Why do people demand unnecessary evidence for a God?

[Night FM]

For example, some have asked for physical evidence, which would be unnecessary to provide since God is not a physical being.

Anyone can demand an arbitrary standard of evidence for anything. For example, I could demand that someone provide a video recording that proves Julius Caesar existed, and declare that unless such a recording is provided, that there is "no evidence" for Julius Caesar's existence (while naturally discounting any other types of evidence).

The reality is that people believe in lots of things which don't have or need the types of evidence that one might provide for the existence of gravity, they're just very selective about it, and I think that often selfish or emotional reasons come into play here (such as people simply not wanting to have to mentally tax themselves inquiring about the existence of a God, or what it means about humanity's place in the universe, or their fate after death).

Edited October 10 by Night FM

[swansont]

Probably because religious jerks are continually forcing people to live their lives a certain way. If they kept their noses out of other peoples’ business, a lot of us wouldn’t give a flying f&$* about it. 

But as long as that happens, “because God said so” isn’t enough; you’re going to have to give real evidence of invisible sky buddy.

You might deem evidence “unnecessary” but unless you have examples of people intruding into the lives of theists, demanding it, I think that’s a mischaracterization. I’ve never had anyone ring my doorbell, demanding evidence for God. I have had numerous people do so, trying to spread their religious word.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

The reality is that people believe in lots of things which don't have or need the types of evidence that one might provide for the existence of gravity, they're just very selective about it, and I think that often selfish or emotional reasons come into play here (such as people simply not wanting to have to mentally tax themselves inquiring about the existence of a God, or what it means about humanity's place in the universe, or their fate after death).

Some of us prefer to trust in the things we believe. Gods are unobservable by choice, which is far too coincidental for me. 

It's OK that you don't understand gravity and prefer to make up some garbage rather than study science. Intellectual pursuits aren't for everyone, and I hope you find a lot of comfort in your invisible sky buddy. Truly.

[Night FM]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Probably because religious jerks are continually forcing people to live their lives a certain way. If they kept their noses out of other peoples’ business, a lot of us wouldn’t give a flying f&$* about it. 

But as long as that happens, “because God said so” isn’t enough; you’re going to have to give real evidence of invisible sky buddy.

You might deem evidence “unnecessary” but unless you have examples of people intruding into the lives of theists, demanding it, I think that’s a mischaracterization. I’ve never had anyone ring my doorbell, demanding evidence for God. I have had numerous people do so, trying to spread their religious word.

What you're saying is a moot point, because society "forces people" to live their lives a certain way, whether it specifically comes from religion or not. And some collective morality isn't necessarily a bad thing. No one has the freedom to live their lives "any way" they want to, or else this would mean society is obligated to allow rapists the freedom to rape, or serial killers the freedom to murder.

How are laws which forbid murder, for example, any different than a religion forbidding murder on the basis of a holy book?

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Some of us prefer to trust in the things we believe. Gods are unobservable by choice, which is far too coincidental for me. 

It's OK that you don't understand gravity and prefer to make up some garbage rather than study science. Intellectual pursuits aren't for everyone, and I hope you find a lot of comfort in your invisible sky buddy. Truly.

It's a pretty simple point. If people demanded the same amount of evidence for the existence of Julius Ceaser that exists for the theory of gravity, then there would not be sufficient evidence that Julius Ceaser exists. There is no repeatable and testable way to prove the existence of Julius Ceaser. The evidence for his existence is primarily anecdotal and relies on historical records.

[iNow]

For the same reason I don’t believe someone telling me there’s an invisible dragon underneath my chair unless they offer good evidence to the contrary. 

[Night FM]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

For the same reason I don’t believe someone telling me there’s an invisible dragon underneath my chair unless they offer good evidence to the contrary. 

That doesn't substantiate why that's a fitting comparison. One could just as easily say that believing in evolution is akin to believing in little green men from Mars.

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, Night FM said:

One could just as easily say that believing in evolution is akin to believing in little green men from Mars.

And they’d be wrong 

[MigL]

Some of us are funny that way.
We put our faith in what is evidenced, not what is imaginary.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

What you're saying is a moot point, because society "forces people" to live their lives a certain way, whether it specifically comes from religion or not.

But these are generally agreed-upon issues. Not the cases where religious groups, in the minority, exert influence. Abortion is but one example of this. (but this is not an invitation to start a debate about abortion)

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

And some collective morality isn't necessarily a bad thing. No one has the freedom to live their lives "any way" they want to, or else this would mean society is obligated to allow rapists the freedom to rape, or serial killers the freedom to murder.

Nobody has claimed otherwise. Straw man argument.

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

How are laws which forbid murder, for example, any different than a religion forbidding murder on the basis of a holy book?

Because there are other laws/rules that don’t have this overlap. It’s not the generally-agreed-upon issues, as I already mentioned, it’s the fringe cases. 

59 minutes ago, Night FM said:

That doesn't substantiate why that's a fitting comparison. One could just as easily say that believing in evolution is akin to believing in little green men from Mars.

Yes, one can say dishonest things. It’s usually a red flag when someone admits that they do so easily.

[KJW]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

Why do people demand unnecessary evidence for a God?

Personally, I consider it a fool's errand to try to prove or disprove the existence of a god. I'm more concerned about the consequentiality of a god. Even if a god does exist, does that existence have any consequence on the reality in which we exist? If not, then from where do religions get their authority? Surely, any claim of the consequentiality of a god requires evidence, otherwise the authority of religions can simply be ignored, even if a god does exist.

 

[Night FM]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

Some of us are funny that way.
We put our faith in what is evidenced

Well, no, you put it in what you've been told is "evidenced" by authority figures, and only be very specific standards and axioms for "evidence", not what you have actually evidenced yourself.

19 hours ago, MigL said:

, not what is imaginary.

Dreams are "imaginary" but are still real, in the sense that they actually exist.

19 hours ago, KJW said:

Personally, I consider it a fool's errand to try to prove or disprove the existence of a god. I'm more concerned about the consequentiality of a god. Even if a god does exist, does that existence have any consequence on the reality in which we exist? If not, then from where do religions get their authority? Surely, any claim of the consequentiality of a god requires evidence, otherwise the authority of religions can simply be ignored, even if a god does exist.

I'm not sure that's a risk worth taking, especially if the consequences exist after death and the only way to "evidence" them would be to return from the dead, or possibly have a near-death experience.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

But these are generally agreed-upon issues. Not the cases where religious groups, in the minority, exert influence. Abortion is but one example of this. (but this is not an invitation to start a debate about abortion)

There are plenty of cases where the minority overrules the majority, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, in the Jim Crow era the majority of white people may have wanted the minority of black people to use separate water fountains, something which could be overruled by a minority of justices on the basis of Constitutional law.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Nobody has claimed otherwise. Straw man argument.

Because there are other laws/rules that don’t have this overlap. It’s not the generally-agreed-upon issues, as I already mentioned, it’s the fringe cases. 

Yes, one can say dishonest things. It’s usually a red flag when someone admits that they do so easily.

Well, the majority of people in America believe in God, so what if the majority agreed to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools?

20 hours ago, iNow said:

And they’d be wrong 

Not really. It's just as apt an analogy, and nothing's been given to substantiate why one analogy fits but the other doesn't.

"I don't believe in evolution for the same reason that I don't believe in green radioactive mutants who eat people's brains".

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Night FM said:

There are plenty of cases where the minority overrules the majority, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, in the Jim Crow era the majority of white people may have wanted the minority of black people to use separate water fountains, something which could be overruled by a minority of justices on the basis of Constitutional law.

They did, in fact, have separate water coolers for a long time, and SCOTUS decisions require a majority. But this doesn’t rebut the point; it only attempts to rationalize minority influence.

[Night FM]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

They did, in fact, have separate water coolers for a long time, and SCOTUS decisions require a majority. But this doesn’t rebut the point; it only attempts to rationalize minority influence.

A majority of voters? No.

[John Cuthber]

On 10/11/2024 at 12:16 AM, Night FM said:

I could demand that someone provide a video recording that proves Julius Caesar existed, and declare that unless such a recording is provided, that there is "no evidence" for Julius Caesar's existence (while naturally discounting any other types of evidence).

You could do that, but you would have to be an idiot.
We have coins with his picture on it.

So, all you really did there was show that you don't understand the nature of evidence.
 

[KJW]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

I'm not sure that's a risk worth taking, especially if the consequences exist after death and the only way to "evidence" them would be to return from the dead, or possibly have a near-death experience.

I also ignore scammers who contact me to say that there is a problem with my internet, computer, bank account, taxation, postal delivery, toll payment, etc, etc, etc.

Your scare tactic won't work on me because I have assessed the risk based on what I know and have decided that the risk is worth taking.

My philosophy is: why would an ancient book or religious leader have a better insight into the workings of reality than modern science with its impressive technology or the power of mathematical logic?

One further point: there are many religions, and their teachings are not necessarily compatible. So how does one decide which religion is the one that should be followed? Your scare tactic might have led me to the wrong religion if it had worked on me.

 

Edited October 12 by KJW

[Night FM]

6 minutes ago, KJW said:

My philosophy is: why would an ancient book or religious leader have a better insight into the workings of reality than modern science with its impressive technology or the power of mathematical logic?

I'm not sure what your point is, since the intellectuals of ancient times would have had better knowledge relative to their time than the average person today does. (And the authors of religious texts, in an era when most people were illiterate peasants were the intellectuals of their day and age - most of them are obviously more literate than the average person today who only reads at a high school level and only possesses an IQ of 100). Such as how ancient Greek philosophers mathematically calculated that the earth was round, while hundreds of years later common folk still existed who believed it was flat.

Edited October 12 by Night FM

[KJW]

5 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I'm not sure what your point is, since the intellectuals of ancient times would have had better knowledge relative to their time than the average person today does. (And the authors of religious texts, in an era when most people were illiterate peasants were the intellectuals of their day and age - most of them are obviously more literate than the average person today who only reads at a high school level). Such as how ancient Greek philosophers mathematically calculated that the earth was round, while hundreds of years later common folk still existed who believed it was flat.

Why are you comparing the intellectuals of ancient times to the average person of today? That's not a reasonable comparison. Today, society as a whole has such a vast body of knowledge that I find it mind boggling that anyone would suggest that ancient knowledge is even remotely comparable.

 

[Night FM]

30 minutes ago, KJW said:

Why are you comparing the intellectuals of ancient times to the average person of today? That's not a reasonable comparison. Today, society as a whole has such a vast body of knowledge that I find it mind boggling that anyone would suggest that ancient knowledge is even remotely comparable.

 

Not sure what to say, but obviously the average person of today would have a much lower IQ than an intellectual of any historical period. Simply having access to pre-existing knowlege, often merely regurgitated by rote wouldn't be comparable to discovering knowledge or synthesizing knowledge into complex theories. I could easily just assume that I'm "smarter" than Isaac Newton, because he is from a comparatively ancient time and I can read about gravity on Wikipedia, or assume that all of the natural sciences are outdated, since the natural sciences date back to the 1600s and are "ancient" compared to newer areas of science, such as computer science.

Edited October 12 by Night FM

[MigL]

5 hours ago, Night FM said:

Well, no, you put it in what you've been told is "evidenced" by authority figures

Well, np.
Everything I am comfortable trusting, has evidence that I, or others, can reasonably reproduce.
Religion is, by definition, a belief system based on faith, not evidence, and, as such, hasn't, nor does it require, any evidence.

Science is not 'evidenced' by authority figures like the priests of religions.
Anyone can do scientific experiments, make observations, and obtain evidence.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, KJW said:

how does one decide which religion is the one that should be followed?

By choosing to be born into a specific community or family in a specific location, of course. 

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, Night FM said:

Not sure what to say, but obviously the average person of today would have a much lower IQ than an intellectual of any historical period.

Not obvious. Extraordinary claim, citation needed.

[Night FM]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Not obvious. Extraordinary claim, citation needed.

Unless you honestly believe that a person of average intelligence would be able to calculate the circumference of the earth without any prior knowledge existing that it was even round, then yes I'd say it's rather obvious.

The average person as recently as the early 1900s didn't even read or write, so obviously a highly literate individual ancient times would have had a significantly higher level of intellect. The average person today couldn't independently author the entire philosophical treatises of Aristotle or Plato.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/ancient-greeks-proved-earth-round-eratosthenes-alexandria-syene-summer-solstice-a8131376.html

Edited October 12 by Night FM

[swansont]

Just now, Night FM said:

The average person as recently as the early 1900s didn't even read or write, so obviously a highly literate individual ancient times would have had a significantly higher level of intellect.

Literacy is a matter of education opportunity rather than intelligence.

[Night FM]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Literacy is a matter of education opportunity rather than intelligence.

I'm not talking about average literacy, but very high levels of literacy and fluency.

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I'm not talking about average literacy, but very high levels of literacy and fluency.

You said “The average person as recently as the early 1900s didn't even read or write” so it’s not at all obvious that that’s what you meant, but I appreciate the tap-dancing.