Eps 1082: evidence for the existence of God
— The too lazy to register an account podcast
It is the job of mathematicians to discover the realities of this separate world of mathematical laws and concepts.
In 2004 the great British physicist Roger Penrose put forward a vision of a universe composed of three independently existing worlds - mathematics, the material world and human consciousness.
As an atheist, Nagel does not offer religious belief as an alternative, but I would argue that the supernatural character of the workings of human consciousness adds grounds for raising the probability of the existence of a supernatural god.
Host
Isobel Graves
Podcast Content
Third, some atheists go so far as to claim that the word "God exists" itself is meaningless and incoherent. Although the vast majority of atheists do not seek to reflect on the many legitimate concepts of God that exist in different religious communities, very few atheists have good reason to believe that this is true. Third, while it is possible to define naturalism as the non-existence of gods and to make convincing arguments for or against its truth, this does not depend on justifying global atheism.
This is no easy task, especially in view of the diversity of religious beliefs and the diversity of religions and cultures in the world.
Schellenberg argues that the lack of strong evidence for theism implies that atheism is true. If it is extremely rare for things to be brought into being by intelligence, and if it is common for ordered things to arise from non-intelligences, then it is more likely that an ordered universe is not the product of intelligent planning.
Many people have been seriously searching for convincing evidence of God's existence, but are not convinced or incapable of epistemology. If God exists, then some classic evidence is not meant to convince anyone one way or another. More often, however, they ask more interesting questions: What does this really mean for him and what could be considered "proof"?
However, as many attempts to prove have shown, the line between God and God is thinner than we believe today.
We cannot make an argument that would convince everyone that God exists, despite the possibility of doubt. We cannot draw interesting philosophical conclusions that everyone will accept without any possibility of doubt, but we can tell you that they exist on the basis of the evidence.
Since Immanuel Kant wrote his criticism of pure reason, it has been common to believe that people insist that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. But we can prove it in a way that will convince philosophers that the Rockies are really here, in the mind of an independent object.
Indeed, this claim has been raised to the level of dogma in America's intellectual culture. That is why what is considered to be an irrevocable dogma is known to be an 'irrevocable' dogma, and that is the reaction we get when it is challenged. If it turns out that the classical characterization of God was logically impossible, then there must be a new description that avoids this problem and describes a being that deserves this label.
If God, for example, is only a partially known being, then we can withdraw and abolish all this.
Thirdly, atheists will still want to know, based on evidence and arguments, whether we should conclude that the beings described in this modified account exist. We agree that God exists is a matter that can be explored empirically and reasonably, but we may disagree, for example, on whether the value of physical constants in natural laws is evidence of deliberate fine-tuning. An evidentist theist and an evidentialist atheist may have common principles of epistemology in terms of evidence, reasoning, and implications. They then disagree about what evidence is, how to understand it, and what it implies.
Many non-evidentist theists may dispute that the acceptance of a particular religious claim depends on evidence, arguments, or arguments as they are understood in the classical sense. Even if you are a believer in teleological arguments, the use of hypothetical methods makes people, including atheists, more skeptical of the existence of God. This class of philosophers claims that "proofs" of the existence of God are being presented, but this remains an unclear point.
To overcome these difficulties and for the heart to finally make a decision, evidence is needed for or against the existence of God, but not all.
The robust teaching of the apostle about natural revelation raises the question whether any atheist can really be. The answer will depend, first and second, on how we define "atheist" and, more importantly, what Paul meant when he spoke of people who know God. Objectively, there can be no evidence for or against the existence of God except for the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Bible. Therefore, the lack of evidence, or even the lack of evidence per se, cannot be an excuse for disbelief.