Why do people demand unnecessary evidence for a God?

[Night FM]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

The point is that literate people in ancient times would have been significantly more well-educated than the average person.

[swansont]

53 minutes ago, Night FM said:

The point is that literate people in ancient times would have been significantly more well-educated than the average person.

But you said IQ, which is intelligence, not education. (actual IQ tests, OTOH…)

Yes, they were better-educated, but there were relatively few of them, because the masses were doing manual labor. They had opportunity and probably family means or a patron. The average person today is much better educated - “developed” countries send their kids to school rather than the mines or to plow a field - plus they have the benefit of accumulated knowledge.

(more than half of US adults >25y.o. have some level of college education 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States#General_attainment_of_degrees/diplomas)

[LuckyR]

On 10/10/2024 at 4:16 PM, Night FM said:

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).

Who are these "people"? The vast majority of humans claim to believe in gods that they have spend very little effort analyzing their rationale for existance, instead because they happened to be raised in a household and a local culture that "believed" in said god. It was a given, no thinking required.

[Night FM]

On 10/13/2024 at 1:59 AM, LuckyR said:

Who are these "people"? The vast majority of humans claim to believe in gods that they have spend very little effort analyzing their rationale for existance, instead because they happened to be raised in a household and a local culture that "believed" in said god. It was a given, no thinking required.

Basically, I believe that if all religions disappeared, people would arrive at the conclusion that there is one God. The debate would be over "which one", or rather what the specific characteristics of God are.

Even "belief in science" is essentially appealing to a higher cosmic principle than oneself, and fills the void.

Edited October 22 by Night FM

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, Night FM said:

Basically, I believe that if all religions disappeared, people would arrive at the conclusion that there is one God. The debate would be over "which one", or rather what the specific characteristics of God are.

Even "belief in science" is essentially appealing to a higher cosmic principle than oneself, and fills the void.

Who really cares what you think is true? Nobody here. We're looking for evidence that lends our beliefs some validity. For instance, there are more polytheistic religions than monotheistic ones, so it seems more likely that, in your scenario, people are more likely to choose many gods over one. 

Also, we don't believe in science the same way you believe in your one god. We trust the information we glean from our processes and methodologies because we can verify it, rather than simply having faith that it's right.

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Night FM said:

Basically, I believe that if all religions disappeared, people would arrive at the conclusion that there is one God. The debate would be over "which one", or rather what the specific characteristics of God are.

Even "belief in science" is essentially appealing to a higher cosmic principle than oneself, and fills the void.

We’ve run this experiment, and did not arrive at that result. 

[DavidWahl]

As atheists, we intentionally demand evidence to provoke a sense of rationality in the minds of people with religious dogmatism, in a way to shut them up, whereas we're also greatly aware that no such evidence can be provided. These people desperately want to validate the truth of their beliefs and the annoying part is they do this by unnecessarily filling the gaps of understanding in science by a mysterious entity and its so-miracles. The most elegant and well-known method that they could come up with. 

Even in the absence of knowledge, they are greatly confident and deluded in their idea of God that they have the divine arrogance to challenge an actually knowledgeable individual; and so by questioning and demanding evidence, we are simply helping them cultivate a sense of humility while also make them realise that they are as clueless as we are when it comes to proving the existence of God. It's more of a tactic than a serious request.

Theists will claim various sorts of characteristics about God's true nature, as if they've encountered or observed God themselves which thus gives them the right to make assumptions about God's nature. Let's assume a being like God does exist, how are you so sure that God is non-physical in nature? On what concrete basis did you come to that understanding? Did God have a personal chat with you and told you that? 

Edited November 3 by DavidWahl

[iNow]

1 minute ago, DavidWahl said:

As atheists, we intentionally demand evidence to provoke a sense of rationality in the minds of people with religious dogmatism

Lots of atheists believe lots of silly unfounded things. They just dismiss the concept of a magical bearded cloud surfer who cares whether you masturbate or eat certain meats on Fridays etc. 

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

As atheists, we

I don’t think you can speak for all atheists beyond the commonality of lacking belief in a supreme being.

[DavidWahl]

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t think you can speak for all atheists beyond the commonality of lacking belief in a supreme being. 

I believe you are aware of the fact that when we use "we", it usually conveys in general terms, obviously exceptions are going to be there as well but that still doesn't in any way prevent me from speaking on behalf of the majority. I know my community very well. Thanks for the unneeded reminder tho. 

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

I know my community very well.

Source: Trust me, bruh

[DavidWahl]

 

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

Source: Trust me, bruh

Now you want a wikipedia page on that too? 

Edited November 3 by DavidWahl

[Phi for All]

36 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

I believe you are aware of the fact that when we use "we", it usually conveys in general terms, obviously exceptions are going to be there as well but that still doesn't in any way prevent me from speaking on behalf of the majority. I know my community very well. Thanks for the unneeded reminder tho. 

This is primarily a science discussion forum. Clarity and definition are essential.

Also, I definitely don't "intentionally demand evidence to provoke a sense of rationality in the minds of people with religious dogmatism, in a way to shut them up, whereas we're also greatly aware that no such evidence can be provided". I don't deny the possibility of a god, just that to date no evidence exists that persuades me enough to use gods (or anything supernatural) as an explanation for anything. 

I think it's a bit too dogmatic to insist that "no evidence can be provided". Of course evidence of gods can be provided, as long as someone can dig deep enough and make persuasive enough arguments, and as long as this evidence allows us to make predictions and incorporate the rest of the knowledge we trust without violating falsifiability requirements, as scientists we'd have to accept it. You may not believe that evidence exists (I know I don't), but we have nothing to support that stance other than nobody has ever produced any. 

[DavidWahl]

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Of course evidence of gods can be provided, as long as someone can dig deep enough and make persuasive enough arguments, and as long as this evidence allows us to make predictions and incorporate the rest of the knowledge we trust without violating falsifiability requirements, as scientists we'd have to accept it. You may not believe that evidence exists (I know I don't), but we have nothing to support that stance other than nobody has ever produced any. 

I appreciate your honesty and formality. But I have to disagree with you about the nature of such an evidence. To be able to find evidence of God that allows us to make predictions, on what grounds? Offer me clarity, what kind of predictions? To foretell what God's next move will be? Science, especially the field of physics, is heavily relied on mathematics to make predictions (even the fundamental laws are encoded as mathematical equations) and the idea to think we can find an equation that not only proves God but also make predictions is not only interesting but extremely absurd to me. Please enlighten me. 

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

I appreciate your honesty and formality. But I have to disagree with you about the nature of such an evidence. To be able to find evidence of God that allows us to make predictions, on what grounds? Offer me clarity, what kind of predictions? To foretell what God's next move will be? Science, especially the field of physics, is heavily relied on mathematics to make predictions (even the fundamental laws are encoded as mathematical equations) and the idea to think we can find an equation that not only proves God but also make predictions is not only interesting but extremely absurd to me. Please enlighten me. 

Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson used the Big Bang theory to predict the presence of the cosmic microwave background back in 1963, basically saying that if the BBT was correct, the universe would still have residual radiation left over from the expansion event. This is the kind of predictive power I'm talking about. If gods do exist, there could be evidence (other than direct observation, which they all seem to be allergic to) that allows us to piece together a theory about them. 

IOW, it's a possibility, even if it's not very probable. I don't feel like I have to deny the existence of gods as long as I require evidence of their existence. I'm happy focusing on what I can observe until someone provides some good evidence or testable predictions.

[DavidWahl]

45 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson used the Big Bang theory to predict the presence of the cosmic microwave background back in 1963, basically saying that if the BBT was correct, the universe would still have residual radiation left over from the expansion event. This is the kind of predictive power I'm talking about. If gods do exist, there could be evidence (other than direct observation, which they all seem to be allergic to) that allows us to piece together a theory about them. 

IOW, it's a possibility, even if it's not very probable. I don't feel like I have to deny the existence of gods as long as I require evidence of their existence. I'm happy focusing on what I can observe until someone provides some good evidence or testable predictions.

You mean physical footprints or remnants. What I had in my mind when you said "predictions" was to forecast future events, I almost forgot that revealing the existence of something that was previously unknown is also a form of prediction. I still strictly believe that even if God exists, there's just no way we can ever prove the being's existence or even have a hint about its true nature. Whether it's mathematical equations, observational predictions, conceptual models or even pure reasoning. It's impossible and as good as wishful thinking. 

Edited November 3 by DavidWahl

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

You mean physical footprints or remnants. What I had in my mind when you said "predictions" was to forecast future events, I almost forgot that revealing the existence of something that was previously unknown is also a form of prediction.

No, I don't. Let me try another example. In the theory of evolution, we observe that animals adapt physically to their environments over generations. Knowing this, it can be predicted that plant life can also adapt to the animals that feed from it, to ensure their own viability and pass their own genes along. And sure enough, we observe that certain birds have adapted curved beaks to fit into curved flowers, and yes, the plants are evolving more of a curve as well. Knowing one thing allows us to make predictions, essentially forecasting future events. 

2 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

I still strictly believe that even if God exists, there's just no way we can ever prove the being's existence or even have a hint about its true nature. Whether it's mathematical equations, observational predictions, conceptual models or even pure reasoning. It's impossible and as good as wishful thinking. 

I avoid strict beliefs. I don't capitalize gods. Science isn't actually about proof or proving things (that's math and philosophy), so much as it is finding the best supported explanations for various phenomena. Imo, talking about "true nature" and "reality" is subjective and worthless. 

I prefer beliefs based on trusting the knowledge. I don't use faith or wishful thinking, but I also don't have to deny the existence of things I haven't observed. I don't have to say gods are impossible when I can just as easily wait for one to make a persuasive, reasoned argument.

 

[DavidWahl]

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

No, I don't. Let me try another example. In the theory of evolution, we observe that animals adapt physically to their environments over generations. Knowing this, it can be predicted that plant life can also adapt to the animals that feed from it, to ensure their own viability and pass their own genes along. And sure enough, we observe that certain birds have adapted curved beaks to fit into curved flowers, and yes, the plants are evolving more of a curve as well. Knowing one thing allows us to make predictions, essentially forecasting future events. 

It's the same thing except this time you've blended two things together. We used information about a phenomenon in animals to suggest the same existing pattern to be in plants as well. In most cases, we cannot directly observe evolution which is why we use fossil records, genetics and even presently existing features like the curve beaks you mentioned, to prove it's relevance. These are footprints or aspects of reality that were previously not known to have connections with each other and they're all manifestations of Evolution. And yes, using this we can also forecast the future. 

 

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I avoid strict beliefs. I don't capitalize gods. Science isn't actually about proof or proving things (that's math and philosophy), so much as it is finding the best supported explanations for various phenomena. Imo, talking about "true nature" and "reality" is subjective and worthless.  

What is even more worthless is the very notion of proving God's existence as a scientific endeavor. A wasteful attempt with a likely useless result which serves no practical purpose. There are much better things to invest our time on. Again, I'm an atheist not an agnostic. Anything that is both unfalsifiable and contains no scientific possibility is simply trash to me. Just by looking at the way how religions have turned out in this world, I'm sure if I were God I would never want to be proven to exist only to entertain such individuals and their beautiful beliefs. 

Edited November 4 by DavidWahl

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

What is even more worthless is the very notion of proving God's existence as a scientific endeavor.

Did anyone suggest differently? Again, science is not about "proving" anything, and even supporting the existence of gods with evidence has failed. 

10 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

Anything that is both unfalsifiable and contains no scientific possibility is simply trash to me.

In their current forms, all religions that believe in gods are unfalsifiable. But if one of those gods decides to become observable and deal with us physically, your stance tells me there's no point in even listening. While that may well be true, I think it's a bit too hidebound to declare something is impossible when I can just as easily remain skeptical and fall back on "Show me the evidence and I'll keep an open mind".

10 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

Just by looking at the way how religions have turned out in this world, I'm sure if I were God I would never want to be proven to exist only to entertain such individuals and their beautiful beliefs. 

I get the feeling you're trying to distance yourself from a former belief. "I'm sure if I were God..." doesn't sound like you're arguing like it's all trash to you.

 

[DavidWahl]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Did anyone suggest differently? Again, science is not about "proving" anything, and even supporting the existence of gods with evidence has failed. 

I don't think there's any problem to interpret "proving" as "evidence that suggests the certainty or high possibility of " when we specifically talk about science. 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

But if one of those gods decides to become observable and deal with us physically, your stance tells me there's no point in even listening. While that may well be true, I think it's a bit too hidebound to declare something is impossible when I can just as easily remain skeptical and fall back on "Show me the evidence and I'll keep an open mind".

Interesting. Then at that point I think you can safely call me a blatant ignorant but only if that ever happens to begin with. I see that your stance is more reasonable here but nothing prevents me from having a belief of my choice in the absence of evidence (or I should say inexistent) either, as long as I don't use those beliefs as facts in making rational arguments. Just to be sure we're on the same page, I'm not talking about the case when we assume those beliefs to be true before making our arguments, though I'm aware of this as well. 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I get the feeling you're trying to distance yourself from a former belief. "I'm sure if I were God..." doesn't sound like you're arguing like it's all trash to you.

Once more I'll restate it in a different way just for you. Trash in a scientific sense, not necessarily philosophical. 

Edited November 4 by DavidWahl

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

I don't think there's any problem to interpret "proving" as "evidence that suggest the certainty or high possibility of " when we talk about science. 

Sorry, but I do. Mathematics uses proofs, and philosophy uses logical proofs, but science uses theory. Theory is the strongest explanation science has, and its strength lies in the fact that explanations can be updated with new evidence as it becomes known, or dropped completely if shown to be false (like phlogiston theory). If you have an "answer" to something, or believe you've "proved" something is "true", you stop looking any further. With theory, you're constantly checking, experimenting, testing, predicting, and strengthening your explanation for a phenomenon, all while trying to remove as much subjective bias as possible.

10 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

Interesting. Then at that point you can safely call me a blatant ignorant but only if that ever happens to begin with.

I don't see this as an ignorance issue, but one of definition. I don't  need gods to explain anything I experience in this life, and as long as they remain unobservable I can treat them like any supernatural belief. I don't need to view them as impossible in order to deal with them as somehow outside of what we observe in nature. 

17 minutes ago, DavidWahl said:

I see that your stance is more reasonable but I don't think anything prevents me from having a belief of my choice in the absence of evidence (or I should say inexistent), as long as I don't use those beliefs as facts in making rational arguments.

More reasonable is exactly what I'm shooting for. I think it's more reasonable to say "The current absence of evidence makes me skeptical, but I'm always open to listening if you find some" than to say "The absence of evidence proves there are no gods". Nothing prevents you from believing gods don't exist, but I think it's unreasonable to say evidence for gods can't exist. Perhaps I'm just sensitive to being called "hidebound" and "dismissive" when talking about religion.