The Problem w "Evidence" (and thus the problem of Atheism)

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

The Problem w "Evidence" (and thus the problem of Atheism)

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:29 am

The problem of Evidence is that Evidence is relative.

What is "Evident" to you, your life, your senses, is never, ever "evident" to anybody else. What you see, is not what another sees. What you smell, is not what another smells. Although sense and experience maybe similar, it is never "the same". Therefore "Evidence" cannot justify Science or Empiricism. Evidence cannot be an appeal to the masses, a logical fallacy. Trying to unite all humanity in a "shared experience" is false when evidence is relative. Furthermore, standards of evidence are relative. The higher the claim, the more "evidence" is required. But what does that mean, except, sensual experiences must be as similar as possible?

Yet that still does not prove Rational or Logical consistency, as-if shared experiences represent proof or truth.


Rather there is always an element of implicit trust and faith by what people place in each other, and their claims. Thus you don't believe in "Science" or Scientists because they have "evidence", but rather, because you place trust in them as "experts" and authorities.

Although that can be refuted, too.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The Problem w "Evidence" (and thus the problem of Atheis

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:37 am

The default onus of proof is on the positive claimant.
Since theists made a positive claim, i.e. God exists, then, the sole onus of proof must be from the theists to show evidence of the existence of God.

There are two essential basis of proofs, i.e.
    1. Logical and rational proof via reason
    2. Empirical justifications via empirical evidence.

The most credible basis of empirical proofs are scientific based. Whilst such are credible, the most we can say with scientific theories is they are merely polished conjectures based on intersubjective consensus and never absolute knowledge [note Hume Problem of Induction].

The credibility of scientific theories [never certain but are polished conjectures] is they are open to testing and verification by anyone who must comply with the requirements of the Scientific Framework and System [based on evidence], and the expected results are consistent. The ultimate criteria of the credibility of scientific knowledge is they can be applied to obtain much benefits.

The problem with the theists' claim 'God exists' is they have not produce direct evidences [an observer God] to prove God exists or even indirect evidences that can produce credible consistent results. Can God [since all powerful] write his answers in the sky using clouds for 10 questions we ask of God?

There is no issue with evidence in relation to atheists.
Whatever theists want to prove as real, i.e. God as real within an empirical rational reality, just bring the evidence and subject it to a credibility test. Evidences are subjective but there are methods of making subjectivity objective, i.e. intersubjective consensus of the highest order.
But the point is theists cannot even bring the evidence to prove God exists.

Since theists can never prove God within the empirical, what theists resort to the proof of God are merely based on crude reason and even then the conclusions are fallacious. e.g.
    1. all effects has causes,
    2. there are a determinant series of effects and causes,
    3. therefore God is the final cause

Note the big leap from 2 to 3.

In this thread, "God is an Impossibility" I have used higher critical reason to demonstrate 'God is an Impossibility.'
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: denniskane