Why God isn't imaginary

[Gordy327]

Ignoring the fact that most intelligent Atheists would be very hesitant to use the word "objective", I just gave you an example of something (the problem of induction) which is problematic for your worldview, because although science is built on top of our ability to use inductive reasoning, inductive reasoning cannot itself be logically justified.

The idea that the future will resemble the past (induction) cannot be logically or experientially proven without circularity. You can’t deduce “the sun will rise tomorrow” from “the sun has always risen in the past.” Similarly, if you say, “experience shows the future has always resembled the past,” you’re already using induction to justify induction. That’s circular.

There is no rational justification for believing the future will resemble the past. Our reliance on induction comes not from reason and empirical evidence, but from habit/custom: the mind becomes conditioned to expect certain outcomes because they’ve always followed in the past. In other words, uniformity in nature requires that we have faith in its consistency.

Now, we can admit that we're taking a pragmatic position here and say that raw empiricism alone is not sufficient for describing the material world and still maintain an Atheist or agnostic position, but that would be problematic for the views you're espousing here.

Objective is what science uses. The alternative is subjective, which science does not go by.

 

[BabaVoss]

What I said doesn't prove the existence of God,

I'm glad you understand that, at least.

rather it demonstrates that there would necessarily have to be different kinds of evidence to prove different things.

Hmmm. Seems kind of obvious.

The embarrassing part is that contemporary Atheists are (apparently) unfamiliar with arguments and debates which were held hundreds of years ago. If they were, it would likely save us a lot of time.

Why are you embarrassed?

I can't tell if you are trying to be serious, condescending, or simply arrogant.
You should probably talk to some atheists. and listen when they explain things.

.

 

[Gozaburo]

Objective is what science uses. The alternative is subjective, which science does not go by.

This is certainly not the consensus even among scientists identifying as Atheist.

Hmmm. Seems kind of obvious.

Then surely you would understand why asking for empirical evidence for God's existence is retarded.

Why are you embarrassed?

I can't tell if you are trying to be serious, condescending, or simply arrogant.
You should probably talk to some atheists. and listen when they explain things.

I'd say it's embarrassing that people (like yourself) are dismissive of arguments like Kant's because they're "old". I'd say it's useful to understand these arguments so that we don't know to retread ground every generation, continuously engaging in the same stupid argument until we're blue in the face.

I've mentioned in this thread and others that the brute empiricism which new age Atheists advocate for is historically a fringe belief and an almost non-existent belief among the intellectual elites who identify as Atheist. I myself am not a theist (though I do enjoy steel manning theist positions), I've just seen that many Atheists on this forum are intellectually lazy and tend to argue their position in an ironically highly dogmatic way.

 

[BabaVoss]

Then surely you would understand why asking for empirical evidence for God's existence is retarded.

That's not a word I would use in this context.
But I agree, such a request makes little sense.
The word "evidence" implies a scientific view.
Science says nothing at all about supernatural stuff - by definition.

I'd say it's embarrassing that people (like yourself) are dismissive of arguments like Kant's because they're "old".

Well, I am not embarrassed, and I did not dismiss Kant because his ideas are old.
I dismiss them as a proof of gods because they are philosophical exercises.
Kind of absurd to suggest Kant in this context.

I get the feeling you just enjoy criticizing atheists.
Have at it, by all means.

.

 

[Gozaburo]

The word "evidence" implies a scientific view.
Science says nothing at all about supernatural stuff - by definition.

No it doesn't.

Well, I am not embarrassed, and I did not dismiss Kant because his ideas are old.
I dismiss them as a proof of gods because they are philosophical exercises.
Kind of absurd to suggest Kant in this context.

I get the feeling you just enjoy criticizing atheists.
Have at it, by all means.

So on the one hand you'll say there are other forms of evidence which are valid outside of empirical evidence and on the other you'll dismiss other forms of evidence as "philosophical exercises".

The point Kant makes is that any proof of God (if God exists) is going to be what you call a "philosophical exercise". God's existence is not something we can arrive at through sensual experience. I've pointed out that even empiricism relies on a priori assumptions which aren't deduced empirically, so clearly there are more abstract forms of evidence which are valid even to the materialist.

 

[BabaVoss]

No it doesn't.

LOL.

 

[Gozaburo]

LOL.

What are you laughing at?

Do you not recognize that evidence used in court is different from the evidence used to prove Napoleon lost at Waterloo and both of those are different from the evidence we'd use to determine whether or not knowledge is possible at all?