Hypothetical: God is disproved

[Antonio the Sixth]

This thread actually has three pages?

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK, sure, let's do it.

It is conceptually impossible for science to be able to say anything about God's existence or lack thereof. How in the world will you go about defining God in a way that's empirically operative? What kind of testable implications can you draw from a "God existence hypothesis"? It might come to a shock to a few of you, but the number of questions science can actually answer is actually extremely small.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Suppose you were presented with a combination of evidence and experience that led you to abandon belief in God.

That's a very different thing than God being "disproven" in an objective sense. If that's what the OP actually wanted to ask, he should have phrased it better.

Anyway, this is actually a quite interesting question. I'm not sure I can answer it, even though that's exactly what happened to me, because it happened just at the time when I was moving from childhood to adolescence and as such there were a lot of changes in my life around the same time, so it's really hard to discern which caused what. What I can say is that at this point I really couldn't imagine being anything other than agnostic, and I'm (mostly) happy this way. I'm trying to build for myself a secular ethos (which obviously incorporates many Christian values) that I desperately hope will allow me to become a decent person. I think that's the most important.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I chose to read it as "definitive, concrete evidence" to each individual. Whatever that should mean. The important part isn't what that evidence constitutes. It's one of the things that, for purposes of the exercise, you take as given.

To me it's a bit silly that anyone would take any evidence as "definitive and concrete" in this realm, since nothing about metaphysics can ever be "definitive and concrete". Of course anyone's belief on these matters, one way or another, is legitimate and just as valid as my nonbelief, but to claim that it's rooted in "evidence" is frankly pretty arrogant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess that might have been true for me as well, though again, for me it's just a counterfactual so I really have no idea.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If/when I have children my husband and I want them to have an open and analytic relationship with philosophy and belief. I doubt we would ever 'church' them but a day each week being exposed to and engaging with something different or what someone else experiences is the ideal.

That actually sounds great. I don't get why you get so patronizing when discussing faith here if that's the outlook you want to have. No, I'm not trying to get into another fight, I'm genuinely surprised.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I chose to read it as "definitive, concrete evidence" to each individual. Whatever that should mean. The important part isn't what that evidence constitutes. It's one of the things that, for purposes of the exercise, you take as given.

To me it's a bit silly that anyone would take any evidence as "definitive and concrete" in this realm, since nothing about metaphysics can ever be "definitive and concrete". Of course anyone's belief on these matters, one way or another, is legitimate and just as valid as my nonbelief, but to claim that it's rooted in "evidence" is frankly pretty arrogant.

That's not what he said. He specifically said 'Definitive and concrete to each individual'. That means 'definitive and concrete' to them, to their own standard of proof and personal truth. He even said 'the important part isn't what the evidence constitutes'. If there are standards to which people, internally and at ease with themselves, can accept belief in god (and they don't have to be evidential, or scientific or metaphysic), what standards (are they the same, are they different?) would cause them to abandon that belief. Would those standards be internal, or external or both.

I don't know how you can say he's being arrogant when you've basically agreed with him

I already said in the previous post that I agreed with this definition. My point here is that, if that is your definition, then words like "concrete" and "evidence" are not well-chosen to express it. Those are two words that imply objectivity. Evidence can't be "subjectively concrete". Thus if what you mean is "arguments and experiences that lead you to espouse or reject a subjective belief", "concrete evidence" just isn't the right way to put it.

I'd like to take issue with your earlier point, especially to your accusation of strawmanning (which, if directed toward me, is frankly pretty damn rich), but we probably shouldn't derail this thread. Let me know if you want to pursue this elsewhere.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I understand your point, but I maintain that I don't think those words should be used the way you are using them. Because, yes, they inherently imply objectivity and you can't just change that by adding "to each individual". Something can't be "concrete evidence" to one individual and not to another - it either is or isn't.

But I'd rather not get hung up arguing semantics. I get your point and I've already responded to your question, so I hope that proves I don't have a problem with it.

This is what I meant a few days ago. I think you needlessly accuse people of feeling certain ways and acting certain ways towards you, or towards others when really they aren't doing that at all.

Do you have other examples of that, other than me casually wondering if a generic accusation you make in the context of a post that was replying to me was in fact addressed to me? Actually, the one time you did throw a personal attack at me (which, even if it was phrased as a joke, still had a very clear meaning behind it), I didn't even react in any form! I've been trying to keep discussions on the issues because, believe me, I have little interest in sharing stuff about myself here.