Atheists err when asking for material evidence to prove God's existence

[Tx Redneck]

http://carm.org/atheist-error-asking-for-material-evidence-for-god

by Matt Slick

Atheists often ask for evidence to prove that God exists. They say they want tangible, testable evidence that can be verified via the scientific method. I believe this is so they can try and refute it in order to justify their denial of God. Unfortunately for them, such a request is the wrong approach. Let me show you why.

First of all, the scientific method is a system of learning that consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, and theory. It is based on logic and observations of the material universe and its properties.

Second, the scientific method, along with a materialistic worldview, necessarily excludes transcendence - that which exists independent of the universe. Therefore, it can't detect what is outside of the material realm since it is based on observing things inside the material realm.

Third, the Christian worldview proclaims a transcendent God who exists outside of, and independent of, the material universe. In other words, the Christian God is not dependent upon the material universe or its properties for his existence.

Therefore, to ask for testable, material, non-transcendent evidence for an immaterial, transcendent God is the wrong approach because it is a category mistake.
Category Mistake

A category mistake is an error in logic in which one category of a thing is presented as belonging to another category. For example, to say "the rock is alive" assigns the category of life to an inanimate object. Another example would be to judge the beauty of a painting based on how much it weighs. This is a category error, since the category of beauty is not determined by the category of weight.

So, for the atheist to work from inside his materialistic, non-transcendent worldview and require evidence for the non-material, transcendent God (which necessarily exists outside his perceived worldview) is a category mistake because it is asking for the material evidence of the non-material, the non-transcendent evidence of the transcendent. It is like asking to have a thought placed on a scale. It doesn't work because they are different categories.

But, some will assert that it is fair to ask for some sort of demonstration that such a Transcendent Being exists. After all, if there is no evidence of him, how can we know he exists? For that, see What kind of evidence should we expect from a transcendent God?
What is left for the materialist atheist to do?

This means that the materialist atheist cannot logically require material-based evidence for the immaterial without committing a category mistake, so he is left with the option of trying to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is internally incoherent. After all, if he cannot show that Christian theism is false, then how can he rationally retain his atheism?

But, to step into the Christian worldview and attempt to show that it is not true, the atheist must use logic. This requires the use of the Laws of Logic. The problem is that these Laws are transcendent in that they are not dependent on the physical universe or its properties for their validity (See, The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, points 5-8). But for the materialist atheist to presuppose the validity of transcendental Logical Truths, in order to argue against a Transcendental God, is inherently self-contradictory since he would be using transcendentals to argue against a Transcendental God.

Furthermore, it would mean that the materialist atheist is presupposing the validity of the transcendental Laws of Logic - without being able to justify them from within his materialistic worldview. To presuppose their validity is to commit the logically fallacy of begging the question.
Conclusion

The materialist atheist is left without a valid means in falsifying Christian Theism, which means his atheism can not be validated as being true.1

He cannot rightfully require material, non-transcendent evidence for a non-material, transcendent God without committing a category mistake. He must abandon his materialistic worldview - but this is incompatible with his atheist worldview.
He cannot enter into the Christian worldview, which is based on a Transcendent God, and use the transcendent laws of logic without being self-contradictory in his approach.

[The King]

Mankind's attempts to pigeonhole God into his own rules and limited understanding will be forever a failure.

[Maddhattter]

This essay demonstrates that Matt has a problem with reasoning when it comes to his pet hypothesis.

His entire stance is that people should be theists, Christian specifically, without supporting evidence.

While I will agree that the existence of a god/gods has not and cannot be 100% ruled out, there is no reason to believe one exists until it can be demonstrated, or even indicated. The only way to do this is by independently verifiable evidence. Otherwise, the theist has no honest way of determining their preferred deity from a hallucination.

He's claiming that there can be no evidence of a "transcendent God who exists outside of, and independent of, the material universe". This is not so. The god that he posits has directly interacted with reality, many times, if the bible is to be believed.

These interactions would be testable occurrences. So, by creating testable scenarios, this god would be creating evidence of its existence. That creation of evidence invalidates his entire stance, as there would be evidence to support his theistic claim.

So, this far, he's stated that you cannot expect evidence for his belief and there is no evidence for his belief. He goes on to attempt to claim that the atheist presupposes logic, as if this is a problem.

The laws of logic are fundamental principles of reality. There is no less reason to presuppose logic as a prerequisite to existing than there is to presuppose that the truth is verifiable. As the laws of logic apply to all things that we can show to exist, without fail, there is no reason to believe that something does exist without it. That is not to say that it cannot, just that there is no reasonable justification to believe that it does. To put it as simply as I can, logic is axiomatic.

Without logic, our reality cannot exist. That is not to say that no reality can exist, but ours could not, as the difference between our reality and an illogical reality would be fundamental. The only way that logic could not be applied to his asserted god is if that god is illogical, or it exists within a reality that is not bound by logic. The problem here is that Matt is asserting that a reality not only can, but does exist devoid of logic, else his god would be bound to it as is everything else that exists. He does this, again, with the expectation that he has no requirement to actually support his assertions.

He then makes the claim that "materialist atheist is left without a valid means in falsifying Christian Theism". Here, he falls into conflict with the burden of proof, once again.

The "materialist atheist" has no obligation of "falsifying Christian Theism" until the Christians can first support that claim with evidence. Without evidence to support the claim, disbelief is the only reasonable position. As theism is the belief in a god/gods, the only true dichotomous stance is atheism, the lack of belief in a god/gods.

To put it into simpler terms, the person making the positive claim, the theist, must demonstrate that his/her claim is true.

[Tx Redneck]

http://carm.org/expect-evidence-from-transcendent-god

[Maddhattter]

http://carm.org/expect-evidence-from-transcendent-god

None of this helps his case.

I could replace every instance of god in this essay with Russell’s Teapot, faeries, goblins, unicorns or anything else I can image and the entire article would still carry the same weight and be supported by the same “proofs”. He cannot demonstrate that anything transcendent can even have any of the qualities he’s assigned to it, let alone demonstrate that such a thing exists.

All he’s done in this article is state that his favorite phantasm has nebulous traits that cannot be verified (likely so that he can attempt to shift the burden of proof again).

He asserts a false equivocation of transcendent and personal. Just because something is one in no way supports that it is the other. In his previous essay, he claimed that the laws of logic are transcendent, and they are not personal in any way. Of course, we can also prove that those exist, with a methodology that he claims cannot work against transcendent things, using independently verifiable evidence, which he claims that a transcendent thing cannot have.

He then goes on to state that the qualities that his preferred poltergeist carries are as such:

1. Self-revelation - The Christian, Transcendent God could only be known through a decision on his part to reveal himself to us, since he exists outside of our material world. Also, his self-revelation would not be subject to the demands of his creation to "show himself" since it would be self-revelation, not external coercion.
2. Authoritative - Such self-revelation would necessarily be authoritative in that what the Transcendent God would reveal about himself would be true, right, good, absolute, etc., and would be based on his transcendent nature. Furthermore, his self-revelation would not be self-contradictory, nor would it be the subject of human approval for its validity since this would be subjecting the transcendent to the non-transcendent which is a category mistake.
3. Miraculous - Any self-revelation of the Christian Theistic, Transcendent God would be miraculous by definition and could not be explained by merely materialistic-based hypothesis.

I’ll deal with these one at a time…

Self-revelation:
As I’ve explained before, if you cannot independently verify that something occurred, you have no way to determine that you’re not merely experiencing a chemical imbalance or hallucination. So, you could not know of something that only reveals itself in this way, as you could never know if it was a true experience. Not only could you not know if this thing exists, you could not just assume that this is the only way it could be revealed.

Authoritative:
So, you’ve had a “vision” of a thing. If you can’t verify that what you even saw was actually something external to your mind, there is no way to know if anything it states is true. That doesn’t even take into consideration that, if you really are being contacted by a trans-dimensional entity, it could just be sadistic and telling you that it is always “true, right, good, absolute, etc.” in an attempt to see you suffer and thank it for your suffering. You see, it does not follow that just because something is transcendent that it is good, honest, or even sentient.

Miraculous:
It would not be miraculous by definition. It would merely be above and independent of things. This would not be miraculous, as there is no indication that a transcendent thing can interact with reality, or has any of the powers/capabilities theists attribute to it.

He goes on a bit, not overcoming any of the faults I brought up about his previous essay, about how this is problematic to the atheistic worldview when it is nothing of the sort.

He then goes on to state that the bible gives these attributes to the Christian god. However, he fails to actually demonstrate how the Christian bible is any more reliable than any other religious text ever written, nor does he touch on the fact that there is no reason to assume the bible has any more historical accuracy than a collection of Spider-man comics.

These “attributes” are nothing more than continuing the previous cycle of making statements with the expectation of not having to support them and coming to those statements by way of bad reasoning.

He does not support any of his claims. He only makes terribly pathetic attempts at weaseling out of the burden of proof. At no time, in this essay, did he overcome any of the objections levied at his first essay.

I’ve even seen him debate several people, and he makes this attempt at claiming that he does not need proof. Which is the same thing I have objected to here and in my previous post. He never overcomes these objections, only stating that there cannot be proof(anything other than the bible), except for the proof he wants to submit(the bible) without substantiating his statements. So, even he knows how his reasoning doesn’t hold to scrutiny. Whether he’s not updated his website due to being too busy, sloth, or an outright attempt to deceive makes no difference. He’s not met his burden of proof on any of his claims. Claiming that he does not have to meet the burden does not absolve him from it.

[racrguy]

Bryan, as I said on Facebook. "incorrect"

And now you know why, I'm just not willing to type all of that out. Lolz

[krazy kris]

A 4th grade girls science teacher told the class today we are going to talk about evolution. The teacher asked Billy if he would look outside and asked if he saw the grass, Billy said yes I see the grass. The teacher asked Billy if he saw the trees, Billy said yes I see the trees. The teacher asked Billy if he saw the sky, Billy said yes I see the sky. The teacher asked Billy did you see god, Billy thought a second and said no I didn't. The teacher then said so if you didn't see him how can we believe he exist. Then the little girl asked the teacher if she could ask Billy a few questions. She asked Billy to look outside and asked Billy do you see the grass, Billy said yes I see the grass. She asked Billy do you see the trees, Billy said yes I see the trees. She said okay can you see the teachers brain, Billy said no. So the little girl said okay then by the teachers logic she has no brain and she is dumb cunt.

[racrguy]

:/

[Maddhattter]

A 4th grade girls science teacher told the class today we are going to talk about evolution. The teacher asked Billy if he would look outside and asked if he saw the grass, Billy said yes I see the grass. The teacher asked Billy if he saw the trees, Billy said yes I see the trees. The teacher asked Billy if he saw the sky, Billy said yes I see the sky. The teacher asked Billy did you see god, Billy thought a second and said no I didn't. The teacher then said so if you didn't see him how can we believe he exist. Then the little girl asked the teacher if she could ask Billy a few questions. She asked Billy to look outside and asked Billy do you see the grass, Billy said yes I see the grass. She asked Billy do you see the trees, Billy said yes I see the trees. She said okay can you see the teachers brain, Billy said no. So the little girl said okay then by the teachers logic she has no brain and she is dumb cunt.

The most salient feature of the story is that neither the teacher nor her students have an adequate grasp of the most basic concepts of science. What kind of idiot is this teacher? Whose idea of science is that if you can't smell it, taste it, feel it, hear it, or see it with our immediate senses, then it doesn't exist? If that's the case, then what happened to the things we can't smell, taste, feel, hear or see, such as electrons, cells, Newton's laws of motion, living dinosaurs, black holes, photons, magnetism, infrared light, and general relativity? For that matter, what about abstract concepts like "harmonic chords" or "Thursday"?

It could be argued that the teacher was only keeping it simple for the 4th graders to understand, but that would undermine the entire point of this fable as that would only indicate that the children are right, but only because the teacher oversimplified.

Anyone who works with science knows it isn't about what we can perceive with our five senses. It's about organizing facts about the known world into descriptions that can explain the way things happen. These descriptions make predictions which can be tested, repeated, and falsified if they're wrong.

Of course, science can't definitively prove that the teacher has a brain. Just because every human or animal body that has ever been dissected and analyzed has always had a brain; just because countless experiments have demonstrated that the brain controls an organism's ability to move and speak and reason; just because an animal with a damaged brain becomes an inanimate mass of carbon... these things are hardly conclusive proof. What science can do is make predictions with confidence and high accuracy; it can prove things beyond reasonable doubt but it can't prove anything with 100% certainty. The fact that it is able to change and correct mistakes is part of what makes it a powerful tool.

If the teacher in the story had any kind of clue what he was on about, she could have explained all this, not that 4th graders (or anyone who thinks this story is a valid counterpoint to anything) are likely to understand the explanation. Of course, the problem isn't with the teacher, who is after all only a fictional character. The problem is that the author of the story doesn't understand the scientific method or the proper application of logic and reason.

NOTE: As the story presented is nothing more than a retooling of an urban legend, the response above is nothing more than a retooling of a response to the basic story. Small changes made were to fit the response to this rendition of the fable. Unedited response can be found here.

[exlude]

Why did you never revisit your last thread in this forum?

[Tx Redneck]

Why did you never revisit your last thread in this forum?

Because I have no felt need to argue with anyone here, I have much better uses for my time. I will however, continue to disseminate info as I choose.

Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.

[Dlachance]

When a person has a relationship with their God that to them is real, and tangible, how could they possible believe or be convinced that He is non-existant? The Atheist mentality of most, seems to me, to be a longing for Christ rather than a desire to "prove everybody wrong", conscIously or not.

[racrguy]

Why did you never revisit your last thread in this forum?

He wants to come in, drop some impossible nonsense and not have his views challenged. It really saddens me though, Bryan is a smart dude, articulate, and really cool, but he's got this god box that he keeps locked up, available only to things that agree with his already held beliefs, with rules that apply only to that one topic.

Because I have no felt need to argue with anyone here, I have much better uses for my time. I will however, continue to disseminate info as I choose.

Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.

Except it's not information. It's someone's flawed logic and failed thought processes.

When a person has a relationship with their God that to them is real, and tangible, how could they possible believe or be convinced that He is non-existant? The Atheist mentality of most, seems to me, to be a longing for Christ rather than a desire to "prove everybody wrong", conscIously or not.

Yeah, we have a name for things that are real and tangible to one and not others. They're called hallucinations.

A longing for christ? Hardly. It's more of a longing for things that are true and not made up bullshit.

[Dlachance]

You sir, are blind, blindy following yourself. I'm glad you have all the answers to life, how has that been working out for you?

He wants to come in, drop some impossible nonsense and not have his views challenged. It really saddens me though, Bryan is a smart dude, articulate, and really cool, but he's got this god box that he keeps locked up, available only to things that agree with his already held beliefs, with rules that apply only to that one topic.


Except it's not information. It's someone's flawed logic and failed thought processes.


Yeah, we have a name for things that are real and tangible to one and not others. They're called hallucinations.

A longing for christ? Hardly. It's more of a longing for things that are true and not made up bullshit.

[racrguy]

You sir, are blind, blindy following yourself. I'm glad you have all the answers to life, how has that been working out for you?

You are a fool to make those assumptions, but pretty well, actually. I do exactly what I want, when I want to do it, and I don't have to apologize to a murderous egomaniac for being human.