If it helps, perhaps I can provide an example that might put things into perspective (I hope). Islam is a fairly new religion, and before it became mainstream there was essentially no "Allah", or at least none to speak of — Maureen

Islam's Allah is meant to be the same as the Christian God / the jewish Yahweh - Muhammed was continuing a traditional god rather than defining a whole new god.

Simply put, there should at the very least have been some knowledge or recognition of Allah even in the absence of the Islamic religion in the event that he actually does exist — Maureen

If we recast your argument to say why was Yahweh not known about before Judaism, we find that even Yahweh is a god probably inherited from a previous tradition:

"The national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah was Yahweh. The precise origins of this god are disputed, although they reach back to the early Iron Age and even the Late Bronze. The name may have begun as an epithet of El, head of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon, but earlier mentions are in Egyptian texts that place God among the nomads of the southern Transjordan."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Judaism

A hypotheses is that all gods can trace their roots back to an earlier god. Then the question becomes was God a single invention or was God invented multiple times in different places? With the first, we have one proto-God, with the second we have multiple proto-Gods.

Neanderthals were religious - religion dates back a long way. Its even possible that the first humans (who could talk) came up with the idea of proto-God and that traditional was passed on orally to everyone else, mutating with time into the many different religions we have today.

You're being ridiculous. I'm not evangelizing. That's libel, and you're just being an ass. — Noah Te Stroete

You aren't adapting to the counter-arguments, you ignore them and continues to hold the same ground, defending your pure belief. Evangelizing is to just rant your own point of view and belief without any regard for adapting to valid counter-arguments. This is a very common theistic viewpoint, start using biases and fallacies, start applying "you too" arguments when questioned instead of actual scrutiny of your argument. Most theists in here aren't doing philosophy, they're just ranting their belief and how everyone else should shut up because... reasons. Personally, I think it's an epidemic. There are far more evangelical religious new threads started on this forum than anything else. It's like every thread turns into an attempt to explain why first cause arguments fail in their theistic conclusion or how burden of proof really works. The spamming nature of theists on this forum is very much evangelical and it's not allowed. If you don't want to do that, then listen to the counter-arguments.

You need to convince even atheists with your argument and if you can't it's flawed, simple as that. If you don't, then it's not philosophy, then your evangelic about your belief and just want to spam that belief.

Everyone just started to be baffled and attack my claim that theism, is and deserves to be in the table of philosophy. — SethRy

So back to your claim. If theism should deserve to be in the table of philosophy, it requires to be under the same level of scrutiny as every other field. However, as long as theists continue with flaws in their reasoning with biases and fallacies, that's not possible. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

And my arguments have nothing to do with evangelisation, I don't want to evangelise any of you. But the pursuit of truth requires argument, and as far as I know that is all I am providing. — SethRy

And you need to change your argument if there are valid counter-arguments. If you have a theistic point of view it doesn't matter if others are atheists, you need to convince even atheists of your argument and you cannot complain that "atheists just don't understand these things", that is not valid. If you get counter-arguments, adapt and change your initial argument taking into account those counter-arguments. If you can convince an atheist of your argument, it is sound and reasoned rationally, if not, there are flaws. Not because atheists hold a different perspective, but because, as seen plenty of times on this forum, theists tend to disregard standard praxis of argumentation.

To add, I think theism is just moved by perspectives that acclaim labeling us as delusional, or beliefs being unjustified - and I will expect people to affirm that into its as-a-matter-of-factness. — SethRy

No, theism is held under the same scrutiny as everything else, so when theists provide flawed or illogical arguments, it's pointed out. The delusional part is when theists try to force everyone to accept a flawed argument just because they believe it. That's the delusional part. No one serious with philosophy will just accept someone's theistic perspective and conclusion because they rant about how convinced they are their belief is true. And plenty have flaws in their argument from which they defend them through a total bias towards their belief and when pointing out that bias they get angry and act irrationally.

Want theism to be part of philosophy in the way you propose? Then play by the same rules as everyone else. It's tedious to hear theistic rants while all other topics in philosophy get broken down to their smallest pieces in order to expose flaws. Theism doesn't get a free pass, not because people think it's delusional, but because the actual arguments won't hold and the theist's defense of those arguments becomes delusional and disregarding all standard methods of reasoning in philosophy.

And to return to your initial question: "Why do atheists ask for evidence of God, when there is clearly no such evidence?"

Read Russel, understand how burden of proof works. Many theists twist burden of proof to be something it's not. An unfalsifiable claim cannot be made on an initial unfalsifiable claim. There is the first claim and if that claim does not have any proof, then any discussion after it is irrelevant. Atheists ask for evidence of God because the initial claim is that God or Gods exist. The answer to your question has already been answered in philosophy, you might need to read more about it before putting forth your argument. We're just hinting at the answers to your question.

...if someone wants to assert "they are not unknown" or that "they know GOD"...

...they bear the burden of proof. — Frank Apisa

Why? It is not question of proof either way. It is a question of providing the most convincing arguments. That is all that can be done.

No, theism is held under the same scrutiny as everything else, so when theists provide flawed or illogical arguments, it's pointed out. — Christoffer

The flaws, such as they are, are only secondary items that arise when ontological realities are translated into intellectual/philosophical/theological terms. The core belief in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for.

Noah Te Stroete
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
You didn’t understand his position that God is not accessed through empirical observation but through subjective experience, which by definition cannot be properly relayed between individuals. — Noah Te Stroete

You did not understand mine.

Mine is that if a person makes an assertion or claim in a discussion in a philosophy forum...that person incurs the burden of proof for the assertion.

The flaws, such as they are, are only secondary items that arise when ontological realities are translated into intellectual/philosophical/theological terms. The core belief in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for. — EnPassant

Belief can never be solid ground for a philosophical conclusion. Even justified true belief means a form of belief that has major support in reasoning and rational arguments. An argument for the necessity of belief can be made, without flaws, since it's about the nature of belief and it's necessity for humans in psychological areas. However, if someone can't make a coherent argument that is free from biases and fallacies, it's flawed. All arguments so far for any kind of spiritual reality or god/gods have failed in their reasoning. The so-called "proof" for god/gods and the spiritual by theists conclusions in philosophical arguments always include biases and fallacies. A jump to a conclusion, circular arguments etc. If someone is to put forth an argument for the spiritual, god/gods etc. they need to do so without flaws. In what way do you propose that the spiritual can be coherently argued for? I'd like to see an argument which demonstrates this without requiring believing in the conclusion before it's argued.

EnPassant
85

...if someone wants to assert "they are not unknown" or that "they know GOD"...

...they bear the burden of proof. — Frank Apisa


Why? It is not question of proof either way. It is a question of providing the most convincing arguments. That is all that can be done. — EnPassant

If a person makes an assertion or claim...the burden of proof arises.

Most theists and atheists never even make an attempt at doing so...and that is their right. (Mostly because neither can even come close to doing it.)

But the burden does accrue.

If you do not GROK that...you are in the wrong conversation in the wrong forum.

EnPassant
85

No, theism is held under the same scrutiny as everything else, so when theists provide flawed or illogical arguments, it's pointed out. — Christoffer

The flaws, such as they are, are only secondary items that arise when ontological realities are translated into intellectual/philosophical/theological terms. The core belief in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for. — EnPassant

Try that comment of yours using the true meaning of a "belief" in a "Is there a god or are there no gods" context...which is "blind guess." So it becomes:

The flaws, such as they are, are only secondary items that arise when ontological realities are translated into intellectual/philosophical/theological terms. The core blind guesses in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for.

Does that sound any more like bullshit now?

I guess that is fair to say that I am not doing a good job proving God's existence, for my arguments, although not yet proven in this thread, are illogical, incoherent, and delusional. — SethRy

"Proof" is a red herring on both sides. How about just giving compelling reasons for belief?

Is this going to get a proper response or not? You changed the subject to a different argument, and instead of addressing the logical problem, you just saw it as a personal attack and responded in kind. — S

ok...

I remember adding an argument of Anselm? and no, just because two arguments are used to support each other does not mean I am being selectively biased, they both agree with each other and by far is logically consistent, so I do not see how that is wrong — unless of course, you'd care to explain to me how that's the case.

Yet you have the nerve to suggest that you're in pursuit of the truth. Don't you think that it's immoral to lie? — S

I am sorry if that's the case. But what I am saying is that; I am providing arguments for the existence of God, and if anyone is not trying to address the errors and defectives in them, no offense, but I think it's you.

You changed the subject to a different argument, and instead of addressing the logical problem, you just saw it as a personal attack and responded in kind. And then when I question why you responded in this way, instead of responding properly, I just get more personal attacks. — S

I assumed you started to evaluate theism as an affirmed fallacy in every logical way possible, and these are not ad hominem fallacies, I only point out the emotions that are demonstrated without the addressing of the defectives of my arguments.

Terrapin Station
8.5k

I guess that is fair to say that I am not doing a good job proving God's existence, for my arguments, although not yet proven in this thread, are illogical, incoherent, and delusional. — SethRy


"Proof" is a red herring on both sides. How about just giving compelling reasons for belief? — Terrapin Station

You seem to be thinking that a case can be made that one side or the other is more likely.

Why?

Just as you realize there is no "proof" one way or the other...you should realize there is no "more likely" one way or the other.

Both of those things are merely what one wants to do...to guess one way or the other.

That is all anyone can do on the question of whether gods exist or not...is to blindly guess one way or the other...

...or JUST NOT GUESS.

You seem to be thinking that a case can be made that one side or the other is more likely. — Frank Apisa

No. I'm not saying anything about likelihood. Empirical claims are not provable. To wonder if we've proved some empirical claim, or to ask for proof, is to commit a category error. And even in the realms where proofs are pertinent--mathematics and logic, proofs are simply a matter of whether something follows from the rules of the system in question, as we've constructed the system.

There are reasons to believe one thing over another. We can simply talk about those reasons. This has nothing to do with "guessing." You seem focused on certainty (which is why you'd use the term "guess" in counterdistinction to it), which is a complete waste of time.

Well said.

ok...

I remember adding an argument of Anselm? and no, just because two arguments are used to support each other does not mean I am being selectively biased, they both agree with each other and by far is logically consistent, so I do not see how that is wrong — unless of course, you'd care to explain to me how that's the case. — SethRy

One thing at a time. We were talking about Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. I was not ready to move on to a different, possibly related argument. I wanted you to directly address my criticism. I gave a standard form of criticism of the original argument which you presented, whereby I applied the logical form of that argument in a different context: a context which I suspected you would find objectionable. That was intentional. The point is that you seem to apply a double standard, or commit the fallacy of special pleading, which are two similar fallacies. Alternatively, you could bite the bullet, and just accept my counter without argument, thereby opening the floodgates to all number of ridiculous things, from Napoleon to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Either way, I'd say that you're left with a big problem.

I assumed you started to evaluate theism as an affirmed fallacy in every logical way possible, and these are not ad hominem fallacies, I only point out the emotions that are demonstrated without the addressing of the defectives of my arguments. — SethRy

That criticism was not a criticism of theism. How could you even think that? It was specifically a criticism of Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. And I don't think that you can justify your response of attacking my character instead of addressing my criticism. It's not okay to just start calling someone egotistical and the like in the middle of a discussion. You and a few other people here seem to think that that's acceptable behaviour. It isn't. And if you're going to do that, at least have some substance to your response, so that the personal attacks are just a barb which can be overlooked.

Terrapin Station
8.5k

You seem to be thinking that a case can be made that one side or the other is more likely. — Frank Apisa


No. I'm not saying anything about likelihood. Empirical claims are not provable. To wonder if we've proved some empirical claim, or to ask for proof, is to commit a category error. And even in the realms where proofs are pertinent--mathematics and logic, proofs are simply a matter of whether something follows from the rules of the system in question, as we've constructed the system.

There are reasons to believe one thing over another. We can simply talk about those reasons. This has nothing to do with "guessing." You seem focused on certainty (which is why you'd use the term "guess" in counterdistinction to it), which is a complete waste of time. — Terrapin Station

I am NOT focused on certainty, Terrapin. There is no way I can see that anyone can be certain there is a god (are gods) involved in the REALITY of existence.

BUT...there also is no way to assign likelihood to whether there are gods or not.

THAT is what I am focused on.

Your comment about "compelling reasons for belief" caused me to think you suppose one case is more likely than the other...and that it can be shown to be more likely. (Otherwise why would you say that?)

This is a hard thing to get...took me years and years...BUT...a "belief" on the issue of "are there any gods or are there no gods" IS nothing but a blind guess.

If I were to ask, "Are there any sentient beings on the sixth planet out from the fifth closest star to Sol?"...the only thing one could do is to GUESS. There is nothing else to work with. Even if we could come up with the likelihood of sentient life elsewhere in the galaxy or universe...the likelihood of life on that particular planet (if it even exists)...is a total unknown at this point. Any "belief" (YES or NO) would be nothing but a blind guess.

So, too with, "Are there any gods in existence."

Until everyone finally gets that...these discussions go nowhere.

BUT...there also is no way to assign likelihood to whether there are gods or not. — Frank Apisa

I agree with you on that, because of what "likelihood" is, and considering that I'm a frequentist. I don't buy Bayesian probability.

Nevertheless, it's easy to know there are no gods. That's not a "guess," and it doesn't have anything to do with probability.

But the burden does accrue. — Frank Apisa

How can a burden of proof arise if neither side can prove their position? What accrues is a responsibility to present a persuasive argument.

The core blind guesses in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for. — Frank Apisa

Blind guesses? It is neither delusion nor blind guesses. It is an assertion that can be argued for.

Just as you realize there is no "proof" one way or the other...you should realize there is no "more likely" one way or the other. — Frank Apisa

It is not about what is more likely because it is not about chance, it is about what is real. Why would it be about 'blind guessing'? It is about which argument is more persuasive and has the greatest explanatory power.

Terrapin Station
8.5k

BUT...there also is no way to assign likelihood to whether there are gods or not. — Frank Apisa


I agree with you on that, because of what "likelihood" is, and considering that I'm a frequentist. I don't buy Bayesian probability.

Nevertheless, it's easy to know there are no gods. That's not a "guess," and it doesn't have anything to do with probability. — Terrapin Station

It may be easy to say.

But "there are no gods" is nothing more than a blind guess.

But "there are no gods" is nothing more than a blind guess. — Frank Apisa

No, it's not. Repeating that like a mantra doesn't make it so.

EnPassant
87

But the burden does accrue. — Frank Apisa


How can a burden of proof arise if neither side can prove their position? What accrues is a responsibility to present a persuasive argument. — EnPassant

No. What accrues is a burden of proof.

That is why anyone with a functioning brain would not assert, "There are no gods" or "There is at least one god."

Do not make the assertion...but if you do, don't pretend there is no burden of proof to meet.

The core blind guesses in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for. — Frank Apisa


Blind guesses? It is neither delusion nor blind guesses. It is an assertion that can be argued for.

Go read that again.

Those were not my words...they were someone else's that I was quoting.

EnPassant
87

Just as you realize there is no "proof" one way or the other...you should realize there is no "more likely" one way or the other. — Frank Apisa


It is not about what is more likely because it is not about chance, it is about what is real. Why would it be about 'blind guessing'? It is about which argument is more persuasive and has the greatest explanatory — EnPassant

You are now trying to disguise "which is more likely"...by using "which argument is more persuasive."

Give it up.

We do not know if gods exist or not.

We do not have a reasonable likelihood estimate in either direction.

By the way...what exactly is your position on the question?

Terrapin Station
8.5k

But "there are no gods" is nothing more than a blind guess. — Frank Apisa


No, it's not. Repeating that like a mantra doesn't make it so. — Terrapin Station

It is a blind guess.

If you do not get it...tough.

There are people being just as thick-headed insisting that "There is a GOD"...is not a blind guess either.

BOTH are blind guesses.

It is a blind guess. — Frank Apisa

Nope.

Terrapin Station
8.6k

It is a blind guess. — Frank Apisa — Terrapin Station

Yeah, it really is.

I am at a loss as to why you think not.

How can it be anything but a blind guess?

Tell us.

Yeah, it really is.

I am at a loss as to why you think not.

How can it be anything but a blind guess? — Frank Apisa

How would you defining guessing. where you're distinguishing it from other things?

Terrapin Station
8.6k

Yeah, it really is.

I am at a loss as to why you think not.

How can it be anything but a blind guess? — Frank Apisa


How would you defining guessing. where you're distinguishing it from other things? — Terrapin Station

I have absolutely no idea of what you were attempting to ask me here.

In any case, tell me how "there are no gods" can be anything but a "blind guess."

I have absolutely no idea of what you were attempting to ask me here. — Frank Apisa

You have no idea what I'm asking when I ask how you'd define guessing? lol

Terrapin Station
8.6k

I have absolutely no idea of what you were attempting to ask me here. — Frank Apisa


You have no idea what I'm asking when I ask how you'd define guessing? lol — Terrapin Station

If you had asked this...I would have understood.

This is what you actually asked:


How would you defining guessing. where you're distinguishing it from other things?

That is what I didn't understand.

As for "guessing"...I''ll go with:

" to estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct."

Your assertion, "...it's easy to know there are no gods. That's not a "guess," and it doesn't have anything to do with probability"...

...meets that.

Your comment IS a guess.

to be sure of being correct." — Frank Apisa

I want to focus on this first. Isn't this a reference to certainty?