Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

Why should we believe in anything with no evidence?

I think they have doubts about their own atheism and sometimes desire a God. My best guess, anyway.

It's because religion deliberately defines God out of the realms that science can test. WTF?

Why should we believe in anything with no evidence?
What do you mean? You're acting as if science has arrived at the absolute truth, gathered all the evidence there is, and knows all there is to know. But it hasn't, has it? Therefore there's good reason to believe in things that there's currently no evidence for.....

Take for instance if someone like you existed in ancient times you wouldn't believe in the existence of electromagnetism, black holes, or many other modern scientific concepts because at the time there was absolutely no empirical evidence for them. Using your fatally flawed logic that would mean in ancient times those things never existed.....but it didn't...all it meant is that at the time there was no evidence for them...thats all...

It's because religion deliberately defines God out of the realms that science can test. WTF?
Untestability != false.....its like me saying currently you can't test if the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds interpretation is true so both of them must be false....WTF?

It's because religion deliberately defines God out of the realms that science can test. WTF?

Because religion has been around longer than science? :shrug:

Untestability != false.....its like me saying currently you can't test if the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds interpretation is true both of them must be false....WTF?

Which is why a sophisticated atheist never says it's false. We only say it's so unlikely to be true, and so likely to be merely a human invention, that it's silly to believe it.

I don't feel there is an argument here. It is one of those things that belongs to personal experience. An atheist just hasn't had any personal experience with the subject. I don't think it is worth a battle of wills.

Which is why a sophisticated atheist never says it's false. We only say it's so unlikely to be true, and so likely to be merely a human invention, that it's silly to believe it.
By what measure do atheists determine that God's existence is very unlikely to be true if its untestable?

Quite so, Bowser. I cannot deny your personal experience, nor can I use it as a point of evidence in your favor.

VitalOne,
-the existence of various contrary legends among many cultures
-the scientific proof of the evolution of species
-the anthropocentric nature of it (that man is the center of God's interest)
-the nature of people to believe various supernatural interpretations of events when the scientific method is absent (lucky charms, rituals, rain dances)
-the billions of years when there were no people
-the contradictions within holy books
-the nature of holy books to reflect only the information that the culture could have known at the time
-bad things happen to good people
-prayer doesn't work

Quite so. I cannot deny your personal experience, nor can I use it as a point of evidence in your favor.

If it is a personal experience, how can it be offered as evidence otherwise?

If your only evidence is a personal anecdote, you can understand if we entertain alternative explanations, such as you were in an altered emotional state, suffering from mental illness, mass psychosis, or optical illusion...

What do you mean? You're acting as if science has arrived at the absolute truth, gathered all the evidence there is, and knows all there is to know. But it hasn't, has it? Therefore there's good reason to believe in things that there's currently no evidence for.....

Take for instance if someone like you existed in ancient times you wouldn't believe in the existence of electromagnetism, black holes, or many other modern scientific concepts because at the time there was absolutely no empirical evidence for them. Using your fatally flawed logic that would mean in ancient times those things never existed.....but it didn't...all it meant is that at the time there was no evidence for them...thats all...Where did I say that because I didn't believe in it, that made it suddenly not exist?

VitalOne,
-the existence of various contrary legends among many cultures
There are also many striking similarities....also differences do not falsify the existence of God....


-the scientific proof of the evolution of species
Evolution does not contradict the existence of God...


-the anthropocentric nature of it (that man is the center of God's interest)
....so what?


-the nature of people to believe various supernatural interpretations of events when the scientific method is absent (lucky charms, rituals, rain dances)

There were also many atheists when the scientific method was absent (in ancient India).....

There were also many correct, true facts gathered when there was no scientific method present (astronomy for instance)

-the billions of years when there were no people
What does this have to do with anything?


-the contradictions within holy books
Contradictions do not falsify the existence of God...there's contradictions in modern physics...I guess its all false?


-the nature of holy books to reflect only the information that the culture could have known at the time
Really so why do Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tzu, all existing at different times in different cultures say innumerable things that are almost identical?


-bad things happen to good people
Which religion says that bad things cannot happen to people that appear good?


-prayer doesn't work
Prayer works, I mean manifestation works, I use it all the time....

Evolution does not contradict the existence of God...

But if life had just poofed into existence fully formed, then that would make god a reasonable theory. As it happens, evolution makes god defunct as a theory.

What does this have to do with anything?

It shows that we are incidental to the grand scheme of things... an afterthought, a fluke... Not just in evolution forming human beings, but the Earth's conditions and placement... Everywhere you look you can see that nothing revolves around us, and the religious school of thought is that everything is here for US. Very, very selfish and wishful.

I don't feel there is an argument here. It is one of those things that belongs to personal experience. An atheist just hasn't had any personal experience with the subject. I don't think it is worth a battle of wills.

The great copout. The only thing that separates the theist and the atheist is that the theist (and stupid people in general) will take a daily event that goes in their favour, and think that some god or angel did it that way. This goes back to what I was saying about being selfish. As much as you would like to have us believe, it's far from the 'experience' you paint. Atheists have the same experiences as theists from an emotional standpoint, but it doesn't always require a sky-daddy.

Why do we even need a god? To explain the as yet inexplicable? To scare us into being good, lest we go to hell? Why not take the ultimate "leap of faith" and just walk away from gods entirely? If we're wrong, the god will forgive us and take us back (and we'll surely deserve whatever punishment is meted out, although an 'all-loving' and 'all-forgiving' god shouldn't have any punishment in store). If we're right, then we've rid ourselves of detrimental superstition and can advance our knowledge free of the shackles of ancient mysticism.

There are also many striking similarities....also differences do not falsify the existence of God........

You didn't ask me to prove it false, only to list some reasons why it's unlikely.

I'd think it'd be more intellectually honest for atheists to say "no compelling reason" rather than "no evidence" since providing evidence is impossible.

Why should we believe in anything with no evidence?

Not all of reality is based on evidence. A perfect circle or any other geometric shape, for example, can not be observed.

So is geometry real or imaginary?

"Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."

- Thomas, An Apostle of Jesus (Not an Atheist)

ĜĕðMĕťŗŷ ĥą§ Ñð ŗĕą1īťŷ ðƒ īť§ĕ1ƒ, īť'§ §ŷMbð1īç ðƒ ŗĕ1ąťīðѧĥīþ§.

So NDS, you'll have to time-travel back two thousand years, good luck.

Take for instance if someone like you existed in ancient times you wouldn't believe in the existence of electromagnetism, black holes, or many other modern scientific concepts because at the time there was absolutely no empirical evidence for them. Using your fatally flawed logic that would mean in ancient times those things never existed

You're right, if you were an ancient person you wouldn't have any evidence for electromagnetism, black holes or leprechauns and thus would have little reason to just believe in them if someone said they did exist. It doesn't ultimately have to mean that those things never existed, but that there's no evidence to suggest they do.

'I contend that we are both atheists. Yes Vital One, you're an atheist too.. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods you'll understand why I dismiss yours'.

Tell me, why do you not believe in Zeus, Apollo, Abellio, Gilgamesh, Marduk, Tiamat etc?

Why do people ask for evidence for the Loch-Ness Monster?

I'd think it'd be more intellectually honest for atheists to say "no compelling reason" rather than "no evidence" since providing evidence is impossible.No - it is intellectually honest for an atheist to say that they do not believe in the existence of God due to the lack of evidence. This is the reason they give because it is the reason. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about telling the truth.

"Compelling reason" to me suggests that it is a matter of weighing up the evidence and deciding that, on balance, there is no "compelling reason".

For this to be the case there has to be at least some evidence in favor of the existence of God.

So "no evidence" is the reason they give because it IS the Intellectually Honest reason.

They give "no evidence" as their reason for not believing in Santa, believing in Tooth-Fairies, believing in the FSM, etc.
Would you honestly say that there is merely "no compelling reason" to not believe in these? Or the more precise claim of "no evidence"?

Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

I recall one paper in regard to this - I can't locate it but I will try and present what I can recall of it.

Evidence, particularly for the atheist, means empiricism - god of course, being transcendental by definition, is beyond the scope of empiricism - so in other words a god that can be revealed by empiricism would be a contradiction.

No doubt there are many wonders that empiricism can reveal, and it indicates and entertains many mysteries and theories on how things work - all such things of course work by the potency of god (including the brain of the aspiring empiricist)

The desire to reveal god by empiricism however is driven by the atheistic ambition to usurp god's potencies - since along the way to understanding god
by such a method, one would also evidence by empiricism god's potencies (thus one would make god's potencies repeatable in controlled environments)

In other words the desire to have god evidenced by empiricism is merely another aspect of atheism

Ah yes - the theist view that positions them upon the unquestionable pedestal - that answers everything - yet answers nothing other than through their own prescribed definitions - all cloaked in self-referential logic with nothing but a gap at the heart.

Ah yes - the theist view that positions them upon the unquestionable pedestal - that answers everything - yet answers nothing other than through their own prescribed definitions - all cloaked in self-referential logic with nothing but a gap at the heart.

well, do you hold that empiricism is the gapless medium of perception?

Sarkus,

No - it is intellectually honest for an atheist to say that they do not believe in the existence of God due to the lack of evidence. This is the reason they give because it is the reason. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about telling the truth.

It is intellectually dishonest because you have a descriptive idea of the nature of God (spirit), and you know that that medium is beyond the scope of current scientific scrutiny.

"Compelling reason" to me suggests that it is a matter of weighing up the evidence and deciding that, on balance, there is no "compelling reason".

There is evidence of design in the structure of the universe, which can be seen as a primary step toward reason. The fact that you do not view this as evidence is your choice.

For this to be the case there has to be at least some evidence in favor of the existence of God.

As stated above, it boils down to a matter of choice of belief. By doggedly asking for evidence, you are only affirming your choice of disbelief.

They give "no evidence" as their reason for not believing in Santa, believing in Tooth-Fairies, believing in the FSM, etc.

Even if they did believe in these things, it would not necessarily be the same as believing in God, so this analogy is irrelivant.

Would you honestly say that there is merely "no compelling reason" to not believe in these? Or the more precise claim of "no evidence"?

You can "not believe" in something for a variety of reasons, and I rather think "the claim of no evidence", by itself, is a pretty weak one. Because it suggests you are only prepared to believe something that you can see with your own eyes, or else it doesn't exist.

Jan.

No - it is intellectually honest for an atheist to say that they do not believe in the existence of God due to the lack of evidence. This is the reason they give because it is the reason. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about telling the truth.

"Compelling reason" to me suggests that it is a matter of weighing up the evidence and deciding that, on balance, there is no "compelling reason".

For this to be the case there has to be at least some evidence in favor of the existence of God.

So "no evidence" is the reason they give because it IS the Intellectually Honest reason.

They give "no evidence" as their reason for not believing in Santa, believing in Tooth-Fairies, believing in the FSM, etc.
Would you honestly say that there is merely "no compelling reason" to not believe in these? Or the more precise claim of "no evidence"?

Well, the examples your giving- santa clause, tooth-fairies, are putatively physical phenomenon and I therefore think it is legitimate to require evidence for those things. God on the other hand is not physical and therefore don't see how any "evidence" could be provided even if it does exist.

Well, the examples your giving- santa clause, tooth-fairies, are putatively physical phenomenon and I therefore think it is legitimate to require evidence for those things. God on the other hand is not physical and therefore don't see how any "evidence" could be provided even if it does exist.But the point is that they are perfectly legitimate in their "no evidence - no belief" position - and there is nothing intellectually dishonest about that, which was my point to you in those examples. The fact that the thing is not material is irrelevant.

The fact that the thing is not material is irrelevant.

-I don't agree. What exactly would this evidence for the immaterial be?

God on the other hand is not physical and therefore don't see how any "evidence" could be provided even if it does exist.

Then the question is why invent something that effectively doesn't exist?

So now you're saying no evidence means something doesn't exist? That's a bizarre claim.

It is intellectually dishonest because you have a descriptive idea of the nature of God (spirit), and you know that that medium is beyond the scope of current scientific scrutiny. Surely it is therefore the THEIST that is intellectually dishonest to come up with a notion that is so beyond scrutibility?
There is nothing intellectually dishonest about stating a reason for non-belief being that they see no evidence of the thing - and thus no reason for belief.

There is evidence of design in the structure of the universe, which can be seen as a primary step toward reason.[quote]Please point to this evidence of design.

[quote]The fact that you do not view this as evidence is your choice.Please indicate the evidence of design. Noone has yet been able to do it. But feel free.

As stated above, it boils down to a matter of choice of belief. By doggedly asking for evidence, you are only affirming your choice of disbelief.Your point is...?
How does this lead to it being intellectually dishonest to claim that one is an atheist because of a lack of evidence?

Do you think they are merely choosing not to see something as evidence? Out of obstinate choice?
Pathetic reasoning on your part.

I await your evidence.

Even if they did believe in these things, it would not necessarily be the same as believing in God, so this analogy is irrelivant.Why? Explain your reasoning for disregarding an analogy. To dismiss it out of hand IS intellectually dishonest.


You can "not believe" in something for a variety of reasons, and I rather think "the claim of no evidence", by itself, is a pretty weak one. Because it suggests you are only prepared to believe something that you can see with your own eyes, or else it doesn't exist.Weak? What other reasons for "not believing" are there?
"Oh, I have evidence of God's existence but I choose not to believe in his existence"?

If there is no evidence for something then it is akin to non-existence.
That is not to say that it definitely doesn't exist - merely that it has the same level of evidence for its existence as something that doesn't exist - i.e. none.

I "believe" based on evidence: I "believe" that I can cross a road safely. I "believe" that my brother would help me out in a financial crisis.
But this is based on vast swathes of evidence - and is nothing but a vague, subconcsious assessment of probability.

But to "believe" without any evidence at all? Why? What is "weak" about that?
If there is no evidence from my point of view (whether you think something is evidence or not) then the question is surely "why believe"? What does it add? What purpose is there for "believing"?

To "not believe" through lack of evidence is both intellectually honest and entirely rational.

-I don't agree. What exactly would this evidence for the immaterial be?Haven't we been down this road before in another thread?

I do not claim that the only evidence is material.
However, the only evidence that has ever been produced is of the material.

If you can produce evidence of the non-material - do so.
I am not saying it doesn't exist - but there is no evidence for it.

If you are asking me to provide such evidence then I would effectively be answering my own request of you - and if I could do it then I wouldn't have asked you.

However, the only evidence that has ever been produced is of the material.


This is the entire crux of the problem. This could prove one of two things;
1) There is nothing that isn't material. Or,
2) There are things that are immaterial but evidence can not be produced for it.

It's fine if you want to believe the first proposition but it is just as much an article of faith as the second.

This is the entire crux of the problem. This could prove one of two things;
1) There is nothing that isn't material. Or,
2) There are things that are immaterial but evidence can not be produced for it.

It's fine if you want to believe the first proposition but it is just as much an article of faith as the second.There is at least one alternative that you don't present....

3) There might well be things that are immaterial, but evidence has not (yet) been produced for such things.

Everything in this world, especially in the human realm, has a spectrum of action. In this particular spectrum, theists are at one extreme, and atheists are at another. Both are equal in their limit of perception. One relies on absolute faith, and the other relies on absolute questioning. If you are ultimately theist, letting it take over your life, then you are blinded to the spectrum of questioning. If you are ultimately atheist, then you are blind to faith. As a human, both of these sides are needed to successfully go through this world.

Quite so, Bowser. I cannot deny your personal experience, nor can I use it as a point of evidence in your favor.
Yes, no one can label anothers' experience. When we try to put words to something that other haven't experienced, or have experienced but relate to differently, then you are painting a false picture in their mind.

VitalOne,
-the existence of various contrary legends among many cultures
Yes, but there are many striking similarities, which could mean nothing more than we have a strong acsestral memory.
-the scientific proof of the evolution of species
Everything evolves, yes. But we are far from proving or knowing the true nature of evolution.
-the anthropocentric nature of it (that man is the center of God's interest)
This, I would say, derives from man's (and most likely every organism's) selfish nature, residual from the days of 'survival of the fittest' and 'every man for himself'. There is an unsettling lack of emphasis on protection of the natural world in most religions. You would think God would tell us right off the bat not to fuck up the world or we'll die. But, then again, maybe that is our test, to see if we can figure out that we need to respect everything because it is part of us, and if we don't then we will certainly die.
-the nature of people to believe various supernatural interpretations of events when the scientific method is absent (lucky charms, rituals, rain dances)
Yes, it seems that humans are so avidly curious about the mysterious. And once we've figured it out we don't care anymore. So religion has stayed around for so long because it doesn't really explain much, other than how we should live together. Hmmmm.... perhaps that means we should only use it for a communal basis and not to determine every aspect of our lives.
-the billions of years when there were no people
As a human, we can know no more about this than any individual can know about the time before their birth. Its all based on faith, even science. Science bases its faith upon one's own senses and that the processes of the universe are constant.
-the contradictions within holy books
Humans aren't perfect ;)
-the nature of holy books to reflect only the information that the culture could have known at the time
Yes, they only 'knew' so much, but they did experience all (and maybe more) the nature that we do today. Language changes over time; it is basically a set of metaphors--metaphors in which words are symbols that stand for certain subjective experiences that we assume are similar enough to each of us. What we assume today were myths and fairy tales back then might very well have been the way they just talked and relayed ideas. Their mythical gods and beasts were probably just the (frightened and awed) explanations of natural events.
-bad things happen to good people
But is there really good and bad? If god created all, even the devil, then there must be some overall purpose for it. It makes more sense that there is no good or bad, looking at how subjective the world really is.
-prayer doesn't work
I would contend that it works insofar as that person has faith enough to make them happier and cause a kind of self-fullfilling prayer. Past that, I don't know.

But if life had just poofed into existence fully formed, then that would make god a reasonable theory. As it happens, evolution makes god defunct as a theory.
How? Perhaps it is that so many humans are naive enough to believe god would work by "poof"ing stuff into existence. But really he takes a more efficient and changing (as well as more interesting) method that we call evolution.

It shows that we are incidental to the grand scheme of things... an afterthought, a fluke... Not just in evolution forming human beings, but the Earth's conditions and placement... Everywhere you look you can see that nothing revolves around us, and the religious school of thought is that everything is here for US. Very, very selfish and wishful.
This I agree with, in a way. But, to a being much more aware than us, something like us could be inevitable in this universe--maybe not here, but somewhere.

Well, the examples your giving- santa clause, tooth-fairies, are putatively physical phenomenon and I therefore think it is legitimate to require evidence for those things. God on the other hand is not physical and therefore don't see how any "evidence" could be provided even if it does exist.
That which is not physical must be a relationship between physical things--an inherent characteristic of the universe itself which is the motivation of natural forces. If God created the universe, then God has sent physical 'waves' through it. In fact, if God had anything to do with where and who and how we are now, then it is possible to trace it back to him. Although we probably couldn't, as limited and naive as we are.

This is the entire crux of the problem. This could prove one of two things;
1) There is nothing that isn't material. Or,
2) There are things that are immaterial but evidence can not be produced for it.

It's fine if you want to believe the first proposition but it is just as much an article of faith as the second.

I am not so sure. It would be a much greater leap of faith to say that there are things that are immaterial and wholly unable to be observed (at all, infinitely) in this universe. I would agree with you if you added the clause that they are only unable to be observed because of our limited perception as humans. But to say that the immaterial has absolutely no evidence in this universe is to say that the immaterial has absolutely no effect, nor ever had any effect, on this universe. And that would contradict the definition of god.

I think there might be a 4th option as well:

4) There might be things that are immaterial, but we are unaware that we are constantly aware of them--we take them for granted and so we rule them out without even thinking about it.

I am thinking of relationships between things here, like mathematical constants and such.

Because religion has been around longer than science? :shrug:

I thought it was man's (slightly) rational nature that led to religion. You know, when we first looked up at the stars and asked "Why?"

I thought it was man's (slightly) rational nature that led to religion. You know, when we first looked up at the stars and asked "Why?"

If we were any smarter we would have just kept our mouths shut.

Sarkus,

Surely it is therefore the THEIST that is intellectually dishonest to come up with a notion that is so beyond scrutibility?

What do you mean by "come up with"?
The fact that it is beyond such "scrutibility" is not a real problem, at least not for the majority of everyday people going about their everyday lives.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest about stating a reason for non-belief being that they see no evidence of the thing - and thus no reason for belief.

What is it you are seeking evidence of? This is the question.
Also what would you regard as evidence?
Again, it boils down to personal choice of belief, nothing more.

Please indicate the evidence of design. Noone has yet been able to do it. But feel free.

Do you mean scientific evidence of design?
If yes, can you explain how the scientific method can conclude 'no design', or 'design'.
If no, then you only have to observe nature.

How does this lead to it being intellectually dishonest to claim that one is an atheist because of a lack of evidence?

The only way you can be truly honest in the question regarding God existence, is to say, i don't believe he exists.

Do you think they are merely choosing not to see something as evidence? Out of obstinate choice?
Pathetic reasoning on your part.

Why is it pathetic?
What else could it be?
Every (if not most) theist in this forum, is so because they understand (in v arying degrees) Gods nature, not that we make it up as we go along. You also know this, so whats with the silly question of scientific evidence, if not to put a spanner in the works. If I'm mistaken, and you think that God can be observed in a lab, then go read any scripture then get back to us.

I await your evidence.

Life comes from life, as far as anybody, past, present has observed. If life comes from non life, then prove it.

Why? Explain your reasoning for disregarding an analogy. To dismiss it out of hand IS intellectually dishonest.

My advice is to go and read a scripture properly, then you may understand why the two types of beliefs are completely different.

Weak? What other reasons for "not believing" are there?

Because you didn't get pamela anderson for christmas, despite ardently praying for 20 minutes.
Because you can't be arsed.
Because there seems to be too many rules and regs.
Because you don't want to.
Because you don't get it.
Because you hate God and anything to do with God.
Because you think you are smarter than that.
Because you feel embarassed among your peers.
Because mi mam won't let me.
Because mi girlfreind won't let me.
Because I can't see God with my own eyes........

"Oh, I have evidence of God's existence but I choose not to believe in his existence"?

No, you just choose not to believe, for whatever reason.

If there is no evidence for something then it is akin to non-existence.

You seem to conveniently forget what it is your asking evidence for, and insist on what is currently an inferior method
to present such conclusive evidence.
You're better off saying, I don't believe God exists, and leave it there. That is the honest thing to do.

That is not to say that it definitely doesn't exist - merely that it has the same level of evidence for its existence as something that doesn't exist - i.e. none.

No one has evidence either way, it all boils down to choice of belief. Can't you understand that?

I "believe" based on evidence: I "believe" that I can cross a road safely. I "believe" that my brother would help me out in a financial crisis.
But this is based on vast swathes of evidence - and is nothing but a vague, subconcsious assessment of probability.

I'm not gonna repeat myself. Read above or not.

Jan.

If we were any smarter we would have just kept our mouths shut.

Do you like to kill things?

Do you mean scientific evidence of design?
If yes, can you explain how the scientific method can conclude 'no design', or 'design'.
If no, then you only have to observe nature.
People often forget that the scientific method was built upon the basic tried and tested most efficient methods of figuring something out. A method modified by millions of humans over thousands of years to reach the state it is now. The scientific method is a specified outline of the natural human method of figuring anything out. It is all based upon a balance between likeliness and faith. Likeliness because we can never know for sure, but there are probabilities which point to a specific cause which is independantly observable. Faith, because at some point we have to say to ourselves "okay, this seems most likely from what I have seen, so I will believe in it until I observe something that contradicts it. We all go through this, even if we don't realize it. At the most drastic, if we continue with a faith even after observation has contradicted it, then we die.

For me, I say that if life and the universe were designed, then the process of that design would be no different than what science observes as evolution, or natural process. It just agrees with the very nature of how the universe appears to operate.


Weak? What other reasons for "not believing" are there?


Because you didn't get pamela anderson for christmas, despite ardently praying for 20 minutes.
Because you can't be arsed.
Because there seems to be too many rules and regs.
Because you don't want to.
Because you don't get it.
Because you hate God and anything to do with God.
Because you think you are smarter than that.
Because you feel embarassed among your peers.
Because mi mam won't let me.
Because mi girlfreind won't let me.
Because I can't see God with my own eyes........
There is also the reason that one disagrees with the general lifestyle (and effects of that lifestyle) of the people who believe in said god. In fact, the main reason I see in most atheists for dis-believing in god is that they are inherently disgusted with how theists live and the effects of how they live. It has little to do with the actual idea of god.

To "not believe" through lack of evidence is both intellectually honest and entirely rational.
Intellectual honesty and rationality are subjective to your values and intents. I would say that it is more rational to make no general decision about it at all. The agnostic is usually more aware because he is not blinded by the limits of either perspective.

Do you like to kill things?

No, on the contrary I am inherently upset by the killing or maiming of anything, even a tiny insect.

I was implying that perhaps if we took things as they were, then we wouldn't be at each others' throats arguing what exactly such and such is, especially when such and such is just a word that we made up to describe something we can't even pinpoint anymore.

Roy, what do you do if termites infest your house, sing kum ba ya?

No, on the contrary I am inherently upset by the killing or maiming of anything, even a tiny insect.

I was implying that perhaps if we took things as they were, then we wouldn't be at each others' throats arguing what exactly such and such is, especially when such and such is just a word that we made up to describe something we can't even pinpoint anymore.

Well aren't you glad that all those people could open their mouths, fight and die and bleed and kill so you could live your blameless vegan life?
You are a vegan right?

Does anyone disagree that evidence is synonomous with "that which has been, or can be, verified by third-person means"?

Does anyone disagree that evidence is synonomous with "that which has been, or can be, verified by third-person means"?

No disagreement here.

So now you're saying no evidence means something doesn't exist? That's a bizarre claim.

Did I say that? I don't think I did. What I am saying is why should people claim (or strongly believe) that there is something that is impossible to find evidence for, as well as the odds being so vanishingly small.

How? Perhaps it is that so many humans are naive enough to believe god would work by "poof"ing stuff into existence. But really he takes a more efficient and changing (as well as more interesting) method that we call evolution.

Because the theists will argue the point "how do you get an eye by accident" - obviously he doesn't understand evolution, but if as it was always thought that there was some truth to the Adam and Eve story (that humans were poofed) then it would surely mean there was a deliberate creation to it. You may say that doesn't apply to the 'big bang', but then, the universe evolved too - you didn't get galaxies overnight. It all seems to be simple > organised complexity... and god would be the reverse - immense complexity > simple complexity. Granted, if I create something then that is immense complexity > simple complexity, but I am the result of slow evolution... I am not god, am I?


This I agree with, in a way. But, to a being much more aware than us, something like us could be inevitable in this universe--maybe not here, but somewhere.

I don't think there is a 'being' at all. If consciousness is just one aspect of what we call 'life' in this universe, then is there a god of gravity? A god of clouds, a god of toenails? Why do we think the only god is one that has a lot in common with our own psyche? I think whatever happens in our brains is no different to anything, yet what happens in our brains seems to make us assume the same is true for the creation (creator?) of the universe?

RoyLennigan,


There is also the reason that one disagrees with the general lifestyle (and effects of that lifestyle) of the people who believe in said god. In fact, the main reason I see in most atheists for dis-believing in god is that they are inherently disgusted with how theists live and the effects of how they live. It has little to do with the actual idea of god.


What is so "disgusting" about how theists live?

Jan.

RoyLennigan,



What is so "disgusting" about how theists live?

Jan.

Their slavery, ignorance and hypocrisy.

What do you mean by "come up with"?I have no evidence that the notion of God is anything but man-made.

The fact that it is beyond such "scrutibility" is not a real problem, at least not for the majority of everyday people going about their everyday lives.And we call that being intellectually lazy.
The fact that it is not a problem to those that don't think too hard about it is irrelevant to the discussion.

What is it you are seeking evidence of? This is the question.God.

Also what would you regard as evidence?I do not know. Something that is beyond mere scientific possibility.

Do you mean scientific evidence of design?No - I mean evidence of design.

If no, then you only have to observe nature.I observe - I see no evidence of design - just the obeyance of a few rules of the Universe.


the only way you can be truly honest in the question regarding God existence, is to say, i don't believe he exists. Eh? I don't believe he exists. I also don't believe he doesn't exist. All due to lack of evidence.


Life comes from life, as far as anybody, past, present has observed. If life comes from non life, then prove it.So current lack of a scientific means of replicating abiogenesis is your evidence of design?
Lack of evidence for one thing is NOT evidence for another.
This is simple logic that you should realise by now.


My advice is to go and read a scripture properly, then you may understand why the two types of beliefs are completely different.If you can't answer me then just say so.


Because you didn't get pamela anderson for christmas, despite ardently praying for 20 minutes.
Because you can't be arsed.
Because there seems to be too many rules and regs.
Because you don't want to.
Because you don't get it.
Because you hate God and anything to do with God.
Because you think you are smarter than that.
Because you feel embarassed among your peers.
Because mi mam won't let me.
Because mi girlfreind won't let me.
Because I can't see God with my own eyes........And yet you call the reason of not having any evidence "weak"? :confused:

What would you call a "strong" reason?

No, you just choose not to believe, for whatever reason.Because I have no evidence for the existence of God.

You're better off saying, I don't believe God exists, and leave it there. That is the honest thing to do.Why is it the honest thing to do?
Surely it is more honest to explain fully the rationale for reaching the conclusion one does?

No one has evidence either way, it all boils down to choice of belief. Can't you understand that?So you now admit you have no evidence for God????
Yet you said earlier that you see evidence of design in the Universe???
Who do you see as this designer of yours if not God???

I think you're confusing yourself and arguing for the sake of arguing.

Intellectual honesty and rationality are subjective to your values and intents. I would say that it is more rational to make no general decision about it at all. The agnostic is usually more aware because he is not blinded by the limits of either perspective.I am an agnostic - I have no knowledge of God - either of his existence or his non-existence.
I am also an atheist - due to my lack of belief in God.

This is what I see as the only rational position - unless one claims to either have knowledge or evidence.

And then it is a matter of what that knowledge / evidence is actually knowledge / evidence of.

there's good reason to believe in things that there's currently no evidence for.....Like lenny the Leprechaun, francis the Fairy, or elsa the Elf.

By what measure do atheists determine that God's existence is very unlikely to be true if its untestable?the same reasoning, they'd use to determine lenny the Leprechaun's, francis the Fairies, or elsa the Elves, existence.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:

The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

Why do people ask for evidence for the Loch-Ness Monster?
Hell, Nessie is probably more likely to exist than some sky bully. At least Nessie has eyewitness reports to back it up, thousands of them, stretching back hundreds of years.
A deity would just has the belief and faith of fools on its side.

'I contend that we are both atheists. Yes Vital One, you're an atheist too.. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods you'll understand why I dismiss yours'.

Tell me, why do you not believe in Zeus, Apollo, Abellio, Gilgamesh, Marduk, Tiamat etc?
I don't deny any of these beings you mentioned, nor do I accept them...except for Gilgamesh, I think he existed in some form and then many legends and myths were added over time into his story...

As for dismissing mine, mine is completely different from these described. God is the origin of all, therefore he cannot be a physical entity, before there was existence or non-existence God existed just the same....

They give "no evidence" as their reason for not believing in Santa, believing in Tooth-Fairies, believing in the FSM, etc.
Would you honestly say that there is merely "no compelling reason" to not believe in these? Or the more precise claim of "no evidence"?
But we know that Santa, the tooth-fairy, and FSM were made up and fictional....

Like lenny the Leprechaun, francis the Fairy, or elsa the Elf.
Uhm...no like things beyond the scope of science....didn't you get my point? We haven't gained knowledge of everything yet...there's LOTS of missing knowledge...because there is much missing knowledge that science does not have there is good reason to believe in things which there is currently no evidence for.....since most likely there are many innumerable things unknown to us currently that exist...


the same reasoning, they'd use to determine lenny the Leprechaun's, francis the Fairies, or elsa the Elves, existence.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:

The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
No one's asking anyone to prove a negative. You can falsify a positive by proving another positive.

Why do people ask for evidence for the Loch-Ness Monster?
But you're able to empirically find out if the Loch Ness monster exists....just search the entire Loch Ness.......

Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

Jesus explicitly states in the bible that one should NOT ask for proof of the Father...wtf?

Why not? Weren't we given free will to question the validity of...anything?
Wait, let me rephrase that; weren't we given the free will to question the validity of the bible without being condemned to hell? Nope.

Uhm...no like things beyond the scope of science....didn't you get my point? We haven't gained knowledge of everything yet...there's LOTS of missing knowledge...because there is much missing knowledge that science does not have there is good reason to believe in things which there is currently no evidence for.....since most likely there are many innumerable things unknown to us currently that exist...


No one's asking anyone to prove a negative. You can falsify a positive by proving another positive.

But scientists also don't automatically assume that something is true when it hasn't been proven yet.
Example, the string theory of the universe (and parallel universes). It is a theory, there is no evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. With that said, scientists DON'T assume that the universe(s) are comprised of those strings, because there isn't enough evidence to support it.

Does anyone disagree that evidence is synonomous with "that which has been, or can be, verified by third-person means"?

Can anyone provide third-person verification that consciousness as a phenomenon exists?

But scientists also don't automatically assume that something is true when it hasn't been proven yet.
Example, the string theory of the universe (and parallel universes). It is a theory, there is no evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. With that said, scientists DON'T assume that the universe(s) are comprised of those strings, because there isn't enough evidence to support it.
Ofcourse scientists do not automatically assume things, that isn't how science works, the point I'm trying to make is that there are many things that are true that science doesn't know about yet.....you all seem to think "evidence causes something to become true" instead of "evidence reveals what is true" thats why you won't believe in things without evidence because you all really think that evidence makes something true........

Science is about evidence. Religion is about blind faith. Let's not mix the two.

As for dismissing mine, mine is completely different from these described. God is the origin of all, .lol, how so? you know this how?therefore he cannot be a physical entity, exactly lol, it's imaginary.before there was existence or non-existence God existed just the same....lol, and you know this how?
But we know that Santa, the tooth-fairy, and FSM were made up and fictional.... lol, and god is different, how?
Uhm...no like things beyond the scope of science....didn't you get my point? We haven't gained knowledge of everything yet...there's LOTS of missing knowledge...because there is much missing knowledge that science does not have there is good reason to believe in things which there is currently no evidence for.....since most likely there are many innumerable things unknown to us currently that exist...yes, Like lenny the Leprechaun, francis the Fairy, or elsa the Elf.

Roy, what do you do if termites infest your house, sing kum ba ya?
When termites infest my house, I just go hop on the computer, go to one of my online forums and make one-line posts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You should try it sometime. It's fun!

Thanks "Roy."

lol, how so? you know this how? exactly lol, it's imaginary.lol, and you know this how?
lol, and god is different, how?
yes, Like lenny the Leprechaun, francis the Fairy, or elsa the Elf.
LOL you've just confirmed what I said you all really believe "evidence causes something to become true" instead of "evidence reveals what is true"......

As for how I know, I base it on own independent reasoning, unlike you I have an independent mind and am able to have beliefs outside of science and what the current evidence upholds....comparing these things to a Leprechaun is really useless.....

You know what electromagnetism never existed in ancient times, the Sun revolved around Earth before too, there was no such thing as blackholes in the past, etc......these are conclusions that you would've drawn from the current evidence of the times......

Jesus explicitly states in the bible that one should NOT ask for proof of the Father...wtf?

Why not? Weren't we given free will to question the validity of...anything?
Wait, let me rephrase that; weren't we given the free will to question the validity of the bible without being condemned to hell? Nope.
No, Jesus does not state that...rather in the Gospel of Thomas he states:

" "If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'" " (Gospel of Thomas, 50)

This only further adds mystery to what Jesus was trying to communicate to mankind.....

Also you missed the point of the post, why ask for evidence if you admit that gathering evidence is impossible?

Jesus did state something to that effect. It was in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Allow me a little bit to sift through those books and find that scripture.

Why the hell would anyone want to add to the mystery of what He was trying to communicate to mankind? His teachings and the wordings of his teachings in scripture are hard enough to decipher...as all the denominations should so blatantly prove.

I also never admitted that gathering evidence is impossible. Gathering evidence for non theists is just like theists reading the bible trying to gather more insight.
I'm pretty sure I got the point of the post. It's merely the same question non theists would ask theists.

But we know that Santa, the tooth-fairy, and FSM were made up and fictional..

No you don't.

I don't deny any of these beings you mentioned, nor do I accept them

See, now you're an atheist. Typically atheists don't ultimately deny them, they just lack belief in them, (don't accept them) because there is no evidence.

So, what's you first day as an atheist like?

As for dismissing mine, mine is completely different from these described.

It always is :bugeye: *Mine* is different, it's just everyone elses that are crap.

God is the origin of all,

Any evidence? Didn't think so? Why would you expect me to believe it? Let's go through this..

"Lenny the leprechaun is the origin of all".

You're going to just believe that....... right?

before there was existence or non-existence God existed just the same....

Before there was existence or non-existence Lenny existed just the same.

What now?

No you don't.
Yes you do...the creator of FSM made FSM up just to ridicule theism...just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn....


See, now you're an atheist. Typically atheists don't ultimately deny them, they just lack belief in them, (don't accept them) because there is no evidence.

So, what's you first day as an atheist like?
What are you talking about? Most atheists say that God is an imaginary fantasy, everyone else is just another delusional fool besides them (atheists)


It always is :bugeye: *Mine* is different, it's just everyone elses that are crap.

Any evidence? Didn't think so? Why would you expect me to believe it? Let's go through this..
Uhm...I was only describing the characteristics of God to show how its completley different from a Leprechaun....


"Lenny the leprechaun is the origin of all".

You're going to just believe that....... right?



Before there was existence or non-existence Lenny existed just the same.

What now?
If you describe "Lenny the Leprechaun" and "God" with the exact same characteristics then "Lenny the Leprechaun" is simply another word for "God", since there is no difference between the two....

Yes I would believe in "Lenny the Leprechaun" if you described him with the exact identical characteristics as "God" since I would conclude that "Lenny the Leprechaun" is the same as "God" (there being no difference between the two besides the words)

Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

But there should be evidence aplenty.

If God is constantly meddling with this world then we should see his thumb print everywhere.

So find evidence of his actions and you have your proof.

Yes you do...the creator of FSM made FSM up just to ridicule theism...just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn...

Alright, but the tooth fairy is real. I have seen the evidence to say she is real, (i.e coins under my bed that my parents categorically deny having any influence in), and you'd be very hard pressed to show that santa was created to ridicule anyone... especially considering christians are the very first to celebrate christmas.

What are you talking about? Most atheists say that God is an imaginary fantasy, everyone else is just another delusional fool besides them (atheists)

Your statement is inaccurate, but typical for someone that does not understand what atheism means.

Uhm...I was only describing the characteristics of God to show how its completley different from a Leprechaun....

Since when did "difference" equate to existence or non-existence? A black man is different to a white man.. does that mean one does not exist?

If you describe "Lenny the Leprechaun" and "God" with the exact same characteristics then "Lenny the Leprechaun" is simply another word for "God", since there is no difference between the two...

Right, and since there's no difference, you just believe in leprechauns but give them a different name.. right?

Further to which, Lenny is not the same as gods. gods can perhaps be identified as the same as other gods, (although the evidence suggests otherwise), so when you say you believe in jesus you actually mean you believe in allah. What's it like being a muslim?

...because there is much missing knowledge that science does not have there is good reason to believe in things which there is currently no evidence for...

That behavior fills in the gap of missing knowledge with *insert your fantasy here* rather than leaving the gap and waiting for real truth to fill it. When people such as yourself use this "God of the gaps" rationale it sends a clear message that you don't value truth as much as an atheist might.

I would hate to be in your situation. If you were a Muslim in Iraq you might be one of those poor spastards whom blows themselves up because they fill immense gaps from lack of education with Allah, heaven, and virgin rewards from killing the enemy. They have so much missing knowledge and think they have good reason to believe in Allah and heaven.

I'll speculate the reason that Atheists care and challenge theists is because they care far more about the truth and don't want to be negatively impacted by other peoples actions that are based on fantasy. It would piss me off if I had to walk along in some market place worried that some lunatic believing in an omnipotent life form was going to blow himself up. It pisses me off that I live in a country where 20% of the population are evangelicals (christian extremists). Have you ever seen a Christian extremist?

Have you ever seen a Christian extremist?

You can hang that hat on the human race. Don't try to exclude yourself.

Sarkus,

I have no evidence that the notion of God is anything but man-made.

Or in other words you choose to believe God does not exist, because you cannot possibly know that for sure.

Which THEIST came up with the notion that God is beyond scientific scrutiny?

The fact that it is beyond such "scrutibility" is not a real problem, at least not for the majority of everyday people going about their everyday lives.

And we call that being intellectually lazy.
The fact that it is not a problem to those that don't think too hard about it is irrelevant to the discussion.

We already have thought about it, which is why we came to our decisions. If God, for the sake of argument, could be scrutinised by science he would not be God.

God.

You know God is not described as a physical being, so why seek evidence from a method whose only business is understanding the physical universe.
Why demand physical evidence.

I do not know. Something that is beyond mere scientific possibility.

Do you know the extreme limits of scientific possibility?

No - I mean evidence of design.

Anything we see in nature?

I observe - I see no evidence of design - just the obeyance of a few rules of the Universe.

That's you.
I accept that. Try and accept there are those who see evidence.

Eh? I don't believe he exists. I also don't believe he doesn't exist. All due to lack of evidence.

That equates to 'you don't believe', unless you can say specifically what constitutes as evidence for the existence of God.

So current lack of a scientific means of replicating abiogenesis is your evidence of design?

No. I said "life comes from life" that is a scientific fact. Is it not.

Lack of evidence for one thing is NOT evidence for another.
This is simple logic that you should realise by now.

You said you do not believe in the existence of God due to lack of evidence.
So in essence, your "lack of evidence" is the evidence for why you don't believe in God. It seems you don't realise that logic.

If you can't answer me then just say so.

I can discuss it, no problem, but your lack of understanding of the subject matter, permits me to conclude that such a discussion would be a waste of both our time.

And yet you call the reason of not having any evidence "weak"? :confused:

What would you call a "strong" reason?

I didn't say "not having any evidence" is weak, I said using that reason alone, is weak, especially regarding this subject matter.

Why is it the honest thing to do?
Surely it is more honest to explain fully the rationale for reaching the conclusion one does?

It is the honest thing to do, because it is the only real reason you can possibly have. You already know God is not described as material, you already know the scientific method can only observe that which is material.
I think I'm correct in thinking that no one in this thread believes God is a physical being, or claim to know he exists, not in the scientific sense.
So what is the point of asking for scientific evidence?

So you now admit you have no evidence for God????

I have good reasons to believe in God.

Yet you said earlier that you see evidence of design in the Universe???
Who do you see as this designer of yours if not God???

By "evidence", I mean evidence which would stand up to modern scientific scrutiny, physical evidence. There is no scientific evidence which concludes proof of Gods existence or non-existence, simply because God is not defined as a physical being. Which is why, it boils down to whether or not you believe, and how much you have faith in that belief.

Jan.

You can hang that hat on the human race. Don't try to exclude yourself.

You are correct that extremism is a human issue and it would appear the vast majority of extremists today are religious extremists. It seems religion is really conducive to cultivating that behavior.

I think I'm correct in thinking that no one in this thread believes God is a physical being

The bible states otherwise - showing many times that he is a physical being - from taking a stroll through the GofE to getting crucified, (the latter only counts to those that believe jesus is god).

He is also described as going around in a big pillar of fire, (something physical), that to many might be considered viable evidence.

LOL you've just confirmed what I said you all really believe "evidence causes something to become true" instead of "evidence reveals what is true"......no never said that, but did comfirm that lenny the Leprechaun, francis the Fairy, or elsa the Elf, are equally as valid, as god.
As for how I know, I base it on own independent reasoning, unlike you I have an independent mind and am able to have beliefs outside of science and what the current evidence upholds....comparing these things to a Leprechaun is really useless.....so your evidence is purely subjective, so why is comparing it to a Leprechaun different?
You know what electromagnetism never existed in ancient times,wrong yes it did, man just did not have the knowledge to understand it, hence why they used there imagination to explain it. the Sun revolved around Earth before too,did it, see above answer. there was no such thing as blackholes in the past, etc......see also above answer.

and could you answer my previous post, properly thank you.
1, how is god the origin of all. and please, a little more than you subjective interpretation, or books of fiction.
2, how do you know that before there was existence or non-existence God existed just the same. and please, a little more than you subjective interpretation, or books of fiction.
3, how do you know that god is not made up fictional. and please, a little more than you subjective interpretation, or books of fiction.

But we know that Santa, the tooth-fairy, and FSM were made up and fictional....


By the same measure, this is also true of god. Who wrote his lines in the Bible? Men.

Or in other words you choose to believe God does not exist, because you cannot possibly know that for sure. I do not choose to believe God does not exist. I merely choose NOT TO BELIEVE.

You know God is not described as a physical being, so why seek evidence from a method whose only business is understanding the physical universe.
Why demand physical evidence.I don't demand physical evidence - just evidence. The scientific method is not only interested in the physical - it just so happens that no evidence for the non-material has ever been produced.

Do you know the extreme limits of scientific possibility?Nope - which is why I do not jump on the "God of the gaps" as an answer to fill in the knowledge we don't yet have.

Anything we see in nature?You think anything we see in nature is evidence of design?
Please provide an example - and then show how this is evidence of design.

That's you.
I accept that. Try and accept there are those who see evidence.I do accept it - I just don't agree with it.

That equates to 'you don't believe', unless you can say specifically what constitutes as evidence for the existence of God.How can I specifically state what constitutes as evidence for something that I have no evidence of? That's just absurd!

No. I said "life comes from life" that is a scientific fact. Is it not.It is a scientific fact that life does come from life. You only have to look at the way one was born to realise this.
However, it is not a scientific fact that life ONLY comes from life.
So again I reiterate that you seem to be suggesting that the lack of evidence for abiogenesis, or for the origin of life, is evidence for the existence of God?

You said you do not believe in the existence of God due to lack of evidence.
So in essence, your "lack of evidence" is the evidence for why you don't believe in God. It seems you don't realise that logic.Lack of evidence is NOT evidence! :rolleyes:
You can play around with words all you want but you need to understand the basic principles you're dealing with here.
You are the one who seems to be grasping onto a lack of evidence as being fuel to your "God of the gaps".

I can discuss it, no problem, but your lack of understanding of the subject matter, permits me to conclude that such a discussion would be a waste of both our time.Typical elitist theist get-out clause.
Concession accepted.

I didn't say "not having any evidence" is weak, I said using that reason alone, is weak, especially regarding this subject matter.What other reason is there that is stronger than not having any evidence?

It is the honest thing to do, because it is the only real reason you can possibly have. You already know God is not described as material, you already know the scientific method can only observe that which is material.
I think I'm correct in thinking that no one in this thread believes God is a physical being, or claim to know he exists, not in the scientific sense.
So what is the point of asking for scientific evidence?At what point does the scientific method ever claim to only be regarding the physical/material?
The fact is that no evidence for the non-material has ever been produced.
Thus people assume that "science is only about the material".
This is rubbish.
Scientific method is a method for ANY evidence at all - material or non-material.

If you could provide evidence of the non-material, the scientific method will work just fine with it.
But instead you feel content in claiming the scientific method can not cope with the non-material.

By "evidence", I mean evidence which would stand up to modern scientific scrutiny, physical evidence. There is no scientific evidence which concludes proof of Gods existence or non-existence, simply because God is not defined as a physical being. Which is why, it boils down to whether or not you believe, and how much you have faith in that belief.
Who says evidence has to be physical?? It just so happens that 100% of the evidence for anything is currently physical.

And it is due to this lack of evidence (which per my comments above doesn't necessarily have to be material!) that any such belief is irrational - whether it is belief in the existence or in the non-existence.


So you freely admit there is no evidence for God?
You freely admit that there IS evidence of a designer (a contradictory position, it seems, that you haven't yet clarified)?
And you freely admit that belief in God is based on zero evidence and is just a matter of choice?

If you could provide evidence of the non-material, the scientific method will work just fine with it.
But instead you feel content in claiming the scientific method can not cope with the non-material.


Who says evidence has to be physical?? It just so happens that 100% of the evidence for anything is currently physical.
And it is due to this lack of evidence (which per my comments above doesn't necessarily have to be material!)

Sarkus, the problem with what you are saying is this.
1) I demand evidence of the non-material
2) No evidence of the material has ever been produced
It is at #2 where the problem is. You freely admit that science has never produced evidence that is non-material and yet you seem to conclude from that that this means that there is nothing that is immaterial. It is just as possible that science has its limitations and that scientific evidence for the immaterial can not be produced. Which is why I would feel much better if you would say no "compelling reason" rather than "evidence." Because when you demand evidence what you are really saying is that you have faith* that science is a flawless method for answering all questions.

*Faith - here meaning you have arbitrarily decided that the lack of material evidence proves the non-existence of the immaterial rather than taking the position that science has its limitations.

Well aren't you glad that all those people could open their mouths, fight and die and bleed and kill so you could live your blameless vegan life?
You are a vegan right?
No... I am not irrational. I am not opposed to killing in order to live. In fact, if I could, I would kill my own food to eat instead of buying someone else's kill.


Because the theists will argue the point "how do you get an eye by accident" - obviously he doesn't understand evolution, but if as it was always thought that there was some truth to the Adam and Eve story (that humans were poofed) then it would surely mean there was a deliberate creation to it. You may say that doesn't apply to the 'big bang', but then, the universe evolved too - you didn't get galaxies overnight. It all seems to be simple > organised complexity... and god would be the reverse - immense complexity > simple complexity. Granted, if I create something then that is immense complexity > simple complexity, but I am the result of slow evolution... I am not god, am I?
I agree. But I am saying that things like the story of Adam and Eve is more metaphorical than most think. Since all language is metaphor (even today, the words I am using now) and all languages evolve, then it is safe to say that their metaphors back then are cliche and mythic to us now, but only because the same words have different meanings to us now.

But it would seem more rational to suppose that the rules that we observe today in the universe are the very rules that a hypothetical god would use to create it.

I don't think there is a 'being' at all. If consciousness is just one aspect of what we call 'life' in this universe, then is there a god of gravity? A god of clouds, a god of toenails? Why do we think the only god is one that has a lot in common with our own psyche? I think whatever happens in our brains is no different to anything, yet what happens in our brains seems to make us assume the same is true for the creation (creator?) of the universe?
Who's to say that (if there is a god) then he is the god of all these things, since they are a part of all of us anyways. I am just saying its possible and that denying or fully accepting will blind you either way.

RoyLennigan,
What is so "disgusting" about how theists live?
Jan.
I wasn't giving my personal opinion, I was just describing most atheists' subconscious justification for their beliefs. This is just what I've observed from most of them. It's not all that irrational, either. But I'm not all for it; I'm not typically a person who is 'disgusted'.

I am an agnostic - I have no knowledge of God - either of his existence or his non-existence.
I am also an atheist - due to my lack of belief in God.

This is what I see as the only rational position - unless one claims to either have knowledge or evidence.

And then it is a matter of what that knowledge / evidence is actually knowledge / evidence of.

:D You can't be both, man. If you are atheist then that, by definition rules out you being agnostic. If you have a lack of knowledge of a thing, then you cannot make a conclusion about it. How can you say something about something you don't know anything of? It makes no sense.

When the true agnostic is asked about god, he/she says "I don't know what that is."

Roy, what do you do if termites infest your house, sing kum ba ya?
My house is concrete.

Sarkus, the problem with what you are saying is this.
1) I demand evidence of the non-material
2) No evidence of the material has ever been produced
It is at #2 where the problem is. You freely admit that science has never produced evidence that is non-material and yet you seem to conclude from that that this means that there is nothing that is immaterial. It is just as possible that science has its limitations and that scientific evidence for the immaterial can not be produced. Which is why I would feel much better if you would say no "compelling reason" rather than "evidence." Because when you demand evidence what you are really saying is that you have faith* that science is a flawless method for answering all questions.

*Faith - here meaning you have arbitrarily decided that the lack of material evidence proves the non-existence of the immaterial rather than taking the position that science has its limitations.
Again, the immaterial could either be something so obvious we take for granted and subconsciously rule it out as an option; or it could be the web of constants which are the natural relationships which motivate all change in the universe.

The bible states otherwise - showing many times that he is a physical being - from taking a stroll through the GofE to getting crucified, (the latter only counts to those that believe jesus is god).

He is also described as going around in a big pillar of fire, (something physical), that to many might be considered viable evidence.

*************
M*W: In a manner of speaking, and interpreted in the manner in which I believe the bible to be, "god" is a "physical being," if one considers the myth of "god" being a metaphor for the "sun."

As to the "pillar of fire," and the "burning bush," the contents of the Ark of the Covenant, etc., all refer to a bright, burning and dangerous light or fire. Again, I believe these are metaphors for the "sun."

Jesus, OTOH, was a metaphor for the "sun/son of god." He is also referred to, as is Lucifer, as the Morningstar. The Morningstar could be a metaphor for the sun, or it could be a reference to Venus. My interpretation of this is that the Planet Venus is said to rise with the sun (as is a New Moon), it then becomes more likely that the reference of the Morningstar is to Lucifer who is lesser than the "sun," but appears to be taking over the morning sky.

Jesus' crucifixion is also a metaphor (in my interpretation) of the Vernal Equinox when there is a "crossing" between four planets or constellations (I'll look this up at another time), and they appear to be a N-S-E-W directional sign that crosses the sun around the time of Passover/Easter. The passion story of the NT as I interpret it is quite clear that it is a story about the Vernal Equinox, and Jesus' crucifixion is an allegory that tells of this astrological event.

I don't believe in god, but I do believe there is a sun, but I am not a sun worshipper! When one interprets the OT&NT in an astro-theological perspective, it does become perfectly clear that the whole story of Jesus and his mythological ancestors are just fictional characters who represent the "heavens" or the "sky beings."

Sarkus, the problem with what you are saying is this.
1) I demand evidence of the non-material
2) No evidence of the material has ever been produced
It is at #2 where the problem is. You freely admit that science has never produced evidence that is non-material and yet you seem to conclude from that that this means that there is nothing that is immaterial.This is the flaw in your assessment - as I do not conclude that there is nothing that is immaterial.
I do conclude that, as yet, no evidence for the non-material has been produced. It is a different conclusion entirely.

It is just as possible that science has its limitations and that scientific evidence for the immaterial can not be produced. Which is why I would feel much better if you would say no "compelling reason" rather than "evidence." Because when you demand evidence what you are really saying is that you have faith* that science is a flawless method for answering all questions. I do not have "faith* that science is a flawless method for answering all questions". I have never stated that nor implied it.
I merely chose not to be irrational and believe in something for which there is no reason other than "god of the gaps" explanation - e.g. the non-material.
Until such time as evidence for the non-material is produced, to belive that the non-material exists is irrational.
That is not to say that it doesn't exist.

I would indeed be happy to claim there is no "compelling reason" if there was even the slightest hint of evidence for the non-material.
But there isn't.
There is, as yet, NO evidence for the non-material other than as a catch-all net for things currently not understood (e.g. consciousness).

*Faith - here meaning you have arbitrarily decided that the lack of material evidence proves the non-existence of the immaterial rather than taking the position that science has its limitations.I have never claimed that lack of evidence is evidence for lack.
Please indicate where I have stated as much and I will happily correct your flawed interpretation of my statement.

My position is one of agnosticism with regard the non-material.
I have no knowledge of it, no evidence. I thus take the only rational course and do not believe the non-material to exist, but I also do not believe that the non-material does NOT exist. How can I make either claim when there is no evidence either way?

Of course, please provide said evidence and I will happily review my position.

:D You can't be both, man. If you are atheist then that, by definition rules out you being agnostic. If you have a lack of knowledge of a thing, then you cannot make a conclusion about it. How can you say something about something you don't know anything of? It makes no sense.

When the true agnostic is asked about god, he/she says "I don't know what that is."No offence, but I suggest you look up the accurate meanings of the words you're using - atheism and agnosticism.
They relate to entirely different aspects - one of belief, the other of knowledge.
It is entirely possible to be both: an agnostic atheist, a non-agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a non-agnostic theist.

Wikipedia is a reasonable place to start:
Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)
Agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)

No offence, but I suggest you look up the accurate meanings of the words you're using - atheism and agnosticism.
They relate to entirely different aspects - one of belief, the other of knowledge.
It is entirely possible to be both: an agnostic atheist, a non-agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a non-agnostic theist.

Wikipedia is a reasonable place to start:
Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)
Agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)

Well, then it really makes no sense. But I guess most of what humans do doesn't make a lot of sense. For one, I don't really care what the "official" definition of the word is. Everyone thinks of different associations when hearing the word. For general purposes, the term 'atheist', at least in the US or maybe western society, means a conscious decision to believe that there is no god. And the term 'agnostic' would be, as you say, that it is 'unknowable' if there is a god, or what a god would be.

I guess I am just trying to steer clear of being associated with anyone who says for certain that there can be no such thing as god, as much as I want to steer clear as those who insist that their own idea of god is true.

Perhaps I am not agnostic. Perhaps I am beyond agnosticism and require a new 'on-the-fence' label. I don't know, words seem to change.

But... what exactly would an agnostic theist be?

I guess I am just trying to steer clear of being associated with anyone who says for certain that there can be no such thing as god, as much as I want to steer clear as those who insist that their own idea of god is true.Then I guess you'd be a weak-atheist (i.e. merely lacks the positive belief of god's existence - but don't go as far as to say that you have the positive belief in god's non-existence - which is what strong-atheists do).
It seems you have reached your (weak) atheist position primarily through your agnosticism - i.e. you do not have the evidence / knowledge to either say god exists or doesn't.

A laudable rational position, I might add, that I myself adhere to. :)


But... what exactly would an agnostic theist be?Someone who believes in God through, for example, Pascal's Wager.
They don't know if god exists or not - but choose to believe he does because the reward, even if only remotely possible, is worth it over the lack of reward offered by the alternative. They might also believe purely through fear (the "well, wouldn't it be awful if he didn't and all we do is die and rot back into the ground!" people).

I don't suggest that there are many agnostic-theists - but I don't doubt there are some out there.

Sarkus, do you agree that it's at least possible that the following statement is true:

Science is a method of investigation pertaining to material phenomena but not applicable to immaterial phenomena.

Sarkus, do you agree that it's at least possible that the following statement is true:

Science is a method of investigation pertaining to material phenomena but not applicable to immaterial phenomena.I agree - it is possible.

But, to qualify that, we won't know for sure until the non-material evidence is subjected to the scientific method and the scientific method found wanting.

It is also entirely possible that "evidence" can only be material - in which case any method requiring said evidence is only going to look at the material, even if it could be usable for non-material evidence, should such exist.

But then if "evidence" can only be material - it brings us full circle as to how one justifies the existence of the non-material when there is no need for it, per Occam's Razor (as "non-material" would be to indtroduce an unknown into any explanation).

I agree - it is possible.

But, to qualify that, we won't know for sure until the non-material evidence is subjected to the scientific method and the scientific method found wanting.
this doesn't make sense - how can one expect to determine the non-material by material means? (If one could, it wouldn't be non-material)

It is also entirely possible that "evidence" can only be material -
this is akin to saying that it is possible that the only evidence available is through the measurement of our senses

in which case any method requiring said evidence is only going to look at the material, even if it could be usable for non-material evidence, should such exist.
what about inference
suppose you are seated on a train and not moving from your seat (even though the train is moving) - out the window everyone is moving very quickly backwards (at least so it directly appears)

what about authority
suppose one is not at all familiar with medical terms or conditions yet the doctor says you have cancer - unless one is a qualified doctor, there is certainly no evidence for this (unless of course one is an expert or authority in the field)

But then if "evidence" can only be material - it brings us full circle as to how one justifies the existence of the non-material when there is no need for it, per Occam's Razor (as "non-material" would be to indtroduce an unknown into any explanation).
actually we can use Occam's razor to disregard the notion that material reductionism is sufficient to define everything, since there is no material evidence for this

this doesn't make sense - how can one expect to determine the non-material by material means? (If one could, it wouldn't be non-material)The point is that it is not necessarily "by material means". Until the non-material can be conclusively shown to exist - it remains unknown whether the scientific method can cope with the non-material.

this is akin to saying that it is possible that the only evidence available is through the measurement of our sensesPlease feel free to provide more ways of measuring our senses - and bear in mind that there are far more than just the 5 basic senses you were taught at school (Heat, Pain, Body, Balance etc).

what about inference
suppose you are seated on a train and not moving from your seat (even though the train is moving) - out the window everyone is moving very quickly backwards (at least so it directly appears)What about it? There is material evidence here - and nothing immaterial is needed to reach the conclusion.
The "inference" you speak of is merely the recollection and application of previous experience / evidence, all completely material.


what about authority
suppose one is not at all familiar with medical terms or conditions yet the doctor says you have cancer - unless one is a qualified doctor, there is certainly no evidence for this (unless of course one is an expert or authority in the field)Ah yes - your "authority" argument.
Authority is meaningless unless accompanied by practical performance.
And it is this practical, observable evidence of performance that enables society as a whole to build up the subconcious probability assessment that someone practicing as a doctor, with all the "qualifications", is able to do what they say.
It is NOT as simple as saying: "You are an authority - this is sufficient evidence." The authority is built up from observable evidence throughout society. We observe people with qualifications in most fields being able to do what their qualification says they can.
We then use this observed evidence to subconcsiously reach a probability assessment that anyone else in "authority" / with "qualification" can do what they say.

Your term, and use, of "authority" merely hides the plethora of evidence that accompanies the authority/qualification.


actually we can use Occam's razor to disregard the notion that material reductionism is sufficient to define everything, since there is no material evidence for thisPlease feel free to try. Should be interesting.
And bear in mind that lack of evidence is NOT evidence for lack - but you seem to forget this time and time again.

Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

Quite simple. Many atheists (myself included) are fairly open minded skeptics. We welcome the challenge of evidence provided that might throw a wrench in our machine. Just because we hold the belief that there are no gods, doesn't mean we ignorantly march foreward (unlike most theists).

While this is highly insulting to theists, it's the truth. I've only met one or two theists that I could call intelligent. Yet I've met many atheists that could be called intelligent (as they refuse to be ignorant).

Sarkus
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
this doesn't make sense - how can one expect to determine the non-material by material means? (If one could, it wouldn't be non-material)
”
The point is that it is not necessarily "by material means". Until the non-material can be conclusively shown to exist - it remains unknown whether the scientific method can cope with the non-material.
the problem with empiricism is that to conclusively show something to exist, it must be repeatable to a controlled environment - matter is of course inferior to our consciousness, so we can measure it, but how would one see what one is seeing with?

“
this is akin to saying that it is possible that the only evidence available is through the measurement of our senses
”
Please feel free to provide more ways of measuring our senses - and bear in mind that there are far more than just the 5 basic senses you were taught at school (Heat, Pain, Body, Balance etc).
thats the problem - the senses are activated by consciousness, and consciousness is therefore not approachable by the senses (much like one cannot jump over one's knees, even if one can jump 10 feet)

“
what about inference
suppose you are seated on a train and not moving from your seat (even though the train is moving) - out the window everyone is moving very quickly backwards (at least so it directly appears)
”
What about it? There is material evidence here - and nothing immaterial is needed to reach the conclusion.
inference is slightly different from empiricism since it involves rationalism - rationalism belongs moreso to the school of philosophy and empiricism belongs more so to the school of science


The "inference" you speak of is merely the recollection and application of previous experience / evidence, all completely material.
logic determines faksity/truth in circumstances that are not directly verifiable (after all, in the train it certainly does appear that everyone is running backwards very quickly)


“
what about authority
suppose one is not at all familiar with medical terms or conditions yet the doctor says you have cancer - unless one is a qualified doctor, there is certainly no evidence for this (unless of course one is an expert or authority in the field)
”
Ah yes - your "authority" argument.
Authority is meaningless unless accompanied by practical performance.
And it is this practical, observable evidence of performance that enables society as a whole to build up the subconcious probability assessment that someone practicing as a doctor, with all the "qualifications", is able to do what they say.
thats ok - but the patient just walks through the door - its not like he has participated or even verified " this practical, observable evidence of performance" so he is accepting a truth outside of empiricism (at least his own empirical capacity)

It is NOT as simple as saying: "You are an authority - this is sufficient evidence." The authority is built up from observable evidence throughout society. We observe people with qualifications in most fields being able to do what their qualification says they can.
correct - hence we do not evidence by our own capacity of knowledge or perception what an authority does, but we make value judgements according to our perception of their quality ... all of which is an evidence that is beyond material validation

We then use this observed evidence to subconcsiously reach a probability assessment that anyone else in "authority" / with "qualification" can do what they say.

Your term, and use, of "authority" merely hides the plethora of evidence that accompanies the authority/qualification.
the point is that the patient does not have access to that evidence, yet he accepts the doctor's statements as truthful - that truth of the doctor is certainly not verified by the patient


“
actually we can use Occam's razor to disregard the notion that material reductionism is sufficient to define everything, since there is no material evidence for this
”
Please feel free to try. Should be interesting.
And bear in mind that lack of evidence is NOT evidence for lack - but you seem to forget this time and time again.
quite simply, if we cannot define everything by means of material reduction, including very essential things that we require to function (like for instance there is no reductionist evidence for the self as anything more than a bunch of chemicals - yet we commonly accept that a person is responsible for their actions - material reductionism teaches us that there is no self that can be held as legally responsible - which is of course is an absolute foolishness in practical living), then it can be safely disregarded

arh, the whole authority argument is such uber-bunk.
You cant authoritise subjective experience because we cant measure it.
Its like me saying - 'im an authority on lucid dreaming.'
Its meaningless, because theres no way to gauge the quality of my experiences as a lucid dreamer. I may in fact not even be having lucid dreams atall, and you have no real way of knowing.

This isnt to say that there's no such thing as lucid dreaming - in the same manner there may well be a higher level of consciousness whereby you can apparently commune with god(s).
But how do you tell someone whos had a 'really good' natter with God, from someone who simply stumbled into god's domain by accident and got booted out almost instantly?
Of course you can guage the quality of the ideals and lessons of mystics - some of Jesus's teachings contain inspiring idealism and lessons to live by.
But then again so does the work of people like Plato and Bruno - who wernt spirtual in the slightest.
Therefore it's clear that spirtualism is something entirely seperate from insight and intellect, it rests on experiences beyond our grasp and ultimately outside of authority.

the problem with empiricism is that to conclusively show something to exist, it must be repeatable to a controlled environment - matter is of course inferior to our consciousness, so we can measure it, but how would one see what one is seeing with?Until you stop blurting out such religious "facts" you will continue to be blinded.

thats the problem - the senses are activated by consciousness, and consciousness is therefore not approachable by the senses (much like one cannot jump over one's knees, even if one can jump 10 feet)This does not answer the question. Please do so.

inference is slightly different from empiricism since it involves rationalism - rationalism belongs moreso to the school of philosophy and empiricism belongs more so to the school of science Inference is still based on observed physical evidence. Without any such evidence there is NO inference. Inference is merely the application of prior experience / evidence to different situations.
What is so non-material about this?

logic determines faksity/truth in circumstances that are not directly verifiable (after all, in the train it certainly does appear that everyone is running backwards very quickly)Logic only determines possibility of truth. Just because something is entirely logical does NOT make it truth.

thats ok - but the patient just walks through the door - its not like he has participated or even verified " this practical, observable evidence of performance" YES HE HAS!!!! Why do you not realise this!

Every time they talk to someone who has had different experiences, every time they interact with someone, every time they watch the television, they are participating in the verification process. You can not escape the verification if you are part of society.
You might not appreciate that you are verifying it - but you are.
You slowly build up a wealth of experience / evidence that leads you to the assessment of probability that if you ask the opinion of an expert that they know more about something than you do.
You then take this experience, this evidence, this subconscious understanding and apply it to other areas of "qualification" - such as visiting a doctor and accepting what he says.

But the qualification itself is NOT evidence.
The authority itself is NOT evidence.

The evidence is every experience that you have that leads you to start accepting the word of qualified people.

And lo and behold - even the qualified people get it wrong sometimes!



so he is accepting a truth outside of empiricism (at least his own empirical capacity)No he is not - see above.

correct - hence we do not evidence by our own capacity of knowledge or perception what an authority does, but we make value judgements according to our perception of their quality ... all of which is an evidence that is beyond material validationJust because something is "beyond material validation" does NOT make it non-material!
Sheesh! I thought you would have realised that?

the point is that the patient does not have access to that evidence, yet he accepts the doctor's statements as truthful - that truth of the doctor is certainly not verified by the patientFirstly, the patient DOES have access to the evidence - and he has used it to go to the doctor in the first instance.
Secondly - the patient can go to another doctor - get a 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinion etc. Each will help to verify the assessments made by the others, and thus either reinforce or counter the probability assessment made to date.

And what is the issue with accepting the doctor's statement as truthful? Does this make the doctor's statement EVIDENCE? No. Does it make the doctor correct or wrong, just because he said it? No.

quite simply, if we cannot define everything by means of material reduction, including very essential things that we require to function (like for instance there is no reductionist evidence for the self as anything more than a bunch of chemicals - yet we commonly accept that a person is responsible for their actions - material reductionism teaches us that there is no self that can be held as legally responsible - which is of course is an absolute foolishness in practical living), then it can be safely disregardedLol! God of the gaps! :D

Right - so your evidence is purely "well, if you're right, it would be foolishness in practical living".

And rather than try and actually explore the underlying truths - you jump on the "non-material" as a "god of the gaps".

Fair enough - that's you.
However, your argument bears absolutely no relationship to Occam's Razor, which was what was asked of you.

You argue out of fear and incredulity - both irrational traits.

Sarkus, do you agree that it's at least possible that the following statement is true:

Science is a method of investigation pertaining to material phenomena but not applicable to immaterial phenomena.
I would not say so. Science is the study of reaction. If a thing exists, it is either a reaction, or the effect of a reaction (which in turn becomes a reaction). Reactions can either be material (made of matter and tangible to the direct senses). Or immaterial (made of a relation between material things and observed through analyzation).

The immaterial both exists and doesn't exist. It exists in that there is some connection between the material things that we call a natural force (such as electromagnetism, gravity, weak & strong forces, plus any unknown ones). But it doesn't exist in that they are observed indirectly and so we don't know exactly what it is or why it is, but we know that it is and roughly how it affects things.

Sarkus
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the problem with empiricism is that to conclusively show something to exist, it must be repeatable to a controlled environment - matter is of course inferior to our consciousness, so we can measure it, but how would one see what one is seeing with?
”
Until you stop blurting out such religious "facts" you will continue to be blinded.
If matter was not inferior to our consciousness, why is it that matter can be observed in controlled environments?
:confused:
as far as I am aware, its an accepted scientific fact - in fact its integral for the very function of empirical truths

“
thats the problem - the senses are activated by consciousness, and consciousness is therefore not approachable by the senses (much like one cannot jump over one's knees, even if one can jump 10 feet)
”
This does not answer the question. Please do so.
it does however answer why matter is inferior to our consciousness and the inherent limitations of empiricism (since empiricisms foundations are the senses, and the senses can only detect matter)

“
inference is slightly different from empiricism since it involves rationalism - rationalism belongs moreso to the school of philosophy and empiricism belongs more so to the school of science
”
Inference is still based on observed physical evidence.
Of course, but the conclusion of those observations are not physically exhibited

Without any such evidence there is NO inference. Inference is merely the application of prior experience / evidence to different situations.
What is so non-material about this?
further than our own experience, inference goes into realm via extrapolation and not merely just what we have previously experienced

“
logic determines faksity/truth in circumstances that are not directly verifiable (after all, in the train it certainly does appear that everyone is runn