I’m not a fan of putting brackets, in advance, upon what sorts of evidence will do, as it seems to me that it’s best to let the proponents of a view proffer what they’ve got and then evaluate whether THAT is something worthwhile. But to answer as best I can, competence in this context means that the evidence must bear directly upon the point at issue: the existence of the gods. Their existence should be demonstrated by showing that forces now operating in the world flow from the actions of the gods rather than from some other cause.
Most “evidence” which is offered is folkloric compilations of things people wrote about long-ago, supposedly miraculous occurrences. For the reasons set out by Huxley in his essay on the Value of Witness to the Miraculous, none of that is competent evidence.
What makes evidence credible, in a context like this, is as always: reproducibility and non-subjectivity. Claimed experiences, one-off occurrences not testable, and that sort of thing just don’t cut it.
It should be obvious, I think, that by those standards there is nothing that works. I’d certainly be surprised to learn that there is some body of competent evidence on this point which people have overlooked all along. Instead, when I am met with people who claim to have evidence on this score, it generally takes the form of (1) reference to ancient folkloric writings, (2) inferring, incorrectly, the need for the gods to explain some phenomenon not fully explained, or (3) evidence-free arguments from the field of (named sarcastically, I suspect) “pure reason.”
That would be (2), above. Or, as it is technically termed, the argumentum ad lookit alla the stuff.
No, you weren’t. You were asking an (irrelevant) question, not showing anything.
There certainly is. One of the best such arguments as that theists are so unconfident about their arguments for theism that they refuse to answer any questions about them.
As I said in my recent video debate: There seems to be a presumption among many proponents of the supernatural that any natural explanation must be simple and mundane. But much of life, the universe and everything is remarkably wondrous and complex, and any explanation is likely to be no less wondrous and complex.
Of course it is astonishing and mind boggling that something like a human being could be the result of a bunch of molecules making sometimes-imperfect copies for themselves for billions of years. Why should we expect an explanation that accounts for our existence to be anything but so astonishing and mind boggling that it is hard to believe?
That is where science comes in. It is the one method we have of determining truths that our minds are simply not prepared to accept.
Can you help with your understanding about how you think about this? My ignorance is based on lack of a counter argument to theism. You simply appear to be clinging to a conclusion with no logical support.
This simply means you do not have any substance to your claims. You claim low probability but cannot defend the claim.
The existence of a universe with observers, All that goes into the formation of this observation starting with a life sustaining environment. All I have ever heard to counter this is a continued repeated “no evidence” assertion.
Is not evidence for theism. A world born by “natural means” can birth observers as well.
Life sustaining? I am sorry to burst your bubble but living organisms are trapped in an endless struggle to survive. It seems the Covid-19 pandemic hasn’t taught you anything.
Saying there is no evidence is not an assertion. It is a fact.
Bill I was in your home last weekend while you were asleep. What’s your response to my claim?
There are a number of good reasons why an informal assessment of probability may be favored over a formal calculation. (i) Most people do not have the formal background to attempt a probability calculation (let alone to do it correctly for matters more complex than a dice roll or similar). That does not mean that they don’t need to assess likelihoods in their everyday life. (ii) Many, and I would suggest most, issues lack sufficient relevant data to make a formal probability calculation possible. (iii) Most decisions are sufficiently transitory that people would lack the time to perform a calculation, even if they had both the ability and the data.
The most pertinent issue however is (ii). We lack hard data for a “probability calculation to paper” of how likely it is “that God exist[s]”. Therefore we must rely on (i) the lack of relevant evidence and (ii) the weakness of apologists’ arguments, as the basis of an informal assessment.
This is a non sequitor.
I could as well claim that the existence of bowls of peonies is evidence of existence of unicorns.
I am sure that you could come up with an argument that this evidence supports the existence of God. But that has two problems:
As has been point out many times on this forum, an argument is not evidence.
I am sure that any argument you craft could be easily demolished.
Probably because we never hear of relevant, let alone compelling, evidence.
If all you present is your bald assertion that this is “evidence”, you cannot be surprised to receive in return the assertion that it is not evidence.
No. You’ve been given many, many arguments against theism over the years you’ve been on this and other fora. No-one can help you as long as you persist in forgetting everything you’ve been told.
The ID argument solves the probability problem Atheists are facing. The probability issue falsifies the Atheist claim as you cannot explain a universe containing intelligent life without a mechanism as powerful as a mind creating behind the origin of that life.
Can you show me an argument that is more than an assertion that denies evidence we are observing is evidence of intelligent creation?
How do you explain the functional complexity of the universe without an intelligent source being a primary cause?
If you can explain the functional complexity in another way then you may really challenge the “bald assertion”.
So far its two bald assertions yet one is pointing to evidence and the other is denying that the evidence exists in one case and supports the claim. The evidence is there the conclusions may be different. I see no other reasonable explanation for the functional complexity observed then a mind be behind it.
I don’t yet see an alternative explanation from the Atheist camp in this discussion other then the functional complexity is a brute fact and does not need explanation.
All I have seen in the past is non sequitur arguments such as the multi verse to explain the functional complexity. We have gone many rounds here and were still stuck in factual denial. Are you a supporter of the multi verse argument?
What part of “the weakness of apologists’ arguments” did you fail to comprehend?
There is no “probability problem Atheists are facing” outside of your head (the contents of which seem to have little relationship with reality).
“… a mind creating behind the origin of that life” isn’t a meaningful explanation, it is an unsubstantiated assertion: “Goddidit”.
Given that your purported “evidence” is nothing but a non sequitor in that you have established no connection, let alone a compelling connection, between your blather about “the existence of a universe with observers” and the existence of God, there is no evidence to deny.
I explain “functional complexity” as being just another meaningless ID-Creationist buzz-phrase, lacking any rigorous definition, let alone real-world application. No further explanation is needed or warranted.
What facts are you referring to? That certain proteins can be found through a random search? Can we explain the dynamic changes to make unique populations?
