What evidence will you accept?
Salam Alaykum everyone,
To start off this thread is not meant to be an argumentative one rather, and informative one (hopefully). As the title suggests, this is a very straightforward question, what evidence will you accept to at least consider that there is something out there that created this universe? I don’t care if you want to call it god, watch maker, the uncaused cause or whatever. The reason I ask this question is because whenever I have heard this question asked the answer is always the same “I don’t know”, so I am hoping that someone or even a few here can at least can at least provide a realistic answer. Yeah yeah the word realistic is subjective and blah blah blah but I am sure you know what I mean. I won’t really question (with the intent to disprove) your criteria for evidence although, I might ask you to elaborate or explain your criteria. Everyone is free to believe what they want and as I stated above, I am not here to argue but, simply to try and get better informed.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Searching for truth,
"What evidence will you accept?"
How about all of humanity going on a picnic on the moon without any special equipment and everyone's IQ increasing by 10,000 points?
@Searching for truth
What evidence would I accept? Repeatable, testable, verifiable evidence that fits in well with all other similar evidence and findings in the same subject area.
When you say:
I actually already believe it is quite likely "something" came before the big bang. A bit like "something" created our solar system (gravity and the big bang.)
Saying some sort of human like "god" entity that actually interfaces (or even remotely cares about humans on this lonely planet) would require an absolute extraordinary amount of evidence, if this god entity was anything at all like pretty much all the major religions practiced by humans depict. We would basically have to throw out just about all of science and scientific finding we have amassed and learned so far, for an entity such as "god" to work.
But if we bend and twist the definition of god, then it gets a lot easier. If I bend the definition of "god" to suit my needs, I could say my "god" is the sun, and I feel like I would have a pretty compelling argument for that.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Thank you for that, do you mind being a little more specific? It seems that it’s a little too vague. Also, you are asking for proof of this “something” to fit in to your own specific rules and laws, while you think this same “something” caused/created or “came before” the big bang. Wouldn’t that mean that this “something” might not fit in to your vaguely defined criteria? I may not have worded my question the way I would have liked so I hope you know what I am trying to say
I never said or hinted at that.
As a Muslim I will answer this from an Islamic perspective. You are making the assumption that Islam opposes or goes against science. Anyway, different topic for a different time.
In Islam, God is already defined (Quran Ch. 112) so no twisting the definition because of a person does then he is no longer talking about God.
Thank you for your reply.
@ NOT searching for truth
Now you are just being nothing more than a wishy-washy panty waste. If anyone is vague, it is you. Logic explained exactly what he meant. If you ain't got the knowledge to figure that out, then you should go back to school.
Actually this is what you are asking. Logic never asked that. When are you going to quit lying and putting words into other person's posts?
You never have. Probably never shall.
Actually we never make this assumption. Islamaboobs are always saying science is wrong and must be destroyed. Why don't you come out of that shell you live and look at the true nature of Islam.
And I ain't off-topic since the thread is still based on Islam.
rmfr
@SfT
I apologize for the delay in response, I had some surgery done last friday, but I am recovering well. I thank my amazing body and its incredible ability to heal it self!
I have my requirement of testable,repeatable etc to any and all claims. But if you want I can be more specific to your exact post, just know I uniformly and evenly require such evidence on any and all claims so I can make a more informed and optimal decision based on the information.
To be more precise and specific, I do not think these are my own specific rules and laws, but rules and laws observed by humans that help us organize our understanding of everything, that again helps us pick the more optimal choice when faced with a decision. I liken to being armed with the knowledge of basic arithmetic when figuring out change for a 20 when I buy a pack of gum at a gas station.
Great! I think "god ideas" that assume such a god could care less about our planet and humans in general is a much more plausible god idea then what many religions depict. But it does bring up the question, why think about, worship etc a god idea like that? If it does not care about us why should we care about it? Even you have to admit the "answers" a god entity like that could give are shaky at best, back to the whole lack of substantial evidence thing.
That is fine. It would make this a much much longer reply, and if I recall, we have done that discussion already.
Glad we agree on that. I will also fully admit I do not know Quran Ch. 112 definition of god, but I see little reason to take the time to learn it, except to possibly argue better and shortcut the work of defining god for an argument.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@Logic
No need for an apology. I'm glad to see you are recovering well and hopefully won't be too long before you're back to 100%
Yes, however, as you and I have discussed (extensively) in the past different humans use different tools to help us organize our understanding of everything.
I think there may have been a miscommunication on this part however, it does not really change the main question in my OP. Just to clarify, I do not agree that "God" does not care about us.
@SFT
"Yes, however, as you and I have discussed (extensively) in the past different humans use different tools to help us organize our understanding of everything."
But we all know you lost your tools along with your marbles long ago.
rmfr
Thank you, even if we are on opposite sides of theist/atheist fence, a general interest in the well being of the other is a good common ground to have.
I think the key difference that separates these different tools is for most of the tools I mention is they are based on observation, the physical instead of strictly the realm of the mind instead. While all tools and ideas are born inside the mind, the physical based ones manifest in our physical reality and act as a 2nd check to the simple wanderings of mind not bound by any rules. To me this makes these tools more reliable, more accurate and a better way to navigate our physical reality, being aware of these rules.
Hmm let me backtrack and see where the miscommunication may have occurred:
I originally stated:
"Saying some sort of human like "god" entity that actually interfaces (or even remotely cares about humans on this lonely planet) would require an absolute extraordinary amount of evidence"
To which you replied:
"I never said or hinted at that."
Which led me to believe that you have not stated or hinted that god does actually interface with humans.
Are you instead saying you never stated the 2nd part of that? The extraordinary amount of evidence? I know now that you think god does interface with humans, so would you now agree that such a claim requires extraordinary evidence? That god is not detectable by conventional means of detection but can and does interface with the universe?
Back to the main question in the OP. "What evidence will you accept." Based on our discussion in this thread you wanted clarification, on "something."
I unfortunately don't really have a clarification, all I know it seems likely as not that there was "something" before the big bang, but the problem is, the big bang represents a "wall" that no universe based detection system can see past. All possible avenues of detection before the big bang are impossible because there is no "information" available likely in any form about what occured before the big bang. We are left with a big: "who knows?" zero information can be gained, any scenario is possible and as likely as the next. Your god idea, someone else's god idea, no god, infinite pink bunnies they all have equal chance. As well as "nothing." So we are left with discussing the possibility of god in this universe now, where we can gather evidence, and there is no evidence that can be attributed to any "god" idea with all the evidence found so far.
However not all is lost on evidence argument. We can find evidence for a different theory, lots of it actually. The theory that man made up gods. All kinds of evidence for that. So while evidence can not disprove an idea, evidence can prove that it is just an idea instead of physical reality.
I just thought of a short and sweet answer to your question.
What evidence would I accept? Well any actual evidence. Anything that is not just words, spoken or on a page.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
My religion, belief and choice of lifestyle does NOT forbid me from wishing anyone (including atheists) of any faith or belief, a well and speedy recovery regardless of how they might feel towards me. I know (or at least assume) you don’t have any ill feelings towards me. So what possible justification do I have to not wish you well? Having a different point of view on life then I do? So what.
No, based off our previous our exchanges you know that I do believe that. However, what I meant here, in this very specific context as it relates to my OP, is that I did not hint at God/something interfering with us as it relates to the main question I asked.
Had I been trying to convince you of this or somehow force it on you then, yes you can ask for evidence but, that is not what I am doing here at all. As is says in the Quran (18:29) “so whoever wills let him believe and whoever wills let him disbelieve." It’s not my job or responsibility to force my views/beliefs on anyone.
And that’s perfectly fine for an answer. I was not looking for any specific answer to try and trap anyone or say “gotcha”. Just an honest answer. Thank you
Haha seems we have come full circle back to our previous (and extensive) exchange because the next step would be to agree on what constitutes as evidence and round and around we go.
SfT, why do you think the answer “I don’t know” is not realistic? Seems to me that it is very realistic. If one doesn’t know, one doesn’t know. Do you want something made up? Do you think if someone identified as atheist provides some other answer that it is accepted by all? You want to be informed? How can you be informed if there is no information?
You iterate that you think everyone is free to believe what they want but forget that atheism is not a belief. You seem to want folks forced through a cattle shoot of providing you with a ‘realistic’ answer instead of admitting to you that they just don’t know.
This seems so odd to me.
It's not just odd, it's very dishonest from sft. Like his "I don't want an argument line," I mean why come to a debate forum then? Where do theists get off telling atheists in a debate forum they can't argue with his claims and beliefs, which as we know from all his previously dishonest evasion is what he is hoping for. If he wants us to accept that he genuinely wants to learn then there are multiple long standing questions he's ignored in a thoroughly dishonest fashion, because he knows they destroy claims he's made on here, for instance about his religion providing objective morality.
He has demonstrated no objective evidence despite being asked to do so time and time again. So combined with this latest tactic, this can only be viewed in the context of dishonesty he's posted with all too often in the past.
Like his "I only want common ground thread," I simply dont believe he wants honest objective debate, as he's avoided just that for far too long. I must say with theists in general, but Muslims in particular the claim they want honest debate and civilised discourse is seldom reflected in the contempt they show for atheists, or the way they try to insist their beliefs are not subject to criticisms, or derided for making stupidly false claims when that is the case.
I'll recant if he tells us if it is ever morally right for a 50+year old man to have sex with a nine year old child, as this leaves him two choices. To admit the most revered prophet of his religion behaved in an unimaginably immoral way, and his claim for objective morality on behalf of his religion therefore can only be false. Or to try and claim raping nine year children is objectively moral. Sadly he hasn't ever even tried to give an honest answer.
He'll need to convince me his beliefs can encompass any objectivity or integrity before I'll fall for the tired old apologists canard of "what evidence would you accept" as if he hasn't had ample time to offer the best evidence he has.
A far more salient question would be "what evidence can you demonstrate that has made you accept your deity is anymore real than all the thousands of deities humans have created that you dismiss as fictional?"
@Cyber
I never said that, seems another case of what I say versus what you assume or understand.
Again, I never said that either. If a person does not know then, that’s 100% perfectly fine but, when someone says they do not know it’s the end of the conversation. If you don’t know and answer you do not know that’s fine, that’s the end of the conversation.
Another thing I never said or hinted at.
Yup me too. I honestly have 0 clue how you reached your conclusion/reply.
@ NOT searching for truth
Yes you have. Not in this thread, but you have said so.
You have always said the "I don't know" answer is completely unacceptable. Why the ass-kissing now in pretending it is acceptable?
The conclusion comes from your past postings.
rmfr
-------------------------------------------------
@Searching for truth
Sure seems like you said it:
Well, SfT, by asking if you wanted a made up answer I did not accuse you of saying that’s what you wanted. It was a simple question. Right?
When I said you seemed to want folks forced thru a cattle shoot, I never accused you of saying that, did I?
By saying, “The reason I ask this question is because whenever I have heard this question asked the answer is always the same “I don’t know”, so I am hoping that someone or even a few here can at least can at least provide a realistic answer,” you really don’t understand it sounds like ‘I don’t know’ is not reasonable?
I find it a wee bit amusing that you seem to admonish me for jumping to conclusions about what you’ve written but then seem to do that very thing yourself.
Hopefully you now have a higher percentage clue about my reply.
" you really don’t understand it sounds like ‘I don’t know’ is not reasonable?"
That does not mean that's what was meant. You should have asked instead of assuming.
SfT, I should have asked what you meant? What the heck? You write words and I read them. If your words inadequately represent what you mean, the onus is not on me to check. Don’t you think you’re responsible for Saying what you mean?
Re: To SFT - "Don’t you think you’re responsible for Saying what you mean?"
Hmmm.... *lightly tapping lips with index finger*... Soooo, let me see if I am understanding this correctly...
We have an individual who is (by personal choice) totally entrenched in following the "teachings" of an ancient/outdated book written by persons in a relatively isolated (and largely uneducated) society that had near ZERO scientific/technological knowledge, and revolved primarily around superstitions and "magic" to explain totally natural events they had no other way of explaining during that time. And said book is written in such a vague and ambiguous way that it requires "expert holy scholars" to "properly" translate/interpret it for the "common followers". However, not even all the "expert holy scholars" are able to agree on the "proper" interpretations of what is written in this "perfect" book. Hence, multiple different factions that often end up warring with each other and causing countless loss of life in an effort to "prove" which faction has the "TRUE" followers.
Yet, we are here seriously expecting an individual who follows that book to clearly express himself in plain and simple writing?.... *scratching head*... Ummmm.... Riiiiiiiight..... *shrugging shoulders*....
I think Cog means he is responsible for expressing himself clearly, just as are we all, and not that this is our expectation. Your point of course is well made, in that it is irrational to expect anyone to offer clear cogent and rational explanations of a belief that is none of those things. I think we point this out to expose this shortcoming in their beliefs, rather than in hope or expectation.
I mean to say, SFT claimed loudly that atheism couldn't have any morality, and that morality could only exist if it was objective, and of course that his religion through it's deity could provide objective morality. His religion as you know is almost entirely based on the revelation of a single prophet, now that prophet had sex with a nine year old child. So I have asked repeatedly is it >EVER< moral for a man in his 50's to have sex with a nine year old child. If it is then his objective morality thinks it is acceptable to rape children, if it is not the prophet his religion is derived from was immoral.
We will never know how he feels about this contradiction, as he hasn't even the decency to try and tackle the question. Just how he thinks that looks to the atheists here I can't imagine, but his attitude suggests he doesn't care if he is viewed as devoid of integrity.
Searching for Truth: English Lesson 101: It is the writer's job to write clearly. It is not the reader's job to interpret what the hell the writer is trying to say. As soon as you produce evidence that stand against critical inquiry, we can all go home..
That is precisely what you said:
"when someone says they do not know it’s the end of the conversation. If you don’t know and answer you do not know that’s fine, that’s the end of the conversation."
That's pretty ironic coming from a theist I must say. You never stop making claims you have no knowledge to support.
You claimed objective morality was only possible through belief in your deity, so is it ever immoral for a 50 year old man to have sex with a nine year old child?
If it is, and that is your religion's idea of objectively moral, why should anyone not be disgusted by your religion?
If t is not then how can a religion's most important prophet have behaved in a way that is no longer moral, if you claim that religion provides objective morality?
Or are you going to continue to dishonestly ignore this question and run away from your claim?
Every assertion made, by any religious doctrine, that is unsubstantiated by objective evidence...will have to be objectively evidenced, individually. Or all gods have to appear to all humans simultaneously and display and explain their supernatural deeds and scientifically validate them to our understanding. But still at that, it would be hard to believe, as I am sure you see the flaws in that logic. Honestly, it is hard to conceive any evidence that would be convincing. It is either there or its not...and a super-hyper-mega-shitload of searching for an awful long long painful time...has turned over not one shred of evidence...Really, that says an awful lot, if you think about it.
before that you also said "it would be hard to believe" So how would you go about determining what is or isn’t even if you saw it? I am sure you see the flaws in that logic.
I like to respond to this question, with the technologically advanced civilization scenario...if any non-worldly entity presents itself as a, or all gods...that does not mean they are a god, or gods of our mythical history, does it.
We will have to find evidence from mythical antiquity, as evidence for a god. Really, if we found a full periodic table with elements to discover, or the theory of relativity equation, or a complete atomic and subatomic particle breakdown, within the buybull...that would be compelling evidence.
However, we have talking snakes and donkeys.
There is nothing irrational about withholding belief in the absence of any knowledge, it is believing something when you can't know that is irrational. If something is predicated without any objective evidence being demonstrated then from a rational perspective it certainly should be hard to believe relative to things we do have strong objective evidence for.
Why do theists keep invoking logic when they don't understand it?
Hulkster! Long time, no see. You're still green and bulky as ever, it appears.
So, about your question... "What evidence will you accept?"
Well, as I am sure I have stated on here a few times before, I have NO IDEA what type of evidence would convince me of any god(s). However, what I DO know is that if your Allah, or the bible god, or any other imaginary entity that has ever been created is truly as powerful and all-knowing as the claims made by the followers, then that particular entity should know EXACTLY what it would take to convince me it is real. And even if I were somehow convinced of it being real, that does not necessarily mean I would worship it. (Oh, and they should already know that, too, I might add.) Because if your Allah and/or the bible god in particular are anything like how they are depicted in their respective "holy books", then I have zero respect for them. Sure as shit have no desire to worship them.
(Now to go see the other replies.)
Tinman, how you been man? Well, the question had nothing to do with respect or worship as the question wasn't really about god.
Gotta stay green and bulky for the new endgame movie, its in my contract.
@ NOT searching for truth
You mean you are that nasty looking monster Captain Marvel vaporizes? Kewl. Nothing nicer could happen to a more purportless person.
I used to play an extra in the movies 30 to 40 years ago.
rmfr
Given that cosmologists have now advanced at least one testable hypothesis for the origin of the observable universe via testable natural processes, and we're now acquiring the tools to perform a first test of said hypothesis, I suspect I may be pleasantly surprised, and have the evidence to hand with respect to the actual "creator" of the universe within my lifetime, if the data from the requisite experiments supports the hypothesis in question. At which point, none of us will have any need for mythologies and their assertions.
Pages