Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

43. That's a thoughtful post.

Sat Mar 26, 2016, 09:42 AM

Mar 2016

I don't think evidence in the conventional sense is useful at all in testing whether a god(s) exist. Evidence is what is evident to human senses, augmented by technology. It is the ultimate confirmation bias; if I don't see it, it don't exist.

That said, all reasonable conclusions are based on premises and logic, whether those conclusions are right or wrong. Your premise is that physical evidence must exist for a thing's existence. My premise is that god is undetectable. Without going through the logical steps again, I conclude it is reasonable to conclude there may be a god. From your premise you conclude there cannot be a god. Both conclusions are reasonable and logical, though contradictory, but both conclusions are constrained by their premises.

I assume you agree that neither conclusion is proof of anything.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Review: "God Is No Thing" by Rupert Shortt – an excellent response to New Atheism [View all] rug Mar 2016 OP

Help. Could some one give a synopsis of this piece? I tried to understand ladjf Mar 2016 #1

In a nutshell, many of the current criticisms of Christianity are attacks on strawmen. rug Mar 2016 #2

Thanks for the briefing. nt ladjf Mar 2016 #3

The end of the article is... dubious. DetlefK Mar 2016 #4

Everything is dubious. rug Mar 2016 #8

"The claim made by religious philosophers of a certain kind..." DetlefK Mar 2016 #5

Atheism = Narcissistic Nihilism Bohunk68 Mar 2016 #6

You just made the mistake the article warned about. DetlefK Mar 2016 #13

According to you. Bohunk68 Mar 2016 #17

And what is it according to YOU? DetlefK Mar 2016 #23

Religion = Ego-driven Superstition AlbertCat Mar 2016 #61

Not excellent! Cartoonist Mar 2016 #7

Sigh . . . . rug Mar 2016 #9

Who's doing that? Cartoonist Mar 2016 #11

No one. Because it can't be done. rug Mar 2016 #14

True Major Nikon Mar 2016 #44

I don't think the point of Christianity has much to do with evidence. struggle4progress Mar 2016 #46

Strange then the adherents spend so much time with it Major Nikon Mar 2016 #47

I've never heard questions of "evidence" discussed in any church I ever attended struggle4progress Mar 2016 #58

I'm not saying it's questioned Major Nikon Mar 2016 #59

ultimately it simply comes down to faith. rug Mar 2016 #49

No, ultimately it simply comes down to evidence Major Nikon Mar 2016 #50

A) Evidence is inadequate. rug Mar 2016 #51

You have it exactly backwards Major Nikon Mar 2016 #52

And you confuse atheist with nontheist. rug Mar 2016 #53

I'm pretty sure you're the one confused Major Nikon Mar 2016 #54

Sorry, ed, I don't want to debate prefixes with you tonight. rug Mar 2016 #55

And yet you are the one who brought up semantics Major Nikon Mar 2016 #56

Sure, as soon as you can design one to validate any aspect of the ineffable whatthehey Mar 2016 #12

Validation is the same argument as the evidence argument. rug Mar 2016 #15

So a yes or no question whatthehey Mar 2016 #20

DON'T. You are opening a can of worms here. DetlefK Mar 2016 #21

Yes. rug Mar 2016 #31

"Described" as ineffable? DetlefK Mar 2016 #18

Precisely, the disciples witnessed the person of Jesus. rug Mar 2016 #22

Are you saying that it's okay to believe in a False God and/or to not believe in the real God? DetlefK Mar 2016 #25

No. I am saying that it is not only okay to believe in a god(s) but that it is reasonable to do so. rug Mar 2016 #28

I don't get it. Why is it reasonable to believe in God? DetlefK Mar 2016 #42

That's a thoughtful post. rug Mar 2016 #43

Post removed Post removed Mar 2016 #45

You sound jealous, scottie. rug Mar 2016 #48

But then you need an entirely new definition of existence. DetlefK Mar 2016 #62

It's more that an additional definition of existence is required, not a new one. rug Mar 2016 #63

The evidence is 4th or 5th hand at best Major Nikon Mar 2016 #57

Start with the human brain, ed. rug Mar 2016 #32

Oh, oh, oh! I got another one: DetlefK Mar 2016 #10

Ok, Horshack. Good point but I'll leave it there for other comments. rug Mar 2016 #16

Any comment on my first point in this post? DetlefK Mar 2016 #19

As to that, I do. rug Mar 2016 #26

One final comment on that. DetlefK Mar 2016 #34

This article is a neverending treasure-trove of hypocrisy: DetlefK Mar 2016 #24

This sentence edhopper Mar 2016 #27

Techically, it's a nihil ex nihilo argument. rug Mar 2016 #30

nothing has different meanings in philosophy edhopper Mar 2016 #33

Time and space. rug Mar 2016 #39

god is heaven05 Mar 2016 #29

Williams ought to specify how you go from muriel_volestrangler Mar 2016 #35

Nobody cares about Christian writers/apologists... MellowDem Mar 2016 #36

No, they jst debate them. rug Mar 2016 #40

They debate other populizers of Christianity... MellowDem Mar 2016 #41

New Atheists are the Clinton campaign of unbelief: they're only vaguely aware that one Wiki MisterP Mar 2016 #37

I haven't the faintest idea what you're saying muriel_volestrangler Mar 2016 #38

What is the summary of that book? Albertoo Mar 2016 #60

Question for Mr. Shortt. Htom Sirveaux Mar 2016 #64