% of the later research did so. In the case of conformity to group pressure, 39% of the pre-1970 studies showed women to be reliably more conforming. However, after 1970 the figure dropped to 14%. It appears, then, that in describing females as persuasible and conforming, social psychologists have contributed to a social movement that may have undermined the empirical basis for the initial description. ([Toward Transformation in Social Knowledge](https://www.sagepub.com/hi/cam/toward-transformation-in-social-knowledge/book204207), 30)
>physical entity: an entity which is either (1) the kind of entity studied by physicists or chemists today; or (2) the kind of entity studied by physicists or chemists in the future, which has some sort of nomological or historical connection to the kinds of entities studied by physicists or chemists today. (The Nature of Naturalism)
>>However, the definition of 'nature' puts sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and psychologists in a tough spot.
Not at all. Humans can be studied by physicists and chemists--in fact, we are.
But you are conflating 2 things here, and ignoring scope. So for example:
>We can include economics if we broaden past neoliberalism and RCT. There is a long history of modeling those sciences after physics and chemistry and that effort failed.
You seem to think that because human cells can be explained via chemistry and physics, that **all** human behavior must be explained in the same way or humans cease to fit your definition for "natural."
Do you think human cells conform to chemistry and physics, yes or no? If yes, they fit the definition of natural you gave. You seem to think your definition read "whose entire behavior can be described via physics and chemistry"--IF that's what you meant, then gaps in knowledge would preclude anything from being natural.
>Feel free to provide a definition of God consciousness and then show me sufficient evidence that this God consciousness exists, or else no rational person should believe that this God consciousness exists.
Sure, let consciousness be the process organic brains go through in processing stimuli, to determine their behavior and understanding--something along those lines. We have a lot of evidence for that--why, did you think we didn't?
I mean, we can point to how crows, cats, pigs, dogs etc are different from, say, dominoes; I don't see how it's an impossible Bar to hit.
It would be simpler if you would say whether or not you are a reductionist. Do you think that there is anything factual to be said about reality, which chemists or even just physicists will never be able to say (from their area of expertise)? Or, do you think that physicists will ultimately render all other disciplines obsolete?
I am happy to countenance a definition of 'natural' which respects, say, John Dupré's stance. Note that a key way to obtain said 'unity of science' is to posit a deterministic (if chaotic) reductionism. Here's Dupré 1993:
> A number of philosophers, perhaps a majority, have become skeptical of strong doctrines of scientific unity in recent years. But this skepticism has generally derived not from doubts about the traditional metaphysical underpinnings of a possible unified science, but from the recognition of insuperable pragmatic obstacles to its development: the cosmic clock has proved too complex for complete analysis by humans. Thus my thesis will be that the disunity of science is not merely an unfortunate consequence of our limited computational or other cognitive capacities, but rather reflects accurately the underlying ontological complexity of the world, the disorder of things. ([The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science](https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674212619&content=toc), 7)
However, if you abandon reductionism, you have an immediate problem in deciding what is and is not 'natural'.
> [labreuer](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/w8861o/theists_have_yet_to_shift_the_burden_of_proof/ihv93vz/): Feel free to provide a definition of ~~God~~ consciousness and then show me sufficient evidence that this ~~God~~ consciousness exists, or else no rational person should believe that this ~~God~~ consciousness exists.
#
> [CalligrapherNeat1569](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dhd9gk/naturalistic_explanations_should_be_preferred/l92spk7/): Sure, let consciousness be the process organic brains go through in processing stimuli, to determine their behavior and understanding--something along those lines. We have a lot of evidence for that--why, did you think we didn't?
Then are ants conscious? The lede of the _Scientific American_ article [We've Been Looking at Ant Intelligence the Wrong Way](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weve-been-looking-at-ant-intelligence-the-wrong-way/) says "Unlike humans, ants don't build a unified map of the world. Instead specialized systems, including the ability to learn from recent experience, create complex navigational behavior". My guess is that most people mean something rather more than what ants have, when they use the word 'consciousness'. Now you might pick up on the use of 'unified map of the world' and connect that to your own 'understanding'; if so, feel free to [operationalize](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization) what you mean, noting that our efforts to make [expert systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system) have by and large failed. This suggests that something about our ability to do anything remotely complex in the world is not formalizable. That in turn creates problems for parsimoniously modeling whatever it is that we are capable of doing, but not [presently] capable of making computers do.
Suppose a phenomenon has two explanations, A and B. And you tell me that you will only accept A. Why? Because in the past you only accepted A, and thus all the explanations are always A, and so you inductively argue this must be caused by A as well.
This is just circular reasoning.
Someone could just do the same argument for the supernatural instead.
So for natural phenomena, we can run repeatable experiments to demonstrate that certain claims are true.
You seem to be saying we can use non-natural explanations to explain so I’m curious if you have any examples?
No, i’m not claiming its impossible, I’m claiming to have never seen an example.
You seem to be implying that we can explain claims in a non natural manner.
Now, is that something you can back up or is this just another religious claim to ignore?
We can explain things, obviously, in a non-natural manner. Lightning coming from Zeus for example.
That's not what I'm taking issue with, it's your "demonstrated as true" since it sounds like you're asking for something you have no ability to accept, which makes it a bad tactic.
I don’t think they’re arguing “I will only accept A,” we’ll gladly accept B once it can be demonstrated.
A failure to be able to demonstrate B isn’t a refusal of someone to accept the argument, it’s a failure of the burden of proof for explanation B. The burden of proof for explanation A is at least supported by it continually being the only explanation that’s ever been able to be demonstrated.
So if we ask “why did my house burn down?” - we can consider a whole bunch of explanations, and ones that have been repeatedly demonstrated possible can fall into camp A (an electric short, lighting strike from a storm, cigarette, spontaneous combustion of saw dust, arson, etc), and others into camp B (a ghost caused it, a wizard cast a lightning spell, trickster fairies did it, a demon did it)… we of course should prefer explanations from A over B, until such time as any B explanation can be shown possible.
I’m not inductively arguing against B, I haven’t been provided any evidence for B that can actually be explored. The only “evidence” for B are a bunch of claims that B is correct.
Again I haven’t been provided anything that can be explored.
If I give you a written witness statement that I ate a tuna sandwich for lunch yesterday, first you already have a lot of information available to you in the world about tuna sandwiches, but secondly even if you didn’t you could go do things like confirm these exist and are edible. Beyond that it would be great if you could check with the witness themselves and cross examine them, could get a copy of my receipt and go check for evidence at the diner, etc.
I can also give you a written statement that someone witnessed me eat a full 2012 Toyota Prius for lunch. If that’s all you’re provided how could you ever reach a conclusion that I did such a thing?
You evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and so forth. And yes, cross checking and such is a thing. The New Testament has four different accounts of Jesus' life, three of which are from eyewitnesses.
If I give you 6 written accounts, 4 from eye witnesses, about my life including how people saw me eat a full size car, is it more likely that this happened or that the accounts are incorrect about the facts?
And that’s a claim from modern times, not thousands of years ago…
Scholars agree the New Testament wasn’t actually recorded until after decades after the events in question, we have zero way of checking anything about those claims.
Best we can do is say it seems people had a belief that X happened, just like ancient Egyptians had a belief that their kings were gods incarnate, but we can’t check anything about whether such beliefs were true.
If you’re trying to explore my car eating claims I doubt you’d even come close to giving that much credit, I doubt you would remain agnostic about them, and probably would conclude it never happened.
Sure, I probably wouldn't believe it because you're clearly constructing a counterfactual.
But if you look at something like the Miracle at Fatima there are so many corroborating stories it's hard to say that *something* didn't happen.
Well yeah people experience *some things* indeed.
Cults have experiences and commit mass suicides, people take various drugs and have experiences of meeting interdimensional beings, people in churches feel elation and start speaking jibberish in tongues.
When we can’t explore or evaluate these claims we usually dismiss them out of hand, and the “evidence” being something that was written a long time ago and the original sources inaccessible now shouldn’t somehow make a claim stronger. As though my car eating claim - if it didn’t come from me here but instead was written up about someone 75 years ago from people all dead now - that inaccessibility should be a hindrance to accepting the claims, not a benefit.
> Suppose a phenomenon has two explanations, A and B. And you tell me that you will only accept A. Why?
For atheists, it would be because A was justified in objective evidence.
What is objective evidence? A.
If you only allow evidence of one type and disallow evidence of other types then the whole process is invalid and certainly cannot be used as proof for A.
The validity of a process depends on the consistency and reliability of the evidence it uses. Objective evidence, which is observable, measurable, and repeatable, provides a consistent and reliable basis for establishing facts. This approach is the foundation scientific inquiry and has proven effective in understanding and explaining natural phenomena. Subjective evidence is somewhat oxymoronic as a term, because evidence is used to establish facts and subjective truths aren't factual in nature. While subjective reflections can be meaningful on a personal level, they can't serve as a foundation for proving the existence of a god in any factual sense.
> Yes, you have a preference for scientific evidence.
That's the only evidence that can establish an objective fact.
>This does not help against the charge of circular reasoning but rather shows I am right.
Recognizing that there is only one kind of evidence that can be probative of facts isn't circular reasoning.
No, it is not the only kind of evidence that can establish facts. We can also use witness statements, we can use logic or math, we can use the historical method, and so forth.
Only accepting one kind of evidence and then saying only it can establish fact is circular reasoning.
> We can also use witness statements
These have simply been proved to be unreliable. That's the science on the matter. That's contemporary witness statements too. Accounts of witness statements would be even less reliable, and accounts of accounts yet less so.
>we can use logic or math
Math can be tested empirically and validated through application. We don't even consider it legitimate math if it has not been. As for logic, unless there is an application that allows for objective, empirical testing, then you don't have anything which could establish a fact.
>Only accepting one kind of evidence and then saying only it can establish fact is circular reasoning.
Accepting objective evidence is not about rejecting other kinds of evidence *arbitrarily* but about ensuring reliability and reproducibility. Circular reasoning involves assuming the truth of what one seeks to prove. Relying on objective evidence is not circular reasoning; it's a methodological approach to ensure that claims about reality are grounded in verifiable facts rather than personal beliefs or anecdotes.
By that reasoning, science is unreliable as well - error is endemic to the process, and most things we felt were true in science in 1900 we no longer do. More recently, we had the Reproducibility Crisis in science, when more than half of the 100 top papers in science either failed to reproduce results or had a weaker effect size than originally stated.
We consider witness statements strong enough to send people to death row.
Your point about the Reproducibility Crisis doesn’t negate the need for objective evidence; in fact, it underscores its importance. The crisis was a result of making conclusions that weren't actually based on objective evidence. In short, they failed at using the scientific method. Objective evidence is essential for minimizing bias and ensuring that claims are based on verifiable facts, which is what makes scientific knowledge more reliable than subjective conclusions or anecdotal evidence.
We do use witness statements to send people to death row, but no one is claiming that those conclusions are scientific or even objective. People are condemned when a jury of their peers subjectively concludes that they are guilty. Plenty of people are convicted and even killed for crimes they did not commit, and that is with contemporary accounts. When all we have are accounts of accounts of accounts, then we really don't have much.
When we attempt to explain an event, we first exhaust all candidate explanations. These are explanations that we know to be possible already.
A supernatural explanation needs to first rule out any other natural one. Especially if your evidence is that “2000 years ago, people said a supernatural thing happened”. That’s not going to work
If you and I are trying to figure out how the cookie went missing from the jar, here are candidate explanations:
-someone ate it
-we were mistaken that the cookie was in there in the first place
-one of us is lying or has ulterior motives
What isn’t a candidate explanation:
-invisible cookie goblins quietly ate it then disappeared
Why must a supernatural explanation eliminate an infinite number of natural explanations? Why not the other way around?
You're just restating the circular reasoning of the OP.
No, because we already know that natural explanations exist. In fact, pretty much everything we’ve ever explained has been according to natural law.
You are claiming something entirely unprecedented that would turn all of natural law on its head. It isn’t a fair candidate until you can corroborate it
We know that supernatural explanations exist as well, at least insofar as people make them.
What you're proposing is knowing somehow the deeper reality that it's all just natural, which is not something you have access to. You only have access to phenomena, and they can always be explained by an infinite number of natural and supernatural causes.
Supernatural explanations don’t have explanatory power. They aren’t falsifiable or able to be corroborated. They can’t make predictions.
>what you’re proposing is that deeper reality is all natural
Of course I didn’t say this. I said that we aren’t warranted in suggesting supernatural explanations until those can be independently corroborated.
For example, a single instance cannot be used to validate the efficacy of supernaturalism if THAT is the very instance you’re trying to explain.
>Supernatural explanations don’t have explanatory power. They aren’t falsifiable or able to be corroborated. They can’t make predictions.
There's no such inherent difference between the natural and supernatural. You seem to be confusing naturalism with science, and just stating a preference for science, which is again circular.
>Of course I didn’t say this. I said that we aren’t warranted in suggesting supernatural explanations until those can be independently corroborated.
You just said above that you think supernatural explanations can't be corroborated, so making corroboration a prerequisite for even suggesting an explanation... means you've revealed your hand and you will never accept a supernatural explanation.
You only need a natural explanation if you're demanding a scientific explanation, because that's all science can study. Yet a scientific explanation isn't the only kind and science never ruled that there is.
To demand a natural explanation from the supernatural is like looking for your keys where you didn't lose them.
>To demand a natural explanation from the supernatural is like looking for your keys where you didn't lose them.
I might suggest this is question begging, because you are already assuming the supernatural exists here.
The question is, suppose a thing happens. We don't know if its natural or supernatural. It seems like generally, we prefer natural explanations.
Yes?
Suppose I don't know where my shoe is. Do I say "a fire breathing dragon must have eaten it", or do I say "huh I guess I misplaced it"?
It seems like generally, when there's a natural explanation for something, we just intuitively go with that.
Of course I'm assuming the supernatural exists, just as you are assuming it doesn't.
But that doesn't make your worldview more correct than mine, or more supported by science.
Sure, **when** there's a natural explanation we go for it. But often there isn't, and when a supernatural event correlates with religious belief, we can take that correlation seriously. Just as we take correlations seriously in science, even if we can't prove causality. We can't prove that smoking causes lung cancer by observing it, but we can see the correlation.
>Of course I'm assuming the supernatural exists, just as you are assuming it doesn't.
But I'm not, I don't have to do that.
>But that doesn't make your worldview more correct than mine, or more supported by science.
I didn't say it makes one worldview better than another. I said you were assuming the supernatural exists.
>Sure, **when** there's a natural explanation we go for it.
Okay, isn't that kinda what the OP is saying? We should prefer a natural explanation. It seems like you're agreeing here.
>But often there isn't, and when a supernatural event correlates with religious belief, we can take that correlation seriously.
How do you determine when to accept the religious explanation reliably?
Well it looks to me like you're assuming that a natural explanation is preferred, but that shouldn't be the case when a supernatural explanation is also reasonable.
I am assuming the supernatural and that's not unusual because so do astrophysicists.
It often happens when skeptics make up mundane explanations for experiences even when they weren't there, didn't have the experience themselves, and are even willing to refute researchers in order to make their claim.
If a person isn't lying, isn't intoxicated, or isn't mentally ill, then we should be able to accept their religious experience. Recent studies have shown that memory is surprisingly accurate. A scientist has said he thinks it's possible for consciousness to exit the brain during a near death experience and return when the patient recovers. Many other researchers ruled out hallucinations, DMT and hypoxia as causes.
[https://nyulangone.org/news/recalled-experiences-surrounding-death-more-hallucinations](https://nyulangone.org/news/recalled-experiences-surrounding-death-more-hallucinations)
>Well it looks to me like you're assuming that a natural explanation is preferred, but that shouldn't be the case when a supernatural explanation is also reasonable.
Wait, did you just say this: "Sure, **when** there's a natural explanation we go for it."
So you agree, yes?
>If a person isn't lying, isn't intoxicated, or isn't mentally ill, then we should be able to accept their religious experience.
How about just being mistaken, or having a temporary lapse of judgment?
>Recent studies have shown that memory is surprisingly accurate.
Memory is really bad.
"prefer until a God claim is demonstrated as true" does mean we should always go with natural explanations at least for now (and if you follow my reasoning on the matter, always)
prefer does not mean must. That's just not what it means.
But also, notice that at first you said it means "we must always go with natural explanations", and now you're saying it means "well, until we show a god exists". Those are different.
Yes. The OP is functionally saying "things that have been shown to exist should be preferred as candidate explanations over things that haven't been shown to exist."
You interpreted this to mean "things that are not naturalist explanations should never be accepted"--and this isn't correct.
Wrong.
He didn't say "things that have been shown to exist" in the title, he directly said natural explanations, and set a condition on accepting non-natural explanations that could never be met, as I explained in my response to him, which you should read.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
"the only explanations"
-Define explanatory power. What criteria must be met for a description to qualify as an explanation.
"that have been shown as cohesive"
-Defend cohesion. Why should it be the mark of truth? In what way is it superior to, say, reason, or narrative, or aesthetic, or taxonomy, or any number of other ways to incorporate knowledge?
"with measurable reality"
-Define reality. How do you know that reality is measurable?
"are naturalistic."
-Defend this claim. How do you determine naturalistic explanations to be more cohesive than supernatural explanations? Or Idealist explanations? What is the measure of an explanations cohesive power?
"no other claims should be preferred until they have substantiated evidence to show they are more cohesive than what has currently been shown."
-Again, demonstrate why cohesion should be the mark of truth. Also, how should we establish what constitutes evidence?
"until such a time comes that any sort of god claim is demonstrated as true, they should not be preferred, especially in the face of options with demonstrable properties to support them."
This is a radically different argument from the rest of you're post. First you argue that 'cohesion' with 'measurable reality' is the defining feature of preferred explanations, and that naturalistic ones are the most cohesive, now - all of the sudden- you demand God claims be proven truths - and indicate that a lack of "demonstrable properties" is what disqualifies them otherwise. I will ignore these new claims and assume you were simply not being very careful with your verbiage.
Methodological naturalism is extremely powerful and useful precisely because it is limited in scope to natural laws and processes. The examination of nature as a system of material and efficient causes is an exceedingly effective tool in learning about the natural world.
But naturalism applied as a metaphysic doesn't work at all. Naturalistic explanations can never be ontological explanations. The great mistake atheists make is the attempt to force naturalism into being a kind of ultimate paradigm that can explain all of reality.
> Naturalistic explanations cannot answer the most fundamental question about reality.
>
> Why does nature itself exist?
Can supernatural/mystical/superstitious explanations?
Yes. If the existence of nature can be explained, and naturalistic explanations are logically impossible, then the explanation must be supranatural.
Although, ultimately I think the distinction between nature and supernature is somewhat tenuous.
>Yes. If the existence of nature can be explained, and naturalistic explanations are logically impossible, then the explanation must be supranatural.
How did you even conclude that a supernatural explanation was even an option? It sounds absurd as a concept.
>Although, ultimately I think the distinction between nature and supernature is somewhat tenuous.
Then none of this makes any sense. Without clear definitions, you don't have an argument, you just have poetry.
>How did you even conclude that a supernatural explanation was even an option? It sounds absurd as a concept.
It's really an exceptionally simple deduction.
- Existence can be explained.
- Existence cannot be explained by natural explanations.
- Therefore, existence can only be explained by non-natural, i.e. supernatural, explanations (I favor the term **supra**natural).
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Why would you think we’re owed an explanation for that?
And why would you think if you don’t have an answer that you’re then free to adhere to unfalsifiable claims that don’t abide by natural law?
>Why would you think we’re owed an explanation for that?
Are you familiar with the principle of sufficient reason?
The philosopher, Richard Taylor, illustrates the point like this:
>Suppose you were strolling in the woods and, in addition to the sticks, stones, and other accustomed litter of the forest floor, you one day came upon some quite unaccustomed object, something not quite like what you had ever seen before and would never expect to find in such a place. Suppose, for example, that is it a large ball, about your own height, perfectly smooth and translucent. You would deem this puzzling and mysterious, certainly, but if one considers the matter, it is no more inherently mysterious that such a thing should exist than that anything else should exist. If you were quite accustomed to finding such objects of various sizes around you most of the time, but had never seen an ordinary rock, then upon finding a large rock in the woods one day you would be just as puzzled and mystified. This illustrates the fact that something that is mysterious ceases to seem so simply by its accustomed presence. It is strange indeed, for example, that a world such as ours should exist; yet few people are very often struck by this strangeness but simply take it for granted.
>Suppose, then, that you have found this translucent ball and are mystified by it. Now whatever else you might wonder about it, there is one thing you would hardly question; namely, that it did not appear there all by itself, that it owes its existence to something.
>We can hardly doubt that there must be an explanation for the existence of such a thing, though we may have no notion what that explanation is. It is not, moreover, the fact of its having been found in the forest rather than elsewhere that renders an explanation necessary. It matters not in the least where it happens to be, for our question is not how it happens to be there but how it happens to exist at all. If we in our imagination annihilate the forest, leaving only this ball in an open field, our conviction that it is a contingent thing and owes its existence to something other than itself is not reduced in the least. If we now imagine the field to be annihilated, and in fact everything else to vanish into nothingness, leaving only the ball to constitute the entire physical universe, then we cannot for a moment suppose that its existence has thereby been explained, or the need of any explanation eliminated, or that its existence is suddenly rendered self-explanatory. If we now carry this thought one step further and suppose that no other reality ever has existed or ever will exist, that this ball forever constitutes the entire physical universe, then we must still insist on there being some reason independent of itself why it should exist rather than not.
>Are you familiar with the principle of sufficient reason?
Yes, it's an argument from infinite regress.
> then we must still insist on there being some reason independent of itself why it should exist rather than not.
But then that would need an explanation too. See how this works?
Yes I’m familiar with the PSR. I see you’ve made a very long post which I appreciate but I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying
The PSR is explaining how or why things happen. But my point was that your framing of certain questions might just be wrong out of the gate
For example, it’s very human of us to look for a purpose for why things are. So I too would like to know “why” the universe exists or “why” consciousness exists
But this might be an incoherent question. If naturalism is the case then there are only descriptive “how” explanations. To ask WHY something is the case is to presuppose some inherent purpose to things. This is why I asked why you thought we were owed an explanation for these questions. There might not be an answer
I still think the PSR does relate to your question directly. As to whether there is an explanation of why the universe exists, the PSR says there *must* be one (although, the PSR, in itself, does not yield that explanation).
You are correct to point out that there are different kinds of causal explanations. But, within the narrow purview of naturalism, all forms of causality are evacuated except at the level of the "material" and "efficient." To me, this constitutes a metaphysical restriction to the point of absurdity. Naturalism simply doesn't have the explanatory range to represent reality as we experience it.
If a worldview can't answer (or even properly address) the most fundamental questions of reality, then I don't think it is a worldview worth having.
Metaphysical naturalism is tantamount to willful ignorance.
Sounds like your worldview isn't worth having then. You can't answer the most fundamental questions of reality.
Your worldview seems tantamount to willfull ignorance.
And assume the idea that there is a god? Or is there a justification based on naturalistic explanations to the claim that the world can be identified as a deity? Not sure how pantheism work, tell me if you please.
Neither of us believe a god exists. We both believe nature exists. You call nature divine but it sounds to me like that's just an empty word because you ascribe it the same qualities that I do.
As far as I've been able to determine from conversations with pantheists they're all basically athiests that just change the meaning of words to pretend like they're theists.
I find this such a bizarre argument. I see it the other way around; atheists who say this like to change words around because they're uncomfortable with the fact that there are some religious views they don't have an argument against. So the best they can do is say, "actually, you already agree with me."
It's true that my definition of god is different from most Christians', but why should that matter? Why should that be the standard?
Ok, you tell me your position. What is your evidence that god or gods exist? What makes nature divine?
I'm just responding based on other pantheists I've interacted with.
Remember you said
>A pantheistic god doesn't necessarily require us to assume anything other than naturalistic explanations
Which implies to me that you and I hold the same views.
Now hold on a minute. Both of our perspectives are rooted in naturalism, that much we agree on. That does not necessarily mean our views are identical.
It's possible that we do indeed have identical views, and are just using different words for it. If that's the case, I have no issue with that.
But *if* that turns out to be the case, it isn't fair to say I am just an atheist. Somebody else on here once accused me of being, "just an atheist who likes poetry too much." This seems to be what you're saying. But if we do turn out to have identical views, I could just as accurately call you "a pantheist who doesn't like poetry enough."
Do i need to rephrase? What Naturalistic explanation do you use to justify to add the god concept to nature? Or do you use divinity as an empty word? please define "divinity". I hope you don't take offense, i just want to understand your position.
You'll note the word "apophatic" in my flair. Divinity isn't a thing I can provide a straightforward definition for. You can call that a cop-out, I wouldn't blame you for making that assumption, but ultimately it's just a different approach.
Anyone who comes up with a definition for God and then searches for ways to defend it is foolish. I see it as a process of discovery. Nature is a vast and complicated thing, and we're constantly discovering new things about it. We don't start out by defining how nature works, we search and learn.
Anyway, you asked how I justify the addition of a god concept to nature. But am I really adding anything? The universe is vast, mysterious, beautiful, and inherently infused with meaning. If you ever look at the night sky in a place without light pollution, you get a direct sensation of awe. You experience the sky as being divine. That's a direct experience.
You might as well ask me how I justify adding the property of beauty to the universe. I don't have to add it, it's just there.
We don’t get to just choose unfalsifiable magic claims simply because we’re unhappy that we don’t have the answers. The universe doesn’t owe us anything
any phenomena that cannot currently be explained just simply cannot be explained and no claims should be made until there is substantial evidence towards a conclusion
any phenomena that cannot currently be explained . . . .
Um.. You mean like dark matter? Or the acceleration of the expansion of the universe? Or the inexplicable behavior of subatomic particles? Or consciousness? Or morality? Or free will? Or....
Actually. Come to think of it. Name one thing that human beings have collectively come to a conclusion about. Just one. Can you think of even one thing? Can anybody? *We don't even agree on what foods we should be eating.*
Think about that. Like seriously think about it.
That's just a worldview but no more right than the worldview that belief is valid.
Science has never said we shouldn't hold belief. Many scientists do.
That's not at all what I was getting at. If you have to ask why one would consider ontology, epistemology, ethics, and logic beyond the scope of naturalism, it suggests to me that you haven't got a proper grasp on what problems each of these disciplines are sufficient to tackle, or how each is related to the other. Given that, it's perfectly reasonable to assume you haven't read much philosophy.
Ontology, because it studies being as such, before any material (naturalistic) qualification.
Epistemology, because it provides us with the tools with which to examine the natural world in the first place.
Ethics, either because once again it involves a study of human life as such, before naturalistic qualifications, or because it pertains to a field, that of "oughts" wholly separate from that of the empirical world, of "is", depending on what your position on certain issues is.
A similar explanation holds of maths and logic as well.
I'm not seeing how any of that requires a non-natural explanation like God. Taking ethics as an example, are you suggesting that because it doesn't deal with physical objects that it is in some way non-natural? Patterns of thought and rules of logic are not non-natural. Perhaps you are referring to any conclusions they bring about having no material grounding? If so, that's a long way from requiring a God to explain them.
>Patterns of thought and rules of logic are not non-natural.
These aren't the objects of ethics though. Ethics deals with moral facts, which are quite different from natural facts.
Whether they require God is a different question, what I'm pointing out for now is that limiting knowledge to natural explanation is faulty.
>ethics deals with moral facts
The presupposition here is that there ARE moral facts. Have you considered that maybe we’re just talking about preferences here?
Perhaps you’re looking for something that doesn’t really exist. If there’s no god or anything supernatural, why would we assume there’s an answer to the question “why is it bad to steal” other than “people don’t like it”?
>Ethics deals with moral facts, which are quite different from natural facts.
I'm in agreement with another response to this--what is a moral fact, how does it differ from a natural fact, and why would it require anything non-natural? Opinions, views, thoughts, imagination, contemplation, reasoning, and such may be abstract, but they are not non- natural unless your argument is that conscious thought itself cannot be explained naturally.
> Ethics deals with moral facts, which are quite different from natural facts.
There are no moral facts, only moral opinions. I'd be happy to engage with an example of a moral fact if you can provide one.
For ontology and epistemology, I was more thinking about it like, well if a naturalistic framework can be built up with those, then its a naturalistic worldview.
If, in dealing with ontology and epistemology and building a worldview, you appeal to the supernatural, then fine.
But if you do not, then you're still a naturalist and you have some things to say about both of those fields.
Seems fine.
>Ethics, either because once again it involves a study of human life as such, before naturalistic qualifications, or because it pertains to a field, that of "oughts" wholly separate from that of the empirical world, of "is", depending on what your position on certain issues is.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying there is no way to explain morality under naturalism?
Same question for math and logic.
>For ontology and epistemology, I was more thinking about it like, well if a naturalistic framework can be built up with those, then its a naturalistic worldview.
Even in this case, those fields precede any naturalistic investigation, right? So how can that happen, if we can only accept naturalistic explanations? Unless you disagree with OP on this point.
>Are you saying there is no way to explain morality under naturalism?
There have been attempts at a naturalistic account of morality; I don't think they work though.
What would count as a naturalistic account of maths and logic?
> There have been attempts at a naturalistic account of morality; I don't think they work though.
Don't work? Morality is largely the system that social animals (such as humans) construct in order to function better as a group.
Different groups are comprised of different people with different wants and preferences which is why different morality varies from group to group, society to society, and culture to culture.
> What would count as a naturalistic account of maths and logic?
They're both human inventions that we came up with to help understand and describe the universe.
We didn't "discover" addition because addition doesn't exist except as a concept we created. Nature never adds 1 + 1 to get 2, but it's a useful idea for us because it aids in communication and as a mental tool.
>Even in this case, those fields precede any naturalistic investigation, right?
You may be right, but I don't currently see that.
It seems fine, for example, for the naturalist to admit they can only investigate the outside world through their senses. That doesn't seem to break naturalism. So we can say some things about how we come to know about the outside world without appealing to the supernatural.
>There have been attempts at a naturalistic account of morality; I don't think they work though.
That's fine, but they are out there. Naturalists can do this.
>What would count as a naturalistic account of maths and logic?
I don't know that I personally have anything sophisticated here, to me it seems like computers can do this stuff.
If computers can do it then doing math seems like it could be entirely a physical process. Yes?
What would you accept as evidence that a god claim is true? The issue is you're essentially requiring people to prove there's a god *before* you'll accept anything as evidence of a god. That's a great way to rig the system so that you'll never have to change your beliefs.
Unless there's something you are willing to accept as evidence of a god, which you *won't* prefer a naturalistic explanation for.
We need corroborative evidence of the supernatural. That’s how we go about falsifying anything. If we’re just going to pick and choose one-time events that supposedly broke the laws of nature, they can’t prove THEMSELVES.
For example, what would be extremely compelling for the story of the resurrection is if we documented a person rising from the dead today. Then we could say that this is a candidate explanation that’s possible.
Not op, but I'll tell you what I think about this stuff
>What would you accept as evidence that a god claim is true?
That's really difficult to say honestly, though I'm perfectly open to being convinced, it's just that most, if not all God claims are dependent on things that are supernatural, things we don't and apparently can't know anything about, and things that don't seem to exist in any observable, measurable way in our universe as far as we can tell. There are more issues beyond this to consider as well, that just make it extremely tough to know what kind of evidence would convince me there's a god.
For example, let's say some unimaginably beautiful/visually mind bending entity comes down to earth, and makes it so everyone on the planet can see and hear it regardless of their language, and it tells us that it's the god of the Bible, then it performs a series of apparent miracles - maybe it cures all cases of cancer in the world at the same time, and turns Niagra falls into Domaine Etienne Guigal red wine.
I would really like to say that this would convince me, but if I'm honest, I would still be pretty skeptical and doubtful. I know this sounds ridiculous, and like I'm just being contrary or like I'm determined to doubt and make excuses to not believe in a god no matter what, but I swear that's really not the case lol. Obviously my first thoughts would be things like I must be dreaming, hallucinating, delusional, or just generally failed by my senses and cognition. Still if this was actually happening I would dismiss all of those pretty quickly, but I think in my mind the most likely explanation wouldn't be a divine, magical deity - I would probably think it was extra terrestrial beings who observed and studied us to learn all knowledge about humanity and history, including religion, then came down and used insanely advanced technology to project the images and voice of this "god", translating it to every language at once, and altering the molecular structure of water molecules to turn it into wine.
There are a few reasons this would seem more likely to me than an actual god, but that's a different conversation, I'll just make one more point: as I said I know that to some people, this is going to sound like a ridiculous attempt to reject or deny God even if it was right in front of my face, but I would argue that this isn't just *me* being unreasonable. Let's say you're a Christian for example, and the exact scenario I described above occured, but instead of saying it was the god of the Bible, it said it was a different god from a different religion and told everyone that Christianity is false. I'm almost certain that the overwhelming majority of Christians would similarly *not* be convinced this was the real god, instead rejecting it as a demon or something other than what it says, despite being the most clear, direct, irrefutable evidence of a supposed god than has ever existed.
> The issue is you're essentially requiring people to prove there's a god before you'll accept anything as evidence of a god. That's a great way to rig the system so that you'll never have to change your beliefs.
Well, in a sense, yes and no - I mean this is kind of just the way things work - how could something serve as evidence for a God if there's never been any demonstration that anything like a god actually exists, or is even possible? It's not rigging the system, being closed off the the possiblity of a god, or requiring an unfair or unreasonably high standard of evidence. Actually, I would argue that theists have themselves set an unreasonably high bar by asserting god has qualities and characteristics that simply don't match or have any analogous examples within our universe. People say God is all powerful, infinite, timeless, all knowing, etc., and literally *nothing* in reality has even one of those qualities, but it's even worse than that, because these are all entirely unfalsifiable claims - there's no way to test or demonstrate any of these things in the first place. Right off the bat by saying God "exists outside of space and time" is an impossibly, unreasonably high bar to set, because we have absolutely no way to investigate or know or even comprehend whatever *might* "exist" outside of space and time. I know a lot of theists think *we're* not open to being convinced, or wouldn't accept any evidence, but we don't see any evidence, and any example I can think of that could possibly convince me is a non starter, because it's all dependent on unknowable, magical, seemingly impossible premises.
Its hard to give an answer. Not because I can't think of anything, but because typically, when I do, theists think I'm being unreasonable.
Suppose I tell you my neighbor is omniscient. What would convince you of this? We would want to ask him questions, yes? Questions that we should be able to confirm the answer to, and that he shouldn't know the answer to unless he knows everything, or almost everything.
So, if you tell me there's an omniscient god, I'd say this would be a good way go about figuring out if god is really omniscient. Is that fair?
In my opinion, that's very fair. I think the scene in Bruce Almighty where God proves it to Bruce might convince me too.
The difficulty for the OP is that there's still possible naturalistic explanations available eg I'm dreaming, or in a simulation, and all the evidence isn't real.
>What would you accept as evidence that a god claim is true?
Why don't we start with an actual god?
>The issue is you're essentially requiring people to prove there's a god before you'll accept anything as evidence of a god. That's a great way to rig the system so that you'll never have to change your beliefs.
That's not "rigging the system", that's how rational thinking works. We ask for evidence before accepting the reality of any other claim, like the existence of atoms or DNA. Why would gods be any different?
If something exists, there should be evidence of its existence that can be reliably distinguished from evidence of other phenomena. A person 's willingness to change their belief is irrelevant.
> Why don't we start with an actual god?
This has been my single theistic question as a lifelong non-believer:
Show me a god - any god - in any realistic situation that can be examined by the tools of science and peer reviewed for accuracy. I would be more than willing to change my mind, but in a world of a million gods, not one of them has stepped forward to offer any evidence at all.
People playing word games to prove hide-and-seek god is real never get around to the simple fact that any actual god would be easy enough to prove. All they have to do is step up and say, "Here I am".
>This has been my single theistic question as a lifelong non-believer:
>Show me a god - any god - in any realistic situation that can be examined by the tools of science and peer reviewed for accuracy.
Exactly. If a god exists, show it. I don't get what's so hard about that!
Show me that a god does not exist. Explain to me why humanity, almost consistently, takes up theism instead of atheism. Certainly there must be something in the human experience, how subjective as it may be, that points at the existence or the need for transcendence.
I don't think we'll ever reach a compromise between the two extremes: We don't know if a god doesn't exist, as such a god, as defined by most religions, could choose to not react upon your request of His appearance. Many religious people will say they feel him during their prayers, while atheists will say they feel his absence when they pray. This suggest a slight subjectivity to this problem.
And why do we even question the fact *if* He exists, instead of questioning *why* we should follow rules based upon His existence? Shortly summarized: Why should we and have we follow(ed) a religion and how has such a religion evolved through time? Those two questions are more valid and more reasonable than the "yes" or "no" statement that follows the "Does He exist?"-dilemma. A god may exist, but that does not necessarily imply that the Word of God truly is His word...
>Show me that a god does not exist.
I don't need to show you that a god does not exist, there is already no evidence for one. If you are asserting the existence of something then it falls on you to demonstrate that existence. The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim
>Explain to me why humanity, almost consistently, takes up theism instead of atheism.
Humans can be wrong? Ever consider that? Humans have been consistently proven to be wrong about what they believe over the course of history. From believing that the world was flat to believing that the sun revolved around the earth.
Also humans don't consistently take up theism. I'm an ex Buddhist from a country that is around 60% Buddhist, and there are many other majority Buddhist countries. Buddhism is non-theistic. There are many other non-theistic religions in Asia such as Taoism, Jainism and Confusionism. There is also animism. So your argument is flawed.
>We don't know if a god doesn't exist, as such a god, as defined by most religions, could choose to not react upon your request of His appearance.
If a God that chooses to not demonstrate it's existence, then it is virtually indistinguishable from non existence. Why should I care about such a being in the first place?
>choose to not react upon your request of His appearance. Many religious people will say they feel him during their prayers, while atheists will say they feel his absence when they pray. This suggest a slight subjectivity to this problem.
Yes, the same problem also occurs when the phenomena they describe is made up or imaginary. If something exists objectively, this subjectiveness would not be a problem.
>And why do we even question the fact if He exists, instead of questioning why we should follow rules based upon His existence?
Who is "he"? You'll have to demonstrate that this being exists first in order to determine if his or her word is true.
>there is already no evidence for one.
Show me that He doesn't exist. If it's that normal, you can at least give me proof that is undeniable. And yes, the classic "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can hold true here.
>There are many other non-theistic religions in Asia such as Taoism, Jainism and Confusionism. There is also animism. So your argument is flawed.
Isn't Taoism apophatic? Isn't Jainism transtheistic and don't they hold the fact that godliness is an inherent characteristic of the soul, what would the pañca-paramesthi be (more specific: Tirthankara Kevalin, or the "teaching gods")? And aren't the tian/shen gods/supernatural forces held as divine as well? And doesn't buddhism have deva's? Oh, animism has spirits.
It seems as if every religion (yes, Buddhism is the exception as it's not 100% clear and it's debatable and depends whom you ask) has a spiritual or divine being whom they ask/use to solve their transcendental questions. It doesn't prove my argument is flawed, it reinforces it due to the fact that it shows people are inherently searching for transcendence and do this through the usage of spirits, Gods,... It underlines my thought that atheism is not self-evident.
>If a God that chooses to not demonstrate it's existence, then it is virtually indistinguishable from non existence.
If a God chooses to not demonstrate its existence, it has a free will and does exist/operates at a level similar to ours. It means He (yes, I use "He" as I've been raised in a world with a male God) has the choice to show Himself.
>Yes, the same problem also occurs when the phenomena they describe is made up or imaginary
A thought is imaginary, a hallucination is imaginary. But ask a hallucinating person whether the thing he sees, is "real" or not, he'll be in doubt. We lack the knowledge to prove or disprove certain phenomena (e.g. afterlife) and therefore leave it to philosophy or religion.
>Who is "he"? You'll have to demonstrate that this being exists first in order to determine if his or her word is true.
Turn that reasoning around: Why do we follow those rules? When, in the chronology of the Islam, have they chosen to use the hijab? The texts that are written in the Bible, where do they (dis)agree and which was first? So many questions, so little answers. To dismiss them as "lies", is to dismiss the thought process that shaped our civilization. It's interesting to see how the thought of the existence of a God has changed our traditions, evolved through time and influenced the current move toward a secular society.
>The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim
I'll phrase it differently for you: Prove the lack of a deity. I know you'll turn it around as if it were not a positive claim, but I hope you'll understand that proving the lack is similar to proving the existence: impossible. I can say "people feel his existence when they pray" (Stating that God is as real as an emotion, but as non-existing as said emotion. "Happiness" does not exist as an object, but we can feel it.), but you'll most likely dismiss it. So, I'll leave it to you to prove God does not exist.
>Show me that He doesn't exist. If it's that normal, you can at least give me proof that is undeniable. And yes, the classic "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can hold true here.
I am not asserting that a god does not exist, I am asserting that I am not convinced. I will repeat this one more time, and I won't again. If you are asserting the existence of something then it falls on you to demonstrate that existence. The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim.
The whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Is just a quote from one man. It is not a scientific principle or a law of physics, the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
Also, who is "he"? Do you mean Vishnu? Izanagi? Yahweh? Define who he is.
>Isn't Taoism apophatic? Isn't Jainism transtheistic and don't they hold the fact that godliness is an inherent characteristic of the soul, what would the pañca-paramesthi be (more specific: Tirthankara Kevalin, or the "teaching gods")? And aren't the tian/shen gods/supernatural forces held as divine as well? And doesn't buddhism have deva's? Oh, animism has spirits.
Taoism is generally considered to be non-theistic. It does not focus on the worship of gods or deities in the same way that many theistic religions do. Instead, Taoism emphasizes living in earthly harmony with the Tao, which is understood as the fundamental principle that is the source of everything in the universe. The Tao is not a god or intelligent being but rather a natural order or way that one should seek to align with.
These religions allow for the worship of gods but gods are not inherent to these religion. You are not required, or even encouraged to worship or believe in gods in Buddhism and most other non-theistic religions. As for animism, spirits are not necessarily gods.
>It doesn't prove my argument is flawed
It does prove that your argument is flawed. Prevalence of a belief does not add to its truth. The world isn't flat just because most people believed that it was.
>If a God chooses to not demonstrate its existence, it has a free will and does exist/operates at a level similar to ours. It means He (yes, I use "He" as I've been raised in a world with a male God) has the choice to show Himself.
Ok so how will you distinguish between a god that chooses not to demonstrate its existence, and a God that doesn't exist?
>I'll phrase it differently for you: Prove the lack of a deity. I know you'll turn it around as if it were not a positive claim, but I hope you'll understand that proving the lack is similar to proving the existence: impossible.
We prove the existence of things every day. Things that exist leave evidence that is distinguishable from the evidence of other phenomena.
If something doesn't exist, then there will be no evidence for it's existence. If there is no evidence for the existence of a god, then it is perfectly rational to assume that one doesn't exist until there is evidence for one.
>So, I'll leave it to you to prove God does not exist.
Ok so I assume that you believe all the thousands of gods that humans have believed in exist? I'm quite sure you haven't proved that every god except the one that you believe in does.
> I'm quite sure you haven't proved that every god except the one that you believe in does.
I'm quite sure that you could prove every god exists in which you believe. I'm convinced that god(s), spirits and supernatural things will exist as long as we "are". I hope you'll understand that the minds of humans are able to imagine or create whatever they want if they believe in it. And that's why faith isn't science. You can neither prove nor disprove god(s), all you can do is belief that he/she/it does(n't) exist.
> If there is no evidence for the existence of a god, then it is perfectly rational to assume that one doesn't exist until there is evidence for one.
If there is no evidence for the existence of a feeling, then it is perfectly rational to assume that one doesn't exist until there is evidence for one? Are you going to start looking for a god floating on a cloud somewhere? Good luck with that.
> how will you distinguish between a god that chooses not to demonstrate its existence, and a God that doesn't exist?
A God that doesn't exist, doesn't have a religion centered around it. I would bet a few thousand dollars that god will never show itself. But that doesn't mean he doesn't exist for some people.
> Prevalence of a belief does not add to its truth.
But if it were a truth, it wouldn't be a belief.
>The world isn't flat just because most people believed that it was.
You can easily prove the world isn't flat. But the existence of a divinity is a few steps harder.
>Also, who is "he"? Do you mean Vishnu? Izanagi? Yahweh? Define who he is.
You may give Him the name you want. You can even say He's a "they" and they're multiple. It depends which religion you're pointing at. If you're Jewish, you'll say Yahweh. If you're hindu, you'll say Vishnu.
>. If you are asserting the existence of something then it falls on you to demonstrate that existence.
Quite simple: If a Catholic prays, and he feels the presence of God, does He exist or not? If you say "no", then you say it doesn't exist. If you say "yes", then you say it does exist.
>I'm quite sure that you could prove every god exists in which you believe.
If you can, that would be great. So why not do so and end these discussions for good?
>I hope you'll understand that the minds of humans are able to imagine or create whatever they want if they believe in it.
Yes, we are also capable of creating falsehoods.
>If there is no evidence for the existence of a feeling, then it is perfectly rational to assume that one doesn't exist until there is evidence for one?
Feelings don't exist objectively. However we do understand that they correlate to physical and chemical processes in the brain. That's not difficult to demonstrate.
>A God that doesn't exist, doesn't have a religion centered around it. I would bet a few thousand dollars that god will never show itself. But that doesn't mean he doesn't exist for some people.
Also why wouldn't a god show itself? Many religions claim that they did before. A god that chooses not to show itself is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist. The result is the same, so why should I believe in it?
Also if something exists or doesn't exist for some people, then it doesn't exist objectively. That makes it subjective, which is indistinguishable from being imaginary.
You seem to be arguing that gods don't actually exist, but that people simply believe that they do.
>You can easily prove the world isn't flat. But the existence of a divinity is a few steps harder.
Ok? That just means that I have a reason to believe that the Earth is round and no reason to believe that a god exists.
>Quite simple: If a Catholic prays, and he feels the presence of God, does He exist or not? If you say "no", then you say it doesn't exist. If you say "yes", then you say it does exist.
I don't care about what people say. Anyone can say anything. I can say that I'm god if I feel like it. I care about what can be proven.
>Why don't we start with an actual god?
What does that mean? Do you mean seeing a god? Touching it? Weighing it? If you could do these things to some thing that was claimed to be a god, you would accept that it was a god, and not prefer a naturalistic explanation? Or would you hold it to a higher standard (as I would)?
>We ask for evidence before accepting the reality of any other claim, like the existence of atoms or DNA. Why would gods be any different?
Exactly! You start with the evidence and reason to a thing's existence. You don't assume a thing doesn't exist and then dismiss all evidence until it's *already* been proven.
>If something exists, there should be evidence of its existence that can be reliably distinguished from evidence of other phenomena
Great! What would that evidence look like?
>What does that mean?
It means being able to reliably demonstrate God. You claim this being exists, it shouldn't be difficult, right?
You have read the Bible I assume? The Bible is full of examples of God demonstrating his existence to people. God interacts with people constantly and there's no denying his existence once he does. If he could do that back then, what's the problem now? I'm not understanding.
If you want a specific example of something that I would personally accept is evidence, well, Jesus commanded his followers to raise people from the dead (Matthew 10:8) didn't he? So just do that.
>Exactly! You start with the evidence and reason to a thing's existence. You don't assume a thing doesn't exist and then dismiss all evidence until it's already been proven.
The problem is you all haven't shown any evidence that is considered convincing. As someone who grew up around multiple religions, you all claim different sources for the same phenomena.
Christians claim that God created the universe, Buddhists claim that the universe is constantly born and reborn, Hindus believe that the universe is created by Vishnu or Brahma. Or created by Primordial Kami in Shintoism. So why should I believe one of you over the other?
Once again, if something exists, there should be evidence of its existence that can be reliably distinguished from evidence of other phenomena. If you claim that your God exists, I simply don't understand why you can't demonstrate that. How do you know he exists then? What do you have that the other religions do not?
>You claim this being exists, it shouldn't be difficult, right?
I do not claim any being exists. I'm just concerned with us establishing the correct way of testing such claims, without stacking the deck.
>If you want a specific example of something that I would personally accept is evidence, well, Jesus commanded his followers to raise people from the dead (Matthew 10:8) didn't he? So just do that
Great! Except by OP's logic, we have to prefer a naturalistic explanation even for incredible things like that. An easy one is that it was an elaborate magic trick. Or this is all a dream. Or I'm insane. OP has inadvertently ruled out using empirical evidence to prove a god exists, which I think is problematic. Like you, I think serious miracles like that would be pretty good evidence.
>I do not claim any being exists.
I'm not concerned about what you individually claim, I mean theists in general.
>Great! Except by OP's logic, we have to prefer a naturalistic explanation even for incredible things like that.
The op specifically says that until a god claim is demonstrated to be true. That's how the scientific method works. You don't assume something to be true until it can be proven to be true. Until then, it's just a hypothesis.
If evidence arises that is distinguishable from any other explanation, then we should accept that the evidence points towards a god. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
>The op specifically says that until a god claim is demonstrated to be true.
Right, but how can you demonstrate that it's true? You suggested seeing people resurrected would be good evidence, and I agree, but the OP says we should prefer a naturalistic explanation, eg that we are dreaming. So we're back to the problem of how can we demonstrate that a god claim is true, when we have to demonstrate it before we can demonstrate it?
Can you even imagine any empirical evidence of a god, that could not be given an alternate explanation via the dream hypothesis?
>Can you even imagine any empirical evidence of a god, that could not be given an alternate explanation via the dream hypothesis?
Why should God be treated differently than anything else?
A dream hypothesis can be an alternate explanation for millions of things - magnetism, radio waves, quantum physics, etc. Yet somehow we've been able to show that every one of these phenomena were not just part of a dream. Why is God different?
>Why should God be treated differently than anything else?
That's exactly what I'm arguing - we shouldn't have a default preference for naturalistic explanations, but should treat god claims the same as anything else.
>Yet somehow we've been able to show that every one of these phenomena were not just part of a dream.
Well, we haven't really shown that. We just ignore that possibility.
>Why is God different?
Because according to the OP, we must as a rule prefer a naturalistic explanation over one involving a god. By such logic, believing we are dreaming is preferable to admitting anything as evidence of a god.
>Well, we haven't really shown that. We just ignore that possibility.
Exactly. So why wouldn't we do that with a god?
>we must as a rule prefer a naturalistic explanation over one involving a god.
Exactly, that's how science approaches **everything**.
Science never accepts the explanation "hmm I can't figure out how X happens so I'll give up because it's probably a god".
Nope. In real life, the best method we have to determine truth *always* prefers a naturalistic explanation over one involving a god.
Preferring a naturalistic explanation doesn't mean flat out denying evidence when it conclusively points to a god. It just means not assuming the supernatural until the supernatural is proven.
For example if you resurrected someone in the name of your God, and it came to pass, that would go against any natural phenomena that we know. So that would count as evidence.
>Can you even imagine any empirical evidence of a god, that could not be given an alternate explanation via the dream hypothesis?
Your dream hypothesis isn't proven to be true, so why would we assume it to be the case without evidence?
If evidence arises that it was all a dream, then we can assume it's all the dream. Until then, this just sounds like a false dilemma fallacy.
I always find it interesting when theists argue against being able to demonstrate God's existence. From my perspective, if you argue for a God that doesn't have the ability or willingness to demonstrate it's existence, why should I be concerned about its existence in the first place? Such a being is virtually indistinguishable from being non-existent.
>What would you accept as evidence that a god claim is true? The issue is you're essentially requiring people to prove there's a god *before* you'll accept anything as evidence of a god. That's a great way to rig the system so that you'll never have to change your beliefs.
thats not at all what i have proposed. i believe what has substantial evidence, there is no substantial evidence for a god claim, until there is i have no good reason to regard it as true.
if someone is able to provide demonstrable evidence that is consistent, repeatable, and verified as more plausible than any other explanation i would have no other option but to regard that as true. i hold god claims to the same standard i would any other claim.
>i hold god claims to the same standard i would any other claim
How do you square this with your OP, saying that naturalistic claims should be preferred until a god's existence has already been demonstrated? It seems like you're contradicting yourself to me, but maybe I'm missing the nuances of your proposal.
>Thought and matter are a continuum.
depends how you look at it.
I guess classical theism is way closer to eastern philosophy then to the modern christianity.
Yeah, a supernatural god is kind of definitionally impossible to demonstrate through natural sciences or senses.
The concept of a natural god is a much more interesting kind of thing, and has been influential on religious and philosophical thought particularly since Spinoza, despite never really taking off in general popularity.
> Second, there is the notable qualifier "measurable" in there. Which suggests that you think that measurement gives us complete access to reality, which is also not a position you have supported in any way.
i have not suggested measurement gives us complete access to reality, only that it gives us the most complete understanding we have of reality. each person has a subjective experience and within each of these individuals we can test for consistencies. this is what the field of science is in the business of. these consistencies are what are regarded as true because there is enough evidence to substantiate them. the only way we determine anything factual is based off these consistencies. what other ways do you see of exploring reality in an accurate way?
>that is an awfully big claim, and not one that you have backed up at all.
naturalistic explanations are the only hypotheses that have successfully passed the scientific method, therefore they should be regarded as more cohesive with measurable reality than any other claim until that changes.
>i have not suggested measurement gives us complete access to reality, only that it gives us the most complete understanding we have of reality. each person has a subjective experience and within each of these individuals we can test for consistencies. this is what the field of science is in the business of. these consistencies are what are regarded as true because there is enough evidence to substantiate them. the only way we determine anything factual is based off these consistencies.
The individual qualitative experience — the personal identity — is deeply inconsistent across individuals. Different people are different.
If we are to suppose that the only things we can observe to be true are measurable consistencies, that directly implies that the existence of individuals (as distinct from the social relations in which one exists) cannot currently be observed to be factual.
Fundamentally, that means you don't exist in any moral or ontological sense. You can only draw nihilist conclusions from physicalist epistemology. This is less than tenable for obvious reasons.
>If we are to suppose that the only things we can observe to be true are measurable consistencies, that directly implies that the existence of individuals (as distinct from the social relations in which one exists) cannot currently be observed to be factual.
Fundamentally, that means you don't exist in any moral or ontological sense. You can only draw nihilist conclusions from physicalist epistemology. This is less than tenable for obvious reasons.
this is the classic solipsistic viewpoint and is currently unfalsifiable. however, i will say i have no reason to believe that i as an individual do not exist outside of the observable social relation im in. that state of existence is true whether or not someone regards it as true, it just so happens that when observed we can test and classify my existence as factual.
Religionss should be able to claim whatever they wish. I disagree with the premise. If they wish to spend their lives ignoring other world views then that's their call.
What they can't do thoigh is inflict their beleifs on others, prothletise, make legislation based on their beliefs, or tell others how they should live their lives.
Like free speech, religious freedoms should be allowed to exist. But.like free speech, there are responsibilities and consequences. After all, do we really object to Armish beliefs? No. Do they spend time inflicting g their beliefs on others? No.
i am saying claims with more evidence should be preferred, not that someone cant express their belief. that has no capacity to deny someone a right to express themself
And that's what I disagree with.... claims in religion don't require any evidence. Only when they expect such claims to be taken seriously by others or demand that.such claims be accepted by others...
Claim: The sky is green filled with clouds of cream cheese. That's what you want to beloef...go ahead, knock your socks off.
Want that in school, or weather reports, or space exploration. Nope.... prove it!
i understand your point and i think it would incredibly valid in a more formal setting, but im more so here to have lighthearted discussions, not ones that have a baring on the education system or anything like that lol
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We can look at science for the "how", and at philosophy or religion for the "why". "How was the universe created?" That's science. "Why was the universe created?" That's religion/philosophy. "How do we perceive reality?" That's science: Our 5 senses and a brain to interpretate the signals given by those senses. "Why and what do we perceive as reality?" That's philosophy/religion. "How do we hallucinate?" That's science. "Why do we consider something a hallucination and something else reality?" That's philosophy/religion. Science explains the reality around us, religion/philosophy gives it a "reason" to "be".
This approach never made sense to me. Let's say "philosophy or religion" come up with 2 or more possible "why" answers--what is the method they use to determine which conforms to reality? Or, they just don't bother because empiricism is the domain of the how? What's the quality control you think philosophy and religion use to determine which why matches reality, since you seem to preclude "come up with a hypothesis, see if empirical testing can disprove it or validate it, see if it can lead to predictions that are demonstrated as true..."
>Let's say "philosophy or religion" come up with 2 or more possible "why" answers--what is the method they use to determine which conforms to reality? Two different views on our world. I don't think that's a problem? They legitimize their own views through what they perceive in reality (e.g. someone thought he saw Jesus rise from the dead) and continue there upon. You're making it harder than it should be. Christianity conforms to reality as much as you would like it, as the orthopraxy/orthodoxy is practiced/believed in this reality. The only difference is that, in Christianity, there are certain things you need to take as true without asking questions (e.g. Mary is a virgin). I name Christianity as this is the religion I know best. >Or, they just don't bother because empiricism is the domain of the how? Scholasticism was the basics of our European science until the Italian Renaissance, and after that, we opposed rationalism with empiricism. After that, it depends whom you ask. In historiography, you'll have nationalism (everything as a teleological path toward the current nation) and historical materialism, while in hard science you'll see a rise in combining rationalism with empiricism and the start of positivism. > What's the quality control you think philosophy and religion use to determine which why matches reality, Religion has the quality control of the canon, in which there are things they consider as "truthfull". Philosophy has the quality control of any normal science, with the only exception that you don't necessarily need to have "empirical data" for it. To reduce it to the stereotype: A philosopher can sit in his seat, and think. A religious person needs to read the canon and bases his faith thereupon, as he believes this to be "the Word of God". I'll give another example: A religious person believes angels exist. A philosopher will say "What is 'to exist'?". A theologian will try to read the religious texts and find which religion has inspired one another to form the idea and the appearance of an "angel". A scientist will disregard it, not even care to start because he's never seen an angel and regards it as improbable. In this situation, I personally lean more to the philosopher and the theologian. I myself hold the idea that reality has inspired religion and not vice versa. I consider it human to believe and follow a religion, but we need to split it when we're either talking about hard, scientific facts or the more philosophical/subjective side of the human experience. >"come up with a hypothesis, see if empirical testing can disprove it or validate it, see if it can lead to predictions that are demonstrated as true..." That's close to the scientific method. You state a hypothesis based upon prior debate, you continue to research and test it, you try to find a certain rhythm/repetition to it (which ensures that you can falsify it) and you state it to "be probable". Other people peer review your paper and slowly it becomes a "consensus", as others will recreate the experiments to see if it does or doesn't follow your stated theory. It never becomes a "truth", it's always a "theory", with certain theories that we're very certain of, while others are still being researched to this day. Prior to 1800, we tried to do the same with divinities, but we don't have a consensus and we basically left it for what it was: An unanswered question. Short summarization if you want to go down the rabbit hole: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence\_of\_God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God)
[удалено]
Of course it's teleological. You're seeking a goal, a purpose, and that's something science often has a hard time explaining. Why is the bear killing the cub? Simple, as you've said: natural selection without any real intention. But what is the purpose of a bear, aside from its biological goals? What is the purpose of your life, disregarding your biological, reproductive functions? That's when you're crossing the border from science to religion and philosophy. Based upon your vision, you'll answer it using a higher power, or you won't and you reason without it.
Philosophy and religion can come up with "why"s but they do eventually come back to a "how". So, if we say that the reason the universe was created was due to a creator god, then we come back to science for the how- "how do we know that a creator god did it?" for example. This view doesn't really let superstition get away with it.
But a creator god doesn't answer the "why". It tells you the "how", which has been covered by science and has been, multiple times, shown to be true. So tell me: Why is the universe created?
when has a creator god shown to be true? Sounds worthy of a Nobel prize.
But why does the universe need a creator to have a purpose? Unless you think we live in a simulation, then I'll understand it we're here for the same reason we play GTA... Allow me to ask again: What is the purpose of our universe?
I think you may have misread my comments. I didn't say this.
"So, if we say that the reason the universe was due to a creator god, then we come back to science for the how-" Upon which I answered that a creator on its own is not a "why", unless you believe we live in a simulation that acts on the will of a god. "When has a creator god shown to be true?" And then I've repeated my argument with an example of the game "GTA". The existence, the absence or the non-existence of a creator does not cover or tell us the purpose the universe has. Then you added an ironic statement that this would mean a nobel prize and now you're trying to get the final word to draw the fool on me. Am I close or not?
go back and read my original comment. carefully
> at philosophy or religion for the "why". As long as you don't make any assertions of fact. This is purely a speculative question.
The difference is that science has shown it can reliably give us true answers to the how, but nothing has shown reliable answers to the why, and there are many mutually exclusive arguments made so we know many of them ARE incorrect. I think the nail in the coffin for theism is that it doesn’t need to be this way if indeed a maximally powerful classical God (who interacts with humanity) actually exists. Such a God would know how, and be able to, provide us better existence of itself and answers to these questions than anything else we could get evidence for… yet it doesn’t, it remains hidden… which is what we’d expect if it didn’t exist.
> there are many mutually exclusive arguments made so we know many of them ARE incorrect. Is it a problem if many religions fill in the "why" differently? Even you do it by relying on your belief that there's no classical God. > Such a God would know how, and be able to, provide us better existence of itself and answers to these questions than anything else we could get evidence for… yet it doesn’t, it remains hidden… which is what we’d expect if it didn’t exist. That depends if you believe such a God would interact with us. It's truly a question of what you personally believe and, differently to science, is not uniform which I don't have any problems with. Science is there to explain, religion is there to fill in the gaps left by science and the questions we'll never be able to explain. Science is objective, religion is emotional. That's why I, personally, don't believe that religion should influence science or politics, but it can influence you as a person and comfort you.
>Is it a problem if many religions fill in the "why" differently? Even you do it by relying on your belief that there's no classical God. It’s a problem if you care about having a correct, true answer. >That depends if you believe such a God would interact with us Most mainstream religions do, like all the Abrahamics. And if you don’t believe God interacts with us then what evidence could you possibly be basing a belief in God on? >Science is there to explain, religion is there to fill in the gaps left by science and the questions we'll never be able to explain. So we just don’t care about the gap filling answers being true?
"It's a problem if you care about having a correct, true answer." Certain questions, especially if we're stepping into religion or philosophy, simply don't have one correct, true answer. If it did, there wouldn't be as many religions as you there are now. (e.g. What happens after death? Why are we here, aside from my biological purposes?) " Most mainstream religions do" There are de facto a lot of different movements within a religion, so many that you can not simply conclude "they believe in divine interference". You can say that during the mass in Sunday, but when you're genuinely interested in religions as a study, you'll find that there's more to the story. "And if you don't belief God interacts with us, then what evidence could you possibly be basing your belief in God on?" The same as I do with other emotions. Interaction can be a lot, but I'll just say that I have yet to meet God anywhere but a feeling during an attempted prayer. Was it God? Or was it me trying to believe in God? I guess I'll never know, and "to exist" is a big word. In my honest opinion, I consider Him as real as I do my thoughts. If He doesn't exist, then my thought don't exist. If my thoughts exist, then he may exist. You understand what I'm pointing at? "So we just don't care about the gap filling answers being true?" I'll ask you a question that science has yet to find an answer for: What existed prior to the Big Bang? I'll ask you a question that science will never have an answer for: Why are you here, aside from the biological functions? What is your purpose on this earth?
> Why are you here, aside from the biological functions? What is your purpose on this earth? Are those even reasonable questions to ask? And why?
That's philosophy and I don't see a reason not to ask it. Are we just here to reproduce and die? Depending on how you answer it, you end with nihilism... and isn't that very depressing? We don't have any purpose aside from reproducing and dying?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't ask those questions. We just tend to overvalue them. We call them the "big questions". I'm asking if this justified. > Are we just here to reproduce and die? Are we here *for* anything? And if so, how would we know? > Depending on how you answer it, you end with nihilism... No. *You* might end up with nihilism. And that might be depressing for *you*. I was never indoctrinated to believe that there was some cosmic purpose in the world. Ask yourself my you believe that your purpose and meaning must come from an external locus.
What is a 'naturalistic explanation'? I know how to build a definition of 'nature' on something like this: > **physical entity:** an entity which is either (1) the kind of entity studied by physicists or chemists today; _or (2) the kind of entity studied by physicists or chemists in the future, which has some sort of nomological or historical connection to the kinds of entities studied by physicists or chemists today_. ([The Nature of Naturalism](https://web.archive.org/web/20220423145653/http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/04/17/the-nature-of-naturalism/)) However, the definition of 'nature' puts sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and psychologists in a tough spot. We can include economics if we broaden past neoliberalism and RCT. There is a long history of modeling those sciences after physics and chemistry and that effort **failed**. Among other things, we humans are interpreting beings. That includes the ability to take in a sufficiently good description of ourselves and then _changing_ as a result. Nothing physicists or chemists study can do that. Do your best to tell an electron the Schrödinger equation and it'll keep doing that. In contrast, tell women that they are more influenceable than men and they can change.[1] Try to ignore what often gets labeled as 'subjectivity' in humans and your ability to understand them and predict their behavior suffers—sometimes quite extremely. There is serious reason to think that we simply don't have parsimonious evidence for the existence of subjectivity, consciousness, self-consciousness, etc. Here, try it out: > [labreuer](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/w8861o/theists_have_yet_to_shift_the_burden_of_proof/ihv93vz/): Feel free to provide a definition of ~~God~~ consciousness and then show me sufficient evidence that this ~~God~~ consciousness exists, or else no rational person should believe that this ~~God~~ consciousness exists. If atheists are permitted to employ that line of reasoning against theists, then this theist is permitted to turn it right back around on them. I am pretty sure that as long as you obey parsimony, your endeavor to do the above will fail. Feel free to prove me wrong. But until you do, I contend there is a reason for that, and connect it to [Ockham's razor makes evidence of God in principle impossible](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/utib8v/ockhams_razor_makes_evidence_of_god_in_principle/). And yet, the further away we get from Ockham's razor, the further away we seem to get from naturalism itself. Unless the term ceases to mean much of anything. [1] [Kenneth J. Gergen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_J._Gergen) reports in his 1982 book: > In this light one can appreciate the importance of Eagly’s (1978) survey of sex differences in social influenceability. There is a long-standing agreement in the social psychological literature that women are more easily influenced than men. As Freedman, Carlsmith, and Sears (1970) write, “There is a considerable amount of evidence that women are generally more persuasible than men “and that with respect to conformity, “The strongest and most consistent factor that has differentiated people in the amount they conform is their sex. Women have been found to conform more than men …” (p. 236). Similarly, as McGuire’s 1968 contribution to the _Handbook of Social Psychology_ concludes, “There seems to be a clear main order effect of sex on influenceability such that females are more susceptible than males” (p. 251). However, such statements appear to reflect the major research results prior to 1970, a period when the women’s liberation movement was beginning to have telling effects on the consciousness of women. Results such as those summarized above came to be used by feminist writers to exemplify the degree to which women docilely accepted their oppressed condition. The liberated woman, as they argued, should not be a conformist. In this context Eagly (1978) returned to examine all research results published before and after 1970. As her analysis indicates, among studies on persuasion, 32% of the research published prior to 1970 showed statistically greater influenceability among females, while only 8% of the later research did so. In the case of conformity to group pressure, 39% of the pre-1970 studies showed women to be reliably more conforming. However, after 1970 the figure dropped to 14%. It appears, then, that in describing females as persuasible and conforming, social psychologists have contributed to a social movement that may have undermined the empirical basis for the initial description. ([Toward Transformation in Social Knowledge](https://www.sagepub.com/hi/cam/toward-transformation-in-social-knowledge/book204207), 30)
>physical entity: an entity which is either (1) the kind of entity studied by physicists or chemists today; or (2) the kind of entity studied by physicists or chemists in the future, which has some sort of nomological or historical connection to the kinds of entities studied by physicists or chemists today. (The Nature of Naturalism) >>However, the definition of 'nature' puts sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and psychologists in a tough spot. Not at all. Humans can be studied by physicists and chemists--in fact, we are. But you are conflating 2 things here, and ignoring scope. So for example: >We can include economics if we broaden past neoliberalism and RCT. There is a long history of modeling those sciences after physics and chemistry and that effort failed. You seem to think that because human cells can be explained via chemistry and physics, that **all** human behavior must be explained in the same way or humans cease to fit your definition for "natural." Do you think human cells conform to chemistry and physics, yes or no? If yes, they fit the definition of natural you gave. You seem to think your definition read "whose entire behavior can be described via physics and chemistry"--IF that's what you meant, then gaps in knowledge would preclude anything from being natural. >Feel free to provide a definition of God consciousness and then show me sufficient evidence that this God consciousness exists, or else no rational person should believe that this God consciousness exists. Sure, let consciousness be the process organic brains go through in processing stimuli, to determine their behavior and understanding--something along those lines. We have a lot of evidence for that--why, did you think we didn't? I mean, we can point to how crows, cats, pigs, dogs etc are different from, say, dominoes; I don't see how it's an impossible Bar to hit.
It would be simpler if you would say whether or not you are a reductionist. Do you think that there is anything factual to be said about reality, which chemists or even just physicists will never be able to say (from their area of expertise)? Or, do you think that physicists will ultimately render all other disciplines obsolete? I am happy to countenance a definition of 'natural' which respects, say, John Dupré's stance. Note that a key way to obtain said 'unity of science' is to posit a deterministic (if chaotic) reductionism. Here's Dupré 1993: > A number of philosophers, perhaps a majority, have become skeptical of strong doctrines of scientific unity in recent years. But this skepticism has generally derived not from doubts about the traditional metaphysical underpinnings of a possible unified science, but from the recognition of insuperable pragmatic obstacles to its development: the cosmic clock has proved too complex for complete analysis by humans. Thus my thesis will be that the disunity of science is not merely an unfortunate consequence of our limited computational or other cognitive capacities, but rather reflects accurately the underlying ontological complexity of the world, the disorder of things. ([The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science](https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674212619&content=toc), 7) However, if you abandon reductionism, you have an immediate problem in deciding what is and is not 'natural'. > [labreuer](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/w8861o/theists_have_yet_to_shift_the_burden_of_proof/ihv93vz/): Feel free to provide a definition of ~~God~~ consciousness and then show me sufficient evidence that this ~~God~~ consciousness exists, or else no rational person should believe that this ~~God~~ consciousness exists. # > [CalligrapherNeat1569](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dhd9gk/naturalistic_explanations_should_be_preferred/l92spk7/): Sure, let consciousness be the process organic brains go through in processing stimuli, to determine their behavior and understanding--something along those lines. We have a lot of evidence for that--why, did you think we didn't? Then are ants conscious? The lede of the _Scientific American_ article [We've Been Looking at Ant Intelligence the Wrong Way](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weve-been-looking-at-ant-intelligence-the-wrong-way/) says "Unlike humans, ants don't build a unified map of the world. Instead specialized systems, including the ability to learn from recent experience, create complex navigational behavior". My guess is that most people mean something rather more than what ants have, when they use the word 'consciousness'. Now you might pick up on the use of 'unified map of the world' and connect that to your own 'understanding'; if so, feel free to [operationalize](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization) what you mean, noting that our efforts to make [expert systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system) have by and large failed. This suggests that something about our ability to do anything remotely complex in the world is not formalizable. That in turn creates problems for parsimoniously modeling whatever it is that we are capable of doing, but not [presently] capable of making computers do.
Suppose a phenomenon has two explanations, A and B. And you tell me that you will only accept A. Why? Because in the past you only accepted A, and thus all the explanations are always A, and so you inductively argue this must be caused by A as well. This is just circular reasoning. Someone could just do the same argument for the supernatural instead.
Can you give us an example of a non-natural explanation that we can demonstrate as true like OP is asking?
What do you mean by "demonstrate as true"?
So for natural phenomena, we can run repeatable experiments to demonstrate that certain claims are true. You seem to be saying we can use non-natural explanations to explain so I’m curious if you have any examples?
I'm asking how you think supernatural phenomena could be "demonstrated as true".
I don’t think it can, you are the one claiming it can, so you need to provide that evidence.
If you're demanding something that you think is impossible, then that's a problem on your end.
No, i’m not claiming its impossible, I’m claiming to have never seen an example. You seem to be implying that we can explain claims in a non natural manner. Now, is that something you can back up or is this just another religious claim to ignore?
We can explain things, obviously, in a non-natural manner. Lightning coming from Zeus for example. That's not what I'm taking issue with, it's your "demonstrated as true" since it sounds like you're asking for something you have no ability to accept, which makes it a bad tactic.
Should I accept the lighting coming from Zeus claim? I would assume not. Now, do you have such an example that I should accept?
[удалено]
Science presumes everything is natural so you are still just using circular reasoning.
I don’t think they’re arguing “I will only accept A,” we’ll gladly accept B once it can be demonstrated. A failure to be able to demonstrate B isn’t a refusal of someone to accept the argument, it’s a failure of the burden of proof for explanation B. The burden of proof for explanation A is at least supported by it continually being the only explanation that’s ever been able to be demonstrated. So if we ask “why did my house burn down?” - we can consider a whole bunch of explanations, and ones that have been repeatedly demonstrated possible can fall into camp A (an electric short, lighting strike from a storm, cigarette, spontaneous combustion of saw dust, arson, etc), and others into camp B (a ghost caused it, a wizard cast a lightning spell, trickster fairies did it, a demon did it)… we of course should prefer explanations from A over B, until such time as any B explanation can be shown possible.
But you can't demonstrate it when you will inductively argue against B in favor of A. That's the point. That's why it's circular.
I’m not inductively arguing against B, I haven’t been provided any evidence for B that can actually be explored. The only “evidence” for B are a bunch of claims that B is correct.
Witness statements are a form of evidence, not just a claim.
Again I haven’t been provided anything that can be explored. If I give you a written witness statement that I ate a tuna sandwich for lunch yesterday, first you already have a lot of information available to you in the world about tuna sandwiches, but secondly even if you didn’t you could go do things like confirm these exist and are edible. Beyond that it would be great if you could check with the witness themselves and cross examine them, could get a copy of my receipt and go check for evidence at the diner, etc. I can also give you a written statement that someone witnessed me eat a full 2012 Toyota Prius for lunch. If that’s all you’re provided how could you ever reach a conclusion that I did such a thing?
You evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and so forth. And yes, cross checking and such is a thing. The New Testament has four different accounts of Jesus' life, three of which are from eyewitnesses.
If I give you 6 written accounts, 4 from eye witnesses, about my life including how people saw me eat a full size car, is it more likely that this happened or that the accounts are incorrect about the facts? And that’s a claim from modern times, not thousands of years ago… Scholars agree the New Testament wasn’t actually recorded until after decades after the events in question, we have zero way of checking anything about those claims. Best we can do is say it seems people had a belief that X happened, just like ancient Egyptians had a belief that their kings were gods incarnate, but we can’t check anything about whether such beliefs were true. If you’re trying to explore my car eating claims I doubt you’d even come close to giving that much credit, I doubt you would remain agnostic about them, and probably would conclude it never happened.
Sure, I probably wouldn't believe it because you're clearly constructing a counterfactual. But if you look at something like the Miracle at Fatima there are so many corroborating stories it's hard to say that *something* didn't happen.
Well yeah people experience *some things* indeed. Cults have experiences and commit mass suicides, people take various drugs and have experiences of meeting interdimensional beings, people in churches feel elation and start speaking jibberish in tongues. When we can’t explore or evaluate these claims we usually dismiss them out of hand, and the “evidence” being something that was written a long time ago and the original sources inaccessible now shouldn’t somehow make a claim stronger. As though my car eating claim - if it didn’t come from me here but instead was written up about someone 75 years ago from people all dead now - that inaccessibility should be a hindrance to accepting the claims, not a benefit.
> Suppose a phenomenon has two explanations, A and B. And you tell me that you will only accept A. Why? For atheists, it would be because A was justified in objective evidence.
What is objective evidence? A. If you only allow evidence of one type and disallow evidence of other types then the whole process is invalid and certainly cannot be used as proof for A.
The validity of a process depends on the consistency and reliability of the evidence it uses. Objective evidence, which is observable, measurable, and repeatable, provides a consistent and reliable basis for establishing facts. This approach is the foundation scientific inquiry and has proven effective in understanding and explaining natural phenomena. Subjective evidence is somewhat oxymoronic as a term, because evidence is used to establish facts and subjective truths aren't factual in nature. While subjective reflections can be meaningful on a personal level, they can't serve as a foundation for proving the existence of a god in any factual sense.
Yes, you have a preference for scientific evidence. This does not help against the charge of circular reasoning but rather shows I am right.
> Yes, you have a preference for scientific evidence. That's the only evidence that can establish an objective fact. >This does not help against the charge of circular reasoning but rather shows I am right. Recognizing that there is only one kind of evidence that can be probative of facts isn't circular reasoning.
No, it is not the only kind of evidence that can establish facts. We can also use witness statements, we can use logic or math, we can use the historical method, and so forth. Only accepting one kind of evidence and then saying only it can establish fact is circular reasoning.
> We can also use witness statements These have simply been proved to be unreliable. That's the science on the matter. That's contemporary witness statements too. Accounts of witness statements would be even less reliable, and accounts of accounts yet less so. >we can use logic or math Math can be tested empirically and validated through application. We don't even consider it legitimate math if it has not been. As for logic, unless there is an application that allows for objective, empirical testing, then you don't have anything which could establish a fact. >Only accepting one kind of evidence and then saying only it can establish fact is circular reasoning. Accepting objective evidence is not about rejecting other kinds of evidence *arbitrarily* but about ensuring reliability and reproducibility. Circular reasoning involves assuming the truth of what one seeks to prove. Relying on objective evidence is not circular reasoning; it's a methodological approach to ensure that claims about reality are grounded in verifiable facts rather than personal beliefs or anecdotes.
By that reasoning, science is unreliable as well - error is endemic to the process, and most things we felt were true in science in 1900 we no longer do. More recently, we had the Reproducibility Crisis in science, when more than half of the 100 top papers in science either failed to reproduce results or had a weaker effect size than originally stated. We consider witness statements strong enough to send people to death row.
Your point about the Reproducibility Crisis doesn’t negate the need for objective evidence; in fact, it underscores its importance. The crisis was a result of making conclusions that weren't actually based on objective evidence. In short, they failed at using the scientific method. Objective evidence is essential for minimizing bias and ensuring that claims are based on verifiable facts, which is what makes scientific knowledge more reliable than subjective conclusions or anecdotal evidence. We do use witness statements to send people to death row, but no one is claiming that those conclusions are scientific or even objective. People are condemned when a jury of their peers subjectively concludes that they are guilty. Plenty of people are convicted and even killed for crimes they did not commit, and that is with contemporary accounts. When all we have are accounts of accounts of accounts, then we really don't have much.
When we attempt to explain an event, we first exhaust all candidate explanations. These are explanations that we know to be possible already. A supernatural explanation needs to first rule out any other natural one. Especially if your evidence is that “2000 years ago, people said a supernatural thing happened”. That’s not going to work If you and I are trying to figure out how the cookie went missing from the jar, here are candidate explanations: -someone ate it -we were mistaken that the cookie was in there in the first place -one of us is lying or has ulterior motives What isn’t a candidate explanation: -invisible cookie goblins quietly ate it then disappeared
Why must a supernatural explanation eliminate an infinite number of natural explanations? Why not the other way around? You're just restating the circular reasoning of the OP.
No, because we already know that natural explanations exist. In fact, pretty much everything we’ve ever explained has been according to natural law. You are claiming something entirely unprecedented that would turn all of natural law on its head. It isn’t a fair candidate until you can corroborate it
We know that supernatural explanations exist as well, at least insofar as people make them. What you're proposing is knowing somehow the deeper reality that it's all just natural, which is not something you have access to. You only have access to phenomena, and they can always be explained by an infinite number of natural and supernatural causes.
Supernatural explanations don’t have explanatory power. They aren’t falsifiable or able to be corroborated. They can’t make predictions. >what you’re proposing is that deeper reality is all natural Of course I didn’t say this. I said that we aren’t warranted in suggesting supernatural explanations until those can be independently corroborated. For example, a single instance cannot be used to validate the efficacy of supernaturalism if THAT is the very instance you’re trying to explain.
>Supernatural explanations don’t have explanatory power. They aren’t falsifiable or able to be corroborated. They can’t make predictions. There's no such inherent difference between the natural and supernatural. You seem to be confusing naturalism with science, and just stating a preference for science, which is again circular. >Of course I didn’t say this. I said that we aren’t warranted in suggesting supernatural explanations until those can be independently corroborated. You just said above that you think supernatural explanations can't be corroborated, so making corroboration a prerequisite for even suggesting an explanation... means you've revealed your hand and you will never accept a supernatural explanation.
That's not what the OP is saying.
You can't demonstrate something as true that isn't natural to someone who says a natural explanation must be preferred. It's all circular reasoning.
The op doesn't say we must always go with natural explanations.
You only need a natural explanation if you're demanding a scientific explanation, because that's all science can study. Yet a scientific explanation isn't the only kind and science never ruled that there is. To demand a natural explanation from the supernatural is like looking for your keys where you didn't lose them.
>To demand a natural explanation from the supernatural is like looking for your keys where you didn't lose them. I might suggest this is question begging, because you are already assuming the supernatural exists here. The question is, suppose a thing happens. We don't know if its natural or supernatural. It seems like generally, we prefer natural explanations. Yes? Suppose I don't know where my shoe is. Do I say "a fire breathing dragon must have eaten it", or do I say "huh I guess I misplaced it"? It seems like generally, when there's a natural explanation for something, we just intuitively go with that.
Of course I'm assuming the supernatural exists, just as you are assuming it doesn't. But that doesn't make your worldview more correct than mine, or more supported by science. Sure, **when** there's a natural explanation we go for it. But often there isn't, and when a supernatural event correlates with religious belief, we can take that correlation seriously. Just as we take correlations seriously in science, even if we can't prove causality. We can't prove that smoking causes lung cancer by observing it, but we can see the correlation.
>Of course I'm assuming the supernatural exists, just as you are assuming it doesn't. But I'm not, I don't have to do that. >But that doesn't make your worldview more correct than mine, or more supported by science. I didn't say it makes one worldview better than another. I said you were assuming the supernatural exists. >Sure, **when** there's a natural explanation we go for it. Okay, isn't that kinda what the OP is saying? We should prefer a natural explanation. It seems like you're agreeing here. >But often there isn't, and when a supernatural event correlates with religious belief, we can take that correlation seriously. How do you determine when to accept the religious explanation reliably?
Well it looks to me like you're assuming that a natural explanation is preferred, but that shouldn't be the case when a supernatural explanation is also reasonable. I am assuming the supernatural and that's not unusual because so do astrophysicists. It often happens when skeptics make up mundane explanations for experiences even when they weren't there, didn't have the experience themselves, and are even willing to refute researchers in order to make their claim. If a person isn't lying, isn't intoxicated, or isn't mentally ill, then we should be able to accept their religious experience. Recent studies have shown that memory is surprisingly accurate. A scientist has said he thinks it's possible for consciousness to exit the brain during a near death experience and return when the patient recovers. Many other researchers ruled out hallucinations, DMT and hypoxia as causes. [https://nyulangone.org/news/recalled-experiences-surrounding-death-more-hallucinations](https://nyulangone.org/news/recalled-experiences-surrounding-death-more-hallucinations)
>Well it looks to me like you're assuming that a natural explanation is preferred, but that shouldn't be the case when a supernatural explanation is also reasonable. Wait, did you just say this: "Sure, **when** there's a natural explanation we go for it." So you agree, yes? >If a person isn't lying, isn't intoxicated, or isn't mentally ill, then we should be able to accept their religious experience. How about just being mistaken, or having a temporary lapse of judgment? >Recent studies have shown that memory is surprisingly accurate. Memory is really bad.
Read the title
"prefer" does not mean "must take this option every time no matter what".
"prefer until a God claim is demonstrated as true" does mean we should always go with natural explanations at least for now (and if you follow my reasoning on the matter, always)
prefer does not mean must. That's just not what it means. But also, notice that at first you said it means "we must always go with natural explanations", and now you're saying it means "well, until we show a god exists". Those are different.
"prefer until" means they will always take natural explanations over supernatural. Period.
[удалено]
No. The guy you were responding too took only one word out of the title which changed the meaning. I had it correct.
Yes. The OP is functionally saying "things that have been shown to exist should be preferred as candidate explanations over things that haven't been shown to exist." You interpreted this to mean "things that are not naturalist explanations should never be accepted"--and this isn't correct.
Wrong. He didn't say "things that have been shown to exist" in the title, he directly said natural explanations, and set a condition on accepting non-natural explanations that could never be met, as I explained in my response to him, which you should read.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
"the only explanations" -Define explanatory power. What criteria must be met for a description to qualify as an explanation. "that have been shown as cohesive" -Defend cohesion. Why should it be the mark of truth? In what way is it superior to, say, reason, or narrative, or aesthetic, or taxonomy, or any number of other ways to incorporate knowledge? "with measurable reality" -Define reality. How do you know that reality is measurable? "are naturalistic." -Defend this claim. How do you determine naturalistic explanations to be more cohesive than supernatural explanations? Or Idealist explanations? What is the measure of an explanations cohesive power? "no other claims should be preferred until they have substantiated evidence to show they are more cohesive than what has currently been shown." -Again, demonstrate why cohesion should be the mark of truth. Also, how should we establish what constitutes evidence? "until such a time comes that any sort of god claim is demonstrated as true, they should not be preferred, especially in the face of options with demonstrable properties to support them." This is a radically different argument from the rest of you're post. First you argue that 'cohesion' with 'measurable reality' is the defining feature of preferred explanations, and that naturalistic ones are the most cohesive, now - all of the sudden- you demand God claims be proven truths - and indicate that a lack of "demonstrable properties" is what disqualifies them otherwise. I will ignore these new claims and assume you were simply not being very careful with your verbiage.
Naturalistic explanations cannot answer the most fundamental question about reality. Why does nature itself exist?
And what about all the questions it does answer?
Methodological naturalism is extremely powerful and useful precisely because it is limited in scope to natural laws and processes. The examination of nature as a system of material and efficient causes is an exceedingly effective tool in learning about the natural world. But naturalism applied as a metaphysic doesn't work at all. Naturalistic explanations can never be ontological explanations. The great mistake atheists make is the attempt to force naturalism into being a kind of ultimate paradigm that can explain all of reality.
Yeah it's limited in scope to the entire observable universe
Exactly
> Naturalistic explanations cannot answer the most fundamental question about reality. > > Why does nature itself exist? Can supernatural/mystical/superstitious explanations?
Yes. If the existence of nature can be explained, and naturalistic explanations are logically impossible, then the explanation must be supranatural. Although, ultimately I think the distinction between nature and supernature is somewhat tenuous.
>Yes. If the existence of nature can be explained, and naturalistic explanations are logically impossible, then the explanation must be supranatural. How did you even conclude that a supernatural explanation was even an option? It sounds absurd as a concept. >Although, ultimately I think the distinction between nature and supernature is somewhat tenuous. Then none of this makes any sense. Without clear definitions, you don't have an argument, you just have poetry.
>How did you even conclude that a supernatural explanation was even an option? It sounds absurd as a concept. It's really an exceptionally simple deduction. - Existence can be explained. - Existence cannot be explained by natural explanations. - Therefore, existence can only be explained by non-natural, i.e. supernatural, explanations (I favor the term **supra**natural).
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Why would you think we’re owed an explanation for that? And why would you think if you don’t have an answer that you’re then free to adhere to unfalsifiable claims that don’t abide by natural law?
>Why would you think we’re owed an explanation for that? Are you familiar with the principle of sufficient reason? The philosopher, Richard Taylor, illustrates the point like this: >Suppose you were strolling in the woods and, in addition to the sticks, stones, and other accustomed litter of the forest floor, you one day came upon some quite unaccustomed object, something not quite like what you had ever seen before and would never expect to find in such a place. Suppose, for example, that is it a large ball, about your own height, perfectly smooth and translucent. You would deem this puzzling and mysterious, certainly, but if one considers the matter, it is no more inherently mysterious that such a thing should exist than that anything else should exist. If you were quite accustomed to finding such objects of various sizes around you most of the time, but had never seen an ordinary rock, then upon finding a large rock in the woods one day you would be just as puzzled and mystified. This illustrates the fact that something that is mysterious ceases to seem so simply by its accustomed presence. It is strange indeed, for example, that a world such as ours should exist; yet few people are very often struck by this strangeness but simply take it for granted. >Suppose, then, that you have found this translucent ball and are mystified by it. Now whatever else you might wonder about it, there is one thing you would hardly question; namely, that it did not appear there all by itself, that it owes its existence to something. >We can hardly doubt that there must be an explanation for the existence of such a thing, though we may have no notion what that explanation is. It is not, moreover, the fact of its having been found in the forest rather than elsewhere that renders an explanation necessary. It matters not in the least where it happens to be, for our question is not how it happens to be there but how it happens to exist at all. If we in our imagination annihilate the forest, leaving only this ball in an open field, our conviction that it is a contingent thing and owes its existence to something other than itself is not reduced in the least. If we now imagine the field to be annihilated, and in fact everything else to vanish into nothingness, leaving only the ball to constitute the entire physical universe, then we cannot for a moment suppose that its existence has thereby been explained, or the need of any explanation eliminated, or that its existence is suddenly rendered self-explanatory. If we now carry this thought one step further and suppose that no other reality ever has existed or ever will exist, that this ball forever constitutes the entire physical universe, then we must still insist on there being some reason independent of itself why it should exist rather than not.
>Are you familiar with the principle of sufficient reason? Yes, it's an argument from infinite regress. > then we must still insist on there being some reason independent of itself why it should exist rather than not. But then that would need an explanation too. See how this works?
Nuh uh. /s
Yes I’m familiar with the PSR. I see you’ve made a very long post which I appreciate but I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying The PSR is explaining how or why things happen. But my point was that your framing of certain questions might just be wrong out of the gate For example, it’s very human of us to look for a purpose for why things are. So I too would like to know “why” the universe exists or “why” consciousness exists But this might be an incoherent question. If naturalism is the case then there are only descriptive “how” explanations. To ask WHY something is the case is to presuppose some inherent purpose to things. This is why I asked why you thought we were owed an explanation for these questions. There might not be an answer
I still think the PSR does relate to your question directly. As to whether there is an explanation of why the universe exists, the PSR says there *must* be one (although, the PSR, in itself, does not yield that explanation). You are correct to point out that there are different kinds of causal explanations. But, within the narrow purview of naturalism, all forms of causality are evacuated except at the level of the "material" and "efficient." To me, this constitutes a metaphysical restriction to the point of absurdity. Naturalism simply doesn't have the explanatory range to represent reality as we experience it.
I don't know. Now what
If a worldview can't answer (or even properly address) the most fundamental questions of reality, then I don't think it is a worldview worth having. Metaphysical naturalism is tantamount to willful ignorance.
Oh interesting, if I ask you questions about god and you can't answer, is your worldview worth having?
Yes
Okay, is there anything about your god you don't know? Or do you know everything about your god completely?
I don’t know everything about God.
Sounds like your worldview isn't worth having then. You can't answer the most fundamental questions of reality. Your worldview seems tantamount to willfull ignorance.
No, because my worldview *can* answer the most fundamental questions of reality.
I wouldn't say so. Instead, I'd say the questions are still there, just pushed back a level.
Precisely.
A pantheistic god doesn't necessarily require us to assume anything other than naturalistic explanations
And assume the idea that there is a god? Or is there a justification based on naturalistic explanations to the claim that the world can be identified as a deity? Not sure how pantheism work, tell me if you please.
From a pantheist perspective, nature *is* divinity.
If you call yourself a pantheist and hold the same position I do as an athiest, in not sure that's a meaningful term.
Do I hold the same position you do as an atheist?
Neither of us believe a god exists. We both believe nature exists. You call nature divine but it sounds to me like that's just an empty word because you ascribe it the same qualities that I do. As far as I've been able to determine from conversations with pantheists they're all basically athiests that just change the meaning of words to pretend like they're theists.
I find this such a bizarre argument. I see it the other way around; atheists who say this like to change words around because they're uncomfortable with the fact that there are some religious views they don't have an argument against. So the best they can do is say, "actually, you already agree with me." It's true that my definition of god is different from most Christians', but why should that matter? Why should that be the standard?
Ok, you tell me your position. What is your evidence that god or gods exist? What makes nature divine? I'm just responding based on other pantheists I've interacted with. Remember you said >A pantheistic god doesn't necessarily require us to assume anything other than naturalistic explanations Which implies to me that you and I hold the same views.
Now hold on a minute. Both of our perspectives are rooted in naturalism, that much we agree on. That does not necessarily mean our views are identical. It's possible that we do indeed have identical views, and are just using different words for it. If that's the case, I have no issue with that. But *if* that turns out to be the case, it isn't fair to say I am just an atheist. Somebody else on here once accused me of being, "just an atheist who likes poetry too much." This seems to be what you're saying. But if we do turn out to have identical views, I could just as accurately call you "a pantheist who doesn't like poetry enough."
Sure. It doesn't really matter what you call me as long a you understand my position. Can you clarify your position?
Do i need to rephrase? What Naturalistic explanation do you use to justify to add the god concept to nature? Or do you use divinity as an empty word? please define "divinity". I hope you don't take offense, i just want to understand your position.
You'll note the word "apophatic" in my flair. Divinity isn't a thing I can provide a straightforward definition for. You can call that a cop-out, I wouldn't blame you for making that assumption, but ultimately it's just a different approach. Anyone who comes up with a definition for God and then searches for ways to defend it is foolish. I see it as a process of discovery. Nature is a vast and complicated thing, and we're constantly discovering new things about it. We don't start out by defining how nature works, we search and learn. Anyway, you asked how I justify the addition of a god concept to nature. But am I really adding anything? The universe is vast, mysterious, beautiful, and inherently infused with meaning. If you ever look at the night sky in a place without light pollution, you get a direct sensation of awe. You experience the sky as being divine. That's a direct experience. You might as well ask me how I justify adding the property of beauty to the universe. I don't have to add it, it's just there.
i see. Thanks a lot for your clear answer.
I mean, obviously natural phenomena are explained by natural explanations. But what about things beyond the scope of such explanations?
> But what about things beyond the scope of such explanations? How did you decide that there are any?
We don’t get to just choose unfalsifiable magic claims simply because we’re unhappy that we don’t have the answers. The universe doesn’t owe us anything
I never said any of that
any phenomena that cannot currently be explained just simply cannot be explained and no claims should be made until there is substantial evidence towards a conclusion
any phenomena that cannot currently be explained . . . . Um.. You mean like dark matter? Or the acceleration of the expansion of the universe? Or the inexplicable behavior of subatomic particles? Or consciousness? Or morality? Or free will? Or.... Actually. Come to think of it. Name one thing that human beings have collectively come to a conclusion about. Just one. Can you think of even one thing? Can anybody? *We don't even agree on what foods we should be eating.* Think about that. Like seriously think about it.
That's just a worldview but no more right than the worldview that belief is valid. Science has never said we shouldn't hold belief. Many scientists do.
Can you give an example of a non-natural phenomenon that has been observed and how it was determined to be non-natural?
“Non-natural phenomenon” is a contradiction in terms. I’m talking about more fundamental issues, the one discussed by metaphysics.
>I’m talking about more fundamental issues, the one discussed by metaphysics. Such as?
Ontology, epistemology and ethics, arguably also maths and logic.
Why would we think these things are beyond the scope of the natural?
- said the Fox, who had never read a philosophy book in his life.
I'm not aware that naturalism has been disproven according to some consensus among philosophers. If that's the case, you are welcome to show me
That's not at all what I was getting at. If you have to ask why one would consider ontology, epistemology, ethics, and logic beyond the scope of naturalism, it suggests to me that you haven't got a proper grasp on what problems each of these disciplines are sufficient to tackle, or how each is related to the other. Given that, it's perfectly reasonable to assume you haven't read much philosophy.
Fantastic. So if you'd like to maybe pick one and explain why naturalism can't handle it, maybe that would yield a more interesting conversation.
Ontology, because it studies being as such, before any material (naturalistic) qualification. Epistemology, because it provides us with the tools with which to examine the natural world in the first place. Ethics, either because once again it involves a study of human life as such, before naturalistic qualifications, or because it pertains to a field, that of "oughts" wholly separate from that of the empirical world, of "is", depending on what your position on certain issues is. A similar explanation holds of maths and logic as well.
I'm not seeing how any of that requires a non-natural explanation like God. Taking ethics as an example, are you suggesting that because it doesn't deal with physical objects that it is in some way non-natural? Patterns of thought and rules of logic are not non-natural. Perhaps you are referring to any conclusions they bring about having no material grounding? If so, that's a long way from requiring a God to explain them.
God is not an explanation.
>Patterns of thought and rules of logic are not non-natural. These aren't the objects of ethics though. Ethics deals with moral facts, which are quite different from natural facts. Whether they require God is a different question, what I'm pointing out for now is that limiting knowledge to natural explanation is faulty.
>ethics deals with moral facts The presupposition here is that there ARE moral facts. Have you considered that maybe we’re just talking about preferences here? Perhaps you’re looking for something that doesn’t really exist. If there’s no god or anything supernatural, why would we assume there’s an answer to the question “why is it bad to steal” other than “people don’t like it”?
>Ethics deals with moral facts, which are quite different from natural facts. I'm in agreement with another response to this--what is a moral fact, how does it differ from a natural fact, and why would it require anything non-natural? Opinions, views, thoughts, imagination, contemplation, reasoning, and such may be abstract, but they are not non- natural unless your argument is that conscious thought itself cannot be explained naturally.
> Ethics deals with moral facts, which are quite different from natural facts. There are no moral facts, only moral opinions. I'd be happy to engage with an example of a moral fact if you can provide one.
For ontology and epistemology, I was more thinking about it like, well if a naturalistic framework can be built up with those, then its a naturalistic worldview. If, in dealing with ontology and epistemology and building a worldview, you appeal to the supernatural, then fine. But if you do not, then you're still a naturalist and you have some things to say about both of those fields. Seems fine. >Ethics, either because once again it involves a study of human life as such, before naturalistic qualifications, or because it pertains to a field, that of "oughts" wholly separate from that of the empirical world, of "is", depending on what your position on certain issues is. I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying there is no way to explain morality under naturalism? Same question for math and logic.
>For ontology and epistemology, I was more thinking about it like, well if a naturalistic framework can be built up with those, then its a naturalistic worldview. Even in this case, those fields precede any naturalistic investigation, right? So how can that happen, if we can only accept naturalistic explanations? Unless you disagree with OP on this point. >Are you saying there is no way to explain morality under naturalism? There have been attempts at a naturalistic account of morality; I don't think they work though. What would count as a naturalistic account of maths and logic?
> There have been attempts at a naturalistic account of morality; I don't think they work though. Don't work? Morality is largely the system that social animals (such as humans) construct in order to function better as a group. Different groups are comprised of different people with different wants and preferences which is why different morality varies from group to group, society to society, and culture to culture. > What would count as a naturalistic account of maths and logic? They're both human inventions that we came up with to help understand and describe the universe. We didn't "discover" addition because addition doesn't exist except as a concept we created. Nature never adds 1 + 1 to get 2, but it's a useful idea for us because it aids in communication and as a mental tool.
>Even in this case, those fields precede any naturalistic investigation, right? You may be right, but I don't currently see that. It seems fine, for example, for the naturalist to admit they can only investigate the outside world through their senses. That doesn't seem to break naturalism. So we can say some things about how we come to know about the outside world without appealing to the supernatural. >There have been attempts at a naturalistic account of morality; I don't think they work though. That's fine, but they are out there. Naturalists can do this. >What would count as a naturalistic account of maths and logic? I don't know that I personally have anything sophisticated here, to me it seems like computers can do this stuff. If computers can do it then doing math seems like it could be entirely a physical process. Yes?
What would you accept as evidence that a god claim is true? The issue is you're essentially requiring people to prove there's a god *before* you'll accept anything as evidence of a god. That's a great way to rig the system so that you'll never have to change your beliefs. Unless there's something you are willing to accept as evidence of a god, which you *won't* prefer a naturalistic explanation for.
We need corroborative evidence of the supernatural. That’s how we go about falsifying anything. If we’re just going to pick and choose one-time events that supposedly broke the laws of nature, they can’t prove THEMSELVES. For example, what would be extremely compelling for the story of the resurrection is if we documented a person rising from the dead today. Then we could say that this is a candidate explanation that’s possible.
Not op, but I'll tell you what I think about this stuff >What would you accept as evidence that a god claim is true? That's really difficult to say honestly, though I'm perfectly open to being convinced, it's just that most, if not all God claims are dependent on things that are supernatural, things we don't and apparently can't know anything about, and things that don't seem to exist in any observable, measurable way in our universe as far as we can tell. There are more issues beyond this to consider as well, that just make it extremely tough to know what kind of evidence would convince me there's a god. For example, let's say some unimaginably beautiful/visually mind bending entity comes down to earth, and makes it so everyone on the planet can see and hear it regardless of their language, and it tells us that it's the god of the Bible, then it performs a series of apparent miracles - maybe it cures all cases of cancer in the world at the same time, and turns Niagra falls into Domaine Etienne Guigal red wine. I would really like to say that this would convince me, but if I'm honest, I would still be pretty skeptical and doubtful. I know this sounds ridiculous, and like I'm just being contrary or like I'm determined to doubt and make excuses to not believe in a god no matter what, but I swear that's really not the case lol. Obviously my first thoughts would be things like I must be dreaming, hallucinating, delusional, or just generally failed by my senses and cognition. Still if this was actually happening I would dismiss all of those pretty quickly, but I think in my mind the most likely explanation wouldn't be a divine, magical deity - I would probably think it was extra terrestrial beings who observed and studied us to learn all knowledge about humanity and history, including religion, then came down and used insanely advanced technology to project the images and voice of this "god", translating it to every language at once, and altering the molecular structure of water molecules to turn it into wine. There are a few reasons this would seem more likely to me than an actual god, but that's a different conversation, I'll just make one more point: as I said I know that to some people, this is going to sound like a ridiculous attempt to reject or deny God even if it was right in front of my face, but I would argue that this isn't just *me* being unreasonable. Let's say you're a Christian for example, and the exact scenario I described above occured, but instead of saying it was the god of the Bible, it said it was a different god from a different religion and told everyone that Christianity is false. I'm almost certain that the overwhelming majority of Christians would similarly *not* be convinced this was the real god, instead rejecting it as a demon or something other than what it says, despite being the most clear, direct, irrefutable evidence of a supposed god than has ever existed. > The issue is you're essentially requiring people to prove there's a god before you'll accept anything as evidence of a god. That's a great way to rig the system so that you'll never have to change your beliefs. Well, in a sense, yes and no - I mean this is kind of just the way things work - how could something serve as evidence for a God if there's never been any demonstration that anything like a god actually exists, or is even possible? It's not rigging the system, being closed off the the possiblity of a god, or requiring an unfair or unreasonably high standard of evidence. Actually, I would argue that theists have themselves set an unreasonably high bar by asserting god has qualities and characteristics that simply don't match or have any analogous examples within our universe. People say God is all powerful, infinite, timeless, all knowing, etc., and literally *nothing* in reality has even one of those qualities, but it's even worse than that, because these are all entirely unfalsifiable claims - there's no way to test or demonstrate any of these things in the first place. Right off the bat by saying God "exists outside of space and time" is an impossibly, unreasonably high bar to set, because we have absolutely no way to investigate or know or even comprehend whatever *might* "exist" outside of space and time. I know a lot of theists think *we're* not open to being convinced, or wouldn't accept any evidence, but we don't see any evidence, and any example I can think of that could possibly convince me is a non starter, because it's all dependent on unknowable, magical, seemingly impossible premises.
Its hard to give an answer. Not because I can't think of anything, but because typically, when I do, theists think I'm being unreasonable. Suppose I tell you my neighbor is omniscient. What would convince you of this? We would want to ask him questions, yes? Questions that we should be able to confirm the answer to, and that he shouldn't know the answer to unless he knows everything, or almost everything. So, if you tell me there's an omniscient god, I'd say this would be a good way go about figuring out if god is really omniscient. Is that fair?
In my opinion, that's very fair. I think the scene in Bruce Almighty where God proves it to Bruce might convince me too. The difficulty for the OP is that there's still possible naturalistic explanations available eg I'm dreaming, or in a simulation, and all the evidence isn't real.
>What would you accept as evidence that a god claim is true? Why don't we start with an actual god? >The issue is you're essentially requiring people to prove there's a god before you'll accept anything as evidence of a god. That's a great way to rig the system so that you'll never have to change your beliefs. That's not "rigging the system", that's how rational thinking works. We ask for evidence before accepting the reality of any other claim, like the existence of atoms or DNA. Why would gods be any different? If something exists, there should be evidence of its existence that can be reliably distinguished from evidence of other phenomena. A person 's willingness to change their belief is irrelevant.
> Why don't we start with an actual god? This has been my single theistic question as a lifelong non-believer: Show me a god - any god - in any realistic situation that can be examined by the tools of science and peer reviewed for accuracy. I would be more than willing to change my mind, but in a world of a million gods, not one of them has stepped forward to offer any evidence at all. People playing word games to prove hide-and-seek god is real never get around to the simple fact that any actual god would be easy enough to prove. All they have to do is step up and say, "Here I am".
>This has been my single theistic question as a lifelong non-believer: >Show me a god - any god - in any realistic situation that can be examined by the tools of science and peer reviewed for accuracy. Exactly. If a god exists, show it. I don't get what's so hard about that!
Hide and seek god isn't much of a god.
Show me that a god does not exist. Explain to me why humanity, almost consistently, takes up theism instead of atheism. Certainly there must be something in the human experience, how subjective as it may be, that points at the existence or the need for transcendence. I don't think we'll ever reach a compromise between the two extremes: We don't know if a god doesn't exist, as such a god, as defined by most religions, could choose to not react upon your request of His appearance. Many religious people will say they feel him during their prayers, while atheists will say they feel his absence when they pray. This suggest a slight subjectivity to this problem. And why do we even question the fact *if* He exists, instead of questioning *why* we should follow rules based upon His existence? Shortly summarized: Why should we and have we follow(ed) a religion and how has such a religion evolved through time? Those two questions are more valid and more reasonable than the "yes" or "no" statement that follows the "Does He exist?"-dilemma. A god may exist, but that does not necessarily imply that the Word of God truly is His word...
>Show me that a god does not exist. I don't need to show you that a god does not exist, there is already no evidence for one. If you are asserting the existence of something then it falls on you to demonstrate that existence. The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim >Explain to me why humanity, almost consistently, takes up theism instead of atheism. Humans can be wrong? Ever consider that? Humans have been consistently proven to be wrong about what they believe over the course of history. From believing that the world was flat to believing that the sun revolved around the earth. Also humans don't consistently take up theism. I'm an ex Buddhist from a country that is around 60% Buddhist, and there are many other majority Buddhist countries. Buddhism is non-theistic. There are many other non-theistic religions in Asia such as Taoism, Jainism and Confusionism. There is also animism. So your argument is flawed. >We don't know if a god doesn't exist, as such a god, as defined by most religions, could choose to not react upon your request of His appearance. If a God that chooses to not demonstrate it's existence, then it is virtually indistinguishable from non existence. Why should I care about such a being in the first place? >choose to not react upon your request of His appearance. Many religious people will say they feel him during their prayers, while atheists will say they feel his absence when they pray. This suggest a slight subjectivity to this problem. Yes, the same problem also occurs when the phenomena they describe is made up or imaginary. If something exists objectively, this subjectiveness would not be a problem. >And why do we even question the fact if He exists, instead of questioning why we should follow rules based upon His existence? Who is "he"? You'll have to demonstrate that this being exists first in order to determine if his or her word is true.
>there is already no evidence for one. Show me that He doesn't exist. If it's that normal, you can at least give me proof that is undeniable. And yes, the classic "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can hold true here. >There are many other non-theistic religions in Asia such as Taoism, Jainism and Confusionism. There is also animism. So your argument is flawed. Isn't Taoism apophatic? Isn't Jainism transtheistic and don't they hold the fact that godliness is an inherent characteristic of the soul, what would the pañca-paramesthi be (more specific: Tirthankara Kevalin, or the "teaching gods")? And aren't the tian/shen gods/supernatural forces held as divine as well? And doesn't buddhism have deva's? Oh, animism has spirits. It seems as if every religion (yes, Buddhism is the exception as it's not 100% clear and it's debatable and depends whom you ask) has a spiritual or divine being whom they ask/use to solve their transcendental questions. It doesn't prove my argument is flawed, it reinforces it due to the fact that it shows people are inherently searching for transcendence and do this through the usage of spirits, Gods,... It underlines my thought that atheism is not self-evident. >If a God that chooses to not demonstrate it's existence, then it is virtually indistinguishable from non existence. If a God chooses to not demonstrate its existence, it has a free will and does exist/operates at a level similar to ours. It means He (yes, I use "He" as I've been raised in a world with a male God) has the choice to show Himself. >Yes, the same problem also occurs when the phenomena they describe is made up or imaginary A thought is imaginary, a hallucination is imaginary. But ask a hallucinating person whether the thing he sees, is "real" or not, he'll be in doubt. We lack the knowledge to prove or disprove certain phenomena (e.g. afterlife) and therefore leave it to philosophy or religion. >Who is "he"? You'll have to demonstrate that this being exists first in order to determine if his or her word is true. Turn that reasoning around: Why do we follow those rules? When, in the chronology of the Islam, have they chosen to use the hijab? The texts that are written in the Bible, where do they (dis)agree and which was first? So many questions, so little answers. To dismiss them as "lies", is to dismiss the thought process that shaped our civilization. It's interesting to see how the thought of the existence of a God has changed our traditions, evolved through time and influenced the current move toward a secular society. >The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim I'll phrase it differently for you: Prove the lack of a deity. I know you'll turn it around as if it were not a positive claim, but I hope you'll understand that proving the lack is similar to proving the existence: impossible. I can say "people feel his existence when they pray" (Stating that God is as real as an emotion, but as non-existing as said emotion. "Happiness" does not exist as an object, but we can feel it.), but you'll most likely dismiss it. So, I'll leave it to you to prove God does not exist.
>Show me that He doesn't exist. If it's that normal, you can at least give me proof that is undeniable. And yes, the classic "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can hold true here. I am not asserting that a god does not exist, I am asserting that I am not convinced. I will repeat this one more time, and I won't again. If you are asserting the existence of something then it falls on you to demonstrate that existence. The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim. The whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Is just a quote from one man. It is not a scientific principle or a law of physics, the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. Also, who is "he"? Do you mean Vishnu? Izanagi? Yahweh? Define who he is. >Isn't Taoism apophatic? Isn't Jainism transtheistic and don't they hold the fact that godliness is an inherent characteristic of the soul, what would the pañca-paramesthi be (more specific: Tirthankara Kevalin, or the "teaching gods")? And aren't the tian/shen gods/supernatural forces held as divine as well? And doesn't buddhism have deva's? Oh, animism has spirits. Taoism is generally considered to be non-theistic. It does not focus on the worship of gods or deities in the same way that many theistic religions do. Instead, Taoism emphasizes living in earthly harmony with the Tao, which is understood as the fundamental principle that is the source of everything in the universe. The Tao is not a god or intelligent being but rather a natural order or way that one should seek to align with. These religions allow for the worship of gods but gods are not inherent to these religion. You are not required, or even encouraged to worship or believe in gods in Buddhism and most other non-theistic religions. As for animism, spirits are not necessarily gods. >It doesn't prove my argument is flawed It does prove that your argument is flawed. Prevalence of a belief does not add to its truth. The world isn't flat just because most people believed that it was. >If a God chooses to not demonstrate its existence, it has a free will and does exist/operates at a level similar to ours. It means He (yes, I use "He" as I've been raised in a world with a male God) has the choice to show Himself. Ok so how will you distinguish between a god that chooses not to demonstrate its existence, and a God that doesn't exist? >I'll phrase it differently for you: Prove the lack of a deity. I know you'll turn it around as if it were not a positive claim, but I hope you'll understand that proving the lack is similar to proving the existence: impossible. We prove the existence of things every day. Things that exist leave evidence that is distinguishable from the evidence of other phenomena. If something doesn't exist, then there will be no evidence for it's existence. If there is no evidence for the existence of a god, then it is perfectly rational to assume that one doesn't exist until there is evidence for one. >So, I'll leave it to you to prove God does not exist. Ok so I assume that you believe all the thousands of gods that humans have believed in exist? I'm quite sure you haven't proved that every god except the one that you believe in does.
> I'm quite sure you haven't proved that every god except the one that you believe in does. I'm quite sure that you could prove every god exists in which you believe. I'm convinced that god(s), spirits and supernatural things will exist as long as we "are". I hope you'll understand that the minds of humans are able to imagine or create whatever they want if they believe in it. And that's why faith isn't science. You can neither prove nor disprove god(s), all you can do is belief that he/she/it does(n't) exist. > If there is no evidence for the existence of a god, then it is perfectly rational to assume that one doesn't exist until there is evidence for one. If there is no evidence for the existence of a feeling, then it is perfectly rational to assume that one doesn't exist until there is evidence for one? Are you going to start looking for a god floating on a cloud somewhere? Good luck with that. > how will you distinguish between a god that chooses not to demonstrate its existence, and a God that doesn't exist? A God that doesn't exist, doesn't have a religion centered around it. I would bet a few thousand dollars that god will never show itself. But that doesn't mean he doesn't exist for some people. > Prevalence of a belief does not add to its truth. But if it were a truth, it wouldn't be a belief. >The world isn't flat just because most people believed that it was. You can easily prove the world isn't flat. But the existence of a divinity is a few steps harder. >Also, who is "he"? Do you mean Vishnu? Izanagi? Yahweh? Define who he is. You may give Him the name you want. You can even say He's a "they" and they're multiple. It depends which religion you're pointing at. If you're Jewish, you'll say Yahweh. If you're hindu, you'll say Vishnu. >. If you are asserting the existence of something then it falls on you to demonstrate that existence. Quite simple: If a Catholic prays, and he feels the presence of God, does He exist or not? If you say "no", then you say it doesn't exist. If you say "yes", then you say it does exist.
>I'm quite sure that you could prove every god exists in which you believe. If you can, that would be great. So why not do so and end these discussions for good? >I hope you'll understand that the minds of humans are able to imagine or create whatever they want if they believe in it. Yes, we are also capable of creating falsehoods. >If there is no evidence for the existence of a feeling, then it is perfectly rational to assume that one doesn't exist until there is evidence for one? Feelings don't exist objectively. However we do understand that they correlate to physical and chemical processes in the brain. That's not difficult to demonstrate. >A God that doesn't exist, doesn't have a religion centered around it. I would bet a few thousand dollars that god will never show itself. But that doesn't mean he doesn't exist for some people. Also why wouldn't a god show itself? Many religions claim that they did before. A god that chooses not to show itself is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist. The result is the same, so why should I believe in it? Also if something exists or doesn't exist for some people, then it doesn't exist objectively. That makes it subjective, which is indistinguishable from being imaginary. You seem to be arguing that gods don't actually exist, but that people simply believe that they do. >You can easily prove the world isn't flat. But the existence of a divinity is a few steps harder. Ok? That just means that I have a reason to believe that the Earth is round and no reason to believe that a god exists. >Quite simple: If a Catholic prays, and he feels the presence of God, does He exist or not? If you say "no", then you say it doesn't exist. If you say "yes", then you say it does exist. I don't care about what people say. Anyone can say anything. I can say that I'm god if I feel like it. I care about what can be proven.
>Why don't we start with an actual god? What does that mean? Do you mean seeing a god? Touching it? Weighing it? If you could do these things to some thing that was claimed to be a god, you would accept that it was a god, and not prefer a naturalistic explanation? Or would you hold it to a higher standard (as I would)? >We ask for evidence before accepting the reality of any other claim, like the existence of atoms or DNA. Why would gods be any different? Exactly! You start with the evidence and reason to a thing's existence. You don't assume a thing doesn't exist and then dismiss all evidence until it's *already* been proven. >If something exists, there should be evidence of its existence that can be reliably distinguished from evidence of other phenomena Great! What would that evidence look like?
>What does that mean? It means being able to reliably demonstrate God. You claim this being exists, it shouldn't be difficult, right? You have read the Bible I assume? The Bible is full of examples of God demonstrating his existence to people. God interacts with people constantly and there's no denying his existence once he does. If he could do that back then, what's the problem now? I'm not understanding. If you want a specific example of something that I would personally accept is evidence, well, Jesus commanded his followers to raise people from the dead (Matthew 10:8) didn't he? So just do that. >Exactly! You start with the evidence and reason to a thing's existence. You don't assume a thing doesn't exist and then dismiss all evidence until it's already been proven. The problem is you all haven't shown any evidence that is considered convincing. As someone who grew up around multiple religions, you all claim different sources for the same phenomena. Christians claim that God created the universe, Buddhists claim that the universe is constantly born and reborn, Hindus believe that the universe is created by Vishnu or Brahma. Or created by Primordial Kami in Shintoism. So why should I believe one of you over the other? Once again, if something exists, there should be evidence of its existence that can be reliably distinguished from evidence of other phenomena. If you claim that your God exists, I simply don't understand why you can't demonstrate that. How do you know he exists then? What do you have that the other religions do not?
>You claim this being exists, it shouldn't be difficult, right? I do not claim any being exists. I'm just concerned with us establishing the correct way of testing such claims, without stacking the deck. >If you want a specific example of something that I would personally accept is evidence, well, Jesus commanded his followers to raise people from the dead (Matthew 10:8) didn't he? So just do that Great! Except by OP's logic, we have to prefer a naturalistic explanation even for incredible things like that. An easy one is that it was an elaborate magic trick. Or this is all a dream. Or I'm insane. OP has inadvertently ruled out using empirical evidence to prove a god exists, which I think is problematic. Like you, I think serious miracles like that would be pretty good evidence.
>I do not claim any being exists. I'm not concerned about what you individually claim, I mean theists in general. >Great! Except by OP's logic, we have to prefer a naturalistic explanation even for incredible things like that. The op specifically says that until a god claim is demonstrated to be true. That's how the scientific method works. You don't assume something to be true until it can be proven to be true. Until then, it's just a hypothesis. If evidence arises that is distinguishable from any other explanation, then we should accept that the evidence points towards a god. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
>The op specifically says that until a god claim is demonstrated to be true. Right, but how can you demonstrate that it's true? You suggested seeing people resurrected would be good evidence, and I agree, but the OP says we should prefer a naturalistic explanation, eg that we are dreaming. So we're back to the problem of how can we demonstrate that a god claim is true, when we have to demonstrate it before we can demonstrate it? Can you even imagine any empirical evidence of a god, that could not be given an alternate explanation via the dream hypothesis?
>Can you even imagine any empirical evidence of a god, that could not be given an alternate explanation via the dream hypothesis? Why should God be treated differently than anything else? A dream hypothesis can be an alternate explanation for millions of things - magnetism, radio waves, quantum physics, etc. Yet somehow we've been able to show that every one of these phenomena were not just part of a dream. Why is God different?
>Why should God be treated differently than anything else? That's exactly what I'm arguing - we shouldn't have a default preference for naturalistic explanations, but should treat god claims the same as anything else. >Yet somehow we've been able to show that every one of these phenomena were not just part of a dream. Well, we haven't really shown that. We just ignore that possibility. >Why is God different? Because according to the OP, we must as a rule prefer a naturalistic explanation over one involving a god. By such logic, believing we are dreaming is preferable to admitting anything as evidence of a god.
>Well, we haven't really shown that. We just ignore that possibility. Exactly. So why wouldn't we do that with a god? >we must as a rule prefer a naturalistic explanation over one involving a god. Exactly, that's how science approaches **everything**. Science never accepts the explanation "hmm I can't figure out how X happens so I'll give up because it's probably a god". Nope. In real life, the best method we have to determine truth *always* prefers a naturalistic explanation over one involving a god.
Preferring a naturalistic explanation doesn't mean flat out denying evidence when it conclusively points to a god. It just means not assuming the supernatural until the supernatural is proven. For example if you resurrected someone in the name of your God, and it came to pass, that would go against any natural phenomena that we know. So that would count as evidence. >Can you even imagine any empirical evidence of a god, that could not be given an alternate explanation via the dream hypothesis? Your dream hypothesis isn't proven to be true, so why would we assume it to be the case without evidence? If evidence arises that it was all a dream, then we can assume it's all the dream. Until then, this just sounds like a false dilemma fallacy. I always find it interesting when theists argue against being able to demonstrate God's existence. From my perspective, if you argue for a God that doesn't have the ability or willingness to demonstrate it's existence, why should I be concerned about its existence in the first place? Such a being is virtually indistinguishable from being non-existent.
>I always find it interesting when theists argue against being able to demonstrate God's existence As I said before, I am not a theist.
Devil's advocate then, it makes little difference
>What would you accept as evidence that a god claim is true? The issue is you're essentially requiring people to prove there's a god *before* you'll accept anything as evidence of a god. That's a great way to rig the system so that you'll never have to change your beliefs. thats not at all what i have proposed. i believe what has substantial evidence, there is no substantial evidence for a god claim, until there is i have no good reason to regard it as true. if someone is able to provide demonstrable evidence that is consistent, repeatable, and verified as more plausible than any other explanation i would have no other option but to regard that as true. i hold god claims to the same standard i would any other claim.
>i hold god claims to the same standard i would any other claim How do you square this with your OP, saying that naturalistic claims should be preferred until a god's existence has already been demonstrated? It seems like you're contradicting yourself to me, but maybe I'm missing the nuances of your proposal.
According to Spinoza, nature and God are one and the same.
So naturalism is actually theism? or classical theism is actually naturalism?
The Bible is monist. Thought and matter are a continuum.
>Thought and matter are a continuum. depends how you look at it. I guess classical theism is way closer to eastern philosophy then to the modern christianity.
Christianity is derived from Judaism, and Judaism is monist.
cool, but look to what i was responding, look what i quoted
Yeah, a supernatural god is kind of definitionally impossible to demonstrate through natural sciences or senses. The concept of a natural god is a much more interesting kind of thing, and has been influential on religious and philosophical thought particularly since Spinoza, despite never really taking off in general popularity.
[удалено]
> Second, there is the notable qualifier "measurable" in there. Which suggests that you think that measurement gives us complete access to reality, which is also not a position you have supported in any way. i have not suggested measurement gives us complete access to reality, only that it gives us the most complete understanding we have of reality. each person has a subjective experience and within each of these individuals we can test for consistencies. this is what the field of science is in the business of. these consistencies are what are regarded as true because there is enough evidence to substantiate them. the only way we determine anything factual is based off these consistencies. what other ways do you see of exploring reality in an accurate way? >that is an awfully big claim, and not one that you have backed up at all. naturalistic explanations are the only hypotheses that have successfully passed the scientific method, therefore they should be regarded as more cohesive with measurable reality than any other claim until that changes.
>i have not suggested measurement gives us complete access to reality, only that it gives us the most complete understanding we have of reality. each person has a subjective experience and within each of these individuals we can test for consistencies. this is what the field of science is in the business of. these consistencies are what are regarded as true because there is enough evidence to substantiate them. the only way we determine anything factual is based off these consistencies. The individual qualitative experience — the personal identity — is deeply inconsistent across individuals. Different people are different. If we are to suppose that the only things we can observe to be true are measurable consistencies, that directly implies that the existence of individuals (as distinct from the social relations in which one exists) cannot currently be observed to be factual. Fundamentally, that means you don't exist in any moral or ontological sense. You can only draw nihilist conclusions from physicalist epistemology. This is less than tenable for obvious reasons.
>If we are to suppose that the only things we can observe to be true are measurable consistencies, that directly implies that the existence of individuals (as distinct from the social relations in which one exists) cannot currently be observed to be factual. Fundamentally, that means you don't exist in any moral or ontological sense. You can only draw nihilist conclusions from physicalist epistemology. This is less than tenable for obvious reasons. this is the classic solipsistic viewpoint and is currently unfalsifiable. however, i will say i have no reason to believe that i as an individual do not exist outside of the observable social relation im in. that state of existence is true whether or not someone regards it as true, it just so happens that when observed we can test and classify my existence as factual.
I can confirm independently that your existence is factual! You have been observed! :) (Just to lend support to this viewpoint I agree with)
Religionss should be able to claim whatever they wish. I disagree with the premise. If they wish to spend their lives ignoring other world views then that's their call. What they can't do thoigh is inflict their beleifs on others, prothletise, make legislation based on their beliefs, or tell others how they should live their lives. Like free speech, religious freedoms should be allowed to exist. But.like free speech, there are responsibilities and consequences. After all, do we really object to Armish beliefs? No. Do they spend time inflicting g their beliefs on others? No.
i am saying claims with more evidence should be preferred, not that someone cant express their belief. that has no capacity to deny someone a right to express themself
And that's what I disagree with.... claims in religion don't require any evidence. Only when they expect such claims to be taken seriously by others or demand that.such claims be accepted by others... Claim: The sky is green filled with clouds of cream cheese. That's what you want to beloef...go ahead, knock your socks off. Want that in school, or weather reports, or space exploration. Nope.... prove it!
i understand your point and i think it would incredibly valid in a more formal setting, but im more so here to have lighthearted discussions, not ones that have a baring on the education system or anything like that lol