I don’t think most people intend it this way when they ask
it, but this question seems to have a lot of potential to be kind of a trap
question. There are basically two ways you can answer; general or specific. If
you just answer in general terms, like saying “anything that meets the normal
standards of evidence,” then you can be accused of not answering the question
(example here;
sorry for the language, I was rather salty at the time). On the other hand, if
you say something specific, like, “if all the stars rearranged themselves to
say “God exists!” and people got it on video, and each area saw the message in
their own language,” then the person who asked the question might get on your
case for making a scenario that you know is never gonna happen. (Just to be
clear, I’m not saying that every
religious person would act this way, but I think there is a real potential for
it.)
So, answering the question can be tricky, but I don’t even
think answering it should be necessary. I think the very fact that the question
needs to be asked is a mild type of evidence against the existence of God.
Imagine if somebody asked you, “what would it take to convince you that the sun
exists?” Well, not much, really. All I have to do is look at it (but only
briefly, because if I look at it for too long, I’ll go blind, and that doesn’t
seem likely to happen if the sun doesn’t even exist). If God really were real,
would it seriously be so hard to figure out which purely-abstract arguments or
easily-reinterpreted evidence would convince us? To me, all the theories about
“divine hiddenness,” and debates between continuationists and cessationists,
are just attempts to rationalize the very clear fact that God’s presence just
isn’t readily apparent in our world, the way it purports to be in the stories
of scripture.
So I think the question shouldn’t even need to be asked, but
it also shouldn’t need to be answered (and if you think that’s just me dodging
the question, then you’re not listening to what I’m saying). Because, here’s
the real kicker. I don’t need to know what would convince me that God exists,
because if a god who really is all-knowing does exist, then he (or it) will know
exactly what it would take to
convince me that he exists. If he’s all-powerful, then he will be able to make
it happen, and if he loves me, then he will want it to happen. In a way, then,
it’s almost a parallel to the Problem of Evil. If God exists and knows everything,
then he not only knows what it would take to convince me, he also knows that I want to be convinced (because I prefer
to believe true things, and spending eternity in paradise wouldn’t be a bad
deal either). So if he knows what it would take to convince me, he knows I want
to be convinced, and he wants me to be convinced (which I grant wouldn’t be the
case if the Calvinists are right, and I’m just not one of the Elect), then why
haven’t I been convinced?
At present, I believe the best explanation is that such a
god simply doesn’t exist.
I think the question is unanswerable. I don't even buy the "an all-knowing God would know how to convince me" line.
ReplyDeleteStripped of its privileged status, the notion of a god's existence is completely unparsimonious. There is no question for which god is a better answer than "I don't know". Sure, there are questions about the meaning of life, the origin of existence, etc. that are the traditional redoubts of the "god of the gaps", but again stripped of preferential status, god as an answer doesn't address the question at all. Where did god come from? What is the meaning of god? -- the questions change form slightly, but aren't answered at all.
For any parsimonious question an observer can encounter -- ANY question, no matter its apparent metaphysical significance -- appealing to god is like using a nuclear weapon to fight a bedbug infestation. It's easy, and it's effective, but it's not necessary.
Even answers like "there is no meaning to existence" and "we may never know why existence exists" are better answers -- proper parsimonious answers.
I don't believe there can ever be a question, the nature of which begs of a god to answer. For that reason, "evidence" will always be meaningless -- or will have a more conservative explanation.
There are several tests proving the existence of the Jewish, Jehovah God in the scriptures, and I like the one with the fire and water at the alter test. Lets try that one. It worked then and it should work now. Thanks
ReplyDeleteI must confess, I'm not entirely sure whether you're kidding or not.
DeleteHey Tim, I disagreed with a lot of your points so here goes:
ReplyDelete1) Concerning the general answer: 'what would convince me of God's existence is anything that meets the normal standards of evidence.'
Although I do think that the theist would be inaccurate in saying that the response doesn't answer the question, it would still be true that the answer is unsatisfactory in its vagueness. What exactly are the normal standards of evidence you speak of? The atheist would need to elaborate.
2) Concerning the specific answer about the stars rearranging themselves to clearly spell out God's existence, the objection you say that the theist may make doesn't make much sense. Are they saying that they don't believe that their God could pull off the miracle or that the miracle couldn't happen for some reason? The theist would need to explain themselves.
Both these responses may lead to interesting and productive conversations, so I'm can't see this question as a trap in any way.
3) 'If God really were real, would it seriously be so hard to figure out which purely-abstract arguments or easily-reinterpreted evidence would convince us?'
Your difficulty in figuring out what exactly would convince you of God's existence has no bearing on the prospect of God's existence. Its easier to answer what would convince us of the sun's existence, because we know exactly what we are looking for and even more so where we can find it (in the sky).
In contrast, we don't know exactly what God 'looks' like (no defining characteristics like the brightness of the sun) or where exactly he is (everywhere?). So naturally on account of us not knowing much about God, and knowing so much about the sun, it would be harder to figure out how we could know whether God exists or not.
'Because I can't figure out what would convince me of God's existence, he's probably not real.' Is this seriously the argument you're making?
Aside from that, I think your last two paragraph were largely on point.
1) It would depend in what format the question was being asked. In the bad example I linked to, it was during a timed Q&A session of a live debate, so the guy had only a brief time limit in which to answer the question. If it were something like an ongoing email discussion, on the other hand, I agree it would make sense to go into more detail about what standard of evidence needs to be reached.
Delete2) I don't think the theist would say God CAN'T do it, but that it would be presumptuous to demand that God should follow your specific instructions for how to prove himself. A more savvy Christian would probably cite Matthew 4:5-7.
But then again, the answer is more along the lines of, "this is a hypothetical scenario that would convince me if it happened to occur," not that anyone is specifically enjoining God for it to happen right now. So, the theist's answer could also be along the lines of, "well, it doesn't seem likely that God is planning to do this very exact specific thing anytime soon, so maybe we could send you home in a nice, affordable fine-tuning argument instead?"
3) I feel like you're kinda making my point for me. It's easier to answer what would convince us of the sun's existence, because the sun is evident; we don't need to wrack our brains for clever syllogisms to argue that it might exist. It's just right there. God, in contrast, is not.
> "'Because I can't figure out what would convince me of God's existence, he's probably not real.' Is this seriously the argument you're making?"
Not sure what you think is so on point about my last two paragraphs if you seriously think this is the argument I'm making, but thanks for giving me the chance to clarify anyway. No, it's not because I can't figure out what would convince me of God's existence that he's probably not real.
A) The fact that we even need to ask the question in the first place (whether we can figure out the answer or not) just demonstrates the lack of real impact that God's apparent presence has. It's like if we went to another planet, and some pseudo-scientists claim that there's a sun there as well, but there isn't any light or heat. If God were real and active in the affairs of humankind, would there really be any doubt about it? If God is real, his impact should be evident on the world.
B) And, If God is real, his impact should be evident on me. I was a Christian for 25 years; I prayed the Sinner's Prayer and invited Jesus into my heart, I got baptized. I read through the whole Bible repeatedly. I really, sincerely believed and did my best to make God the center of my life. I deeply desired to have a relationship with God, and yet, that never happened in any way that was indistinguishable from me just having an imaginary friend. Even now that I've left the church, I still maintain that if God is real, I want to know him. And as I've already said, if he's all-knowing, he would know that, as well as what it would take to convince me. So, it's not the fact that I can't figure out what would convince me that makes me think he's probably not real, it's the fact that an all-knowing God is having just as much trouble figuring it out as I am.
Does that clear it up at all?
Hey Tim, thanks for your response.
DeleteWell if the theist response basically amounts to the idea that their God cannot or should not be tested, then that simply means that there would be nothing that would convince me of their God's existence, because all that would be convincing would apparently be tempting him. So one has to wonder, how would this God make himself known to an unbeliever if he refuses requests for signs? That particular Christian would need to answer this.
And if the theists ends up sending you home with a fine tuning argument (or any other argument) well then that's ok I suppose, at least his question was answered.
Concerning the alien pseudo scientist's claim about a heat-less and light-less sun, it should become clear that what you refer to as a 'sun' is different from what they refer to as a 'sun'. First they would need to explain what a 'sun' is, then the rest will follow. I think that it is this same difference in language that is the cause of your disagreement concerning God's existence: you seem to think that God is necessarily active in the world and this is not necessarily true. An inactive or even mildly active God could exist. Again, here is where the comparison between a God's apparent existence and the sun's become dis-analogous:
We can verify/falsify the sun's existence (ours not the aliens' "sun") easily because the sun has known properties and descriptions that can be tested for easily (brightness, colour, size, even location).
We cannot verify/falsify the generic God's existence easily because we do not know his properties or descriptions, so there is nothing to test. If you tack on to this generic God the property of being active in this world in a visible way, then it becomes possible (certainly not easy) to verify/falsify his existence by looking around the world for his 'movement'. However, notice that we don't know to any degree of certainty whether God, if he exists, is necessarily active in the world in a visible way.
A generic God's existence or non existence is unknowable.
A specific God's existence or non existence is possibly knowable since the God has properties and descriptions that we could test for. This God makes claims, in his own nature or otherwise, that could be tested for.
"If God is real, his impact should be evident on the world."
"And, If God is real, his impact should be evident on me."
Just because a God's existence is not evident to us doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. A God who doesn't involve themselves in human affairs could still exist.
This is the situation as I see it:
God's existence is not evident to us, and nothing from science or everyday experience indicates that a God exists. There are possible explanations for this situation:
A) God is not evident to us because he doesn't exist
B) God is not evident to us by his own choice
C) Any other possibility that I haven't thought of.
From what you've written, it seems that you are leaning towards (A) being the more probable explanation than any other explanation for God's apparent absence in the world. What evidence do you have that discounts the other possibilities and favours possibility (A)?
To me, this is an unanswerable question because the falsification of possibilities (A) and (B) in particular are beyond our reach. So I don't lean to any particular possibility myself in explanation for the absence of experience of any God because I simply don't know to any extent. So what's your justification for leaning towards possibility (A)?
I don't dispute the possible of an inactive God; I agree that a generic God's existence is unknowable. And yet, the fact is, there are people who claim that God is active in the world (in fact, I'd say they're a pretty large portion of at least Christianity and Islam). So I don't need to assume that God is supposed to be active to think that the particular position of those people is not evidenced. Since that is the claim which is most often made (at least in my society and culture), that's the one I'm gonna give the most attention to.
DeleteIt's cool to focus on and scrutinise claims of an active God by theists. However, the moment you push your own conclusion about God's probable non-existence, be prepared to back it up. I don't think it's smart to overreach in your criticisms and push this conclusion since it is not a conclusion that seems to be justifiable, due to the existence of so many other possibilities that may explain inconsistencies in the theistic claims (the problem of evil, argument from divine hiddenness etc).
DeleteBut I'm not saying that those other types of gods do not exist for the reasons given; only the all-loving, all-knowing, and active type of god.
DeleteWell, I suppose that's fair.
Delete