Well then I think it does apply to me, because I don't believe there is any evidence for God. I have looked at what some consider evidence, and I do not consider it evidence. Nor is it my policy to actively avoid evidence - as previously stated, I would be more than happy to be presented with concrete evidence.
Sorry, I assumed that your definition of evidence was broader than "scientific evidence based on observable phenomena." Then my question must be: what observable phenomenon told you that telling the truth was a good thing? What observable phenomenon allowed you to know that a given attempt at drawing a circle is more or less like a "real circle," since you have never seen a "real circle" (see above)? What observable phenomena justify any moral value which you hold to be true? What observable phenomenon proves to you that you are not, at this moment, dreaming? Descartes gives the hypothetical possibility that there is an evil genius that figured out how to affect your brain such that every time you think "what is two plus two" the evil genius zaps your brain to make you think it is four, despite the fact that it is not, actually, four. What observable phenomena proves that this is not the case? Furthermore, what observable phenomena were used to convict criminals before the widespread availability of DNA testing and the like? Should we throw out all convictions made on the basis of eyewitness testimony, since eyewitness testimony is not scientific evidence based on observable phenomenon, and therefore is not evidence at all? What observable phenomena prove that the only reliable evidence is observable phenomena? Heck, depending on how you define "observable phenomena," how do you justify belief in atoms, in quarks, in electrons? What observable phenomena justify your belief in historical facts? What observable phenomena justify a belief in anything that others tell you? What observable phenomena prove string theory? What observable phenomena prove the Big Bang? Certainly, there's observable phenomena involved, but also purely deductive reasoning. Are you saying that somehow deductive reasoning works when applied to observable phenomena, but without an observable phenomena to base it on, then deductive reasoning ceases to function? If so, what observable phenomenon led you to this conclusion?
Just so that you don't think I'm a complete douchebag, I don't throw out all of these questions merely to be irritating, but because I recognize that you may very well dismiss plenty of them. Costrin was willing to concede that his system of thought doesn't allow for objective moral values, so for me to appeal to objective moral values is pointless. I don't know what you and I agree on, so I just threw out a bunch of stuff that I can't deduce from observable phenomena to see if you agree with any of it.
Well, take the medieval belief in spontaneous generation. People believed that when it rained earthworms were created. They had an observable phenomenon: it rained, earthworms came up. If I were to publish a book on this, it would be based on observable phenomena. Now, when we get more information, that additional information may support a different thesis. But the fact that earthworms come out of the ground when it rains is evidence for spontaneous generation. It is merely evidence that has been supplanted by additional evidence leading to a conclusion that better explains all of the facts.
I am aware of its existence, I have even read excerpts (!) (although my specific area of study is not theological texts) and I say there is no evidence for the existence of god. What exactly is it in Aquinas - what specific part of it are you considering to be evidence? I don't really understand what you're getting at here, I don't think. Aquinas said god exists so he/she/it does? If there is some incontrovertible proof in there, out with it!
Well, Summa Theologica includes many arguments for God's existence, including the First Cause argument, which is essentially Aquinas' statement of the Cosmological Argument I presented here. To clarify, I didn't mean by the word "evidence" the phrase "conclusive proof". Conclusive proof is built on a variety of evidence. Of course, I believe (or at least, I think I believe) that Aquinas' books contain conclusive proof of God's existence. But I wouldn't expect that to be immediately obvious. But the fact that he presents evidence, that meaning information which points towards a specific conclusion, seems to be obvious at first glance. I mean, centuries and centuries of people have written these books defending God's existence, I don't know how you can assume that there is no evidence (otherwise, what were they writing about?), except, of course, when you define evidence to only mean scientific evidence based on observable phenomena, in which case one would have to fast-forward to the teleological argument, which is effectively intelligent design, which is so covered in layers of political controversy and assumed incoherence that I didn't want to argue it. But we can if someone wants to.
Why would you assume I haven't made more than a cursory investigation? I have no problem acknowledging alternative points of view, but acknowledgement isn't the same as agreement.
Again, sorry, my statement was probably confusing because I assumed a definition of evidence broader than "scientific reasoning based on observable phenomena." I don't think you have to agree with a given position to agree that there is evidence for it. There is evidence that Edward de Vere or Christopher Marlowe wrote the plays that are attributed to William Shakespeare, but there is also evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. If one theory or the other is proven conclusively, or if I ascribe to one theory or another, does the evidence for the other theory suddenly cease to be evidence?
This has been said repeatedly in this thread, by some of us and I'll say it again: I am NOT trying, nor is it my task here, to *disprove* god. Again, it has been pointed out that disproving something is virtually impossible. Regarding the trip to the library - it's not the books that offer evidence for, for example, Darwinism, it's the facts/evidence that the books contain. The actual, tangible things that exist in the actual, physical world that are evidence for Darwinism. Smart people writing stuff down doesn't make what they're saying true. The evidence they have to back up their theories does - and the writing/books themselves aren't the evidence.
I completely agree. When I said "summa theologica" I meant the information contained within Summa Theologica, rather than the mere existence of the text. When I referred to a trip to the library I assumed that the hypothetical visitor would read a text or two and find the evidence within, again, with our differing definitions of evidence.
Why is disproving something virtually impossible? If you can prove Darwinism, don't you inherently disprove, say, a literal seven day interpretation of Genesis? If you can prove that God exists, you disprove that statement "God does not exist."
Yes. To the first part of the second sentence.
See above. Also, it would appear that you only believe the evidence supporting the currently approved theory is actually "evidence". Would the fact that Newton's theory of gravitation was superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity does not make Newton's support for his theories cease to be evidence, in your belief?
But you've conceded that it isn't certain that the universe *did* 'begin to exist'...
Actually, I haven't. I conceded that I can't defend it on the basis of the Big Bang from my current knowledge. But I find the combination of the possibility that the universe did begin at the Big Bang, the logical arguments presented above regarding an actual infinite sufficient to make the argument stand.
Hmmm. I thought you mentioned Pascal's Wager but it was in a later post, apparently. Regarding that, doesn't Pascal's Wager specifically concede that there is no rational reason to believe in god?* But that it's best to do so anyway, lest one turn out to be wrong and spend eternity doing backflips in a lake of fire?
Yeah, that's kinda why I didn't bother with Pascal's. I think I was going to try to use it in a specific way, but Pascal's just doesn't really work with people. And no, Pascal's Wager does not by any means concede that there's no rational reason to believe in god. In fact, Pascal holds that, given that there is a logical possibility both that God exists and that God doesn't exist (this is the premise that I assume you dispute), then it follows that, in the absence of any other evidence, it is safer, more in line with self-preservationist instincts, and hence more rational to believe in God, since to disbelieve in God gains you nothing, but to believe in God allows you to avoid the possibility (however small) of "doing backflips in a lake of fire" (which is a rather unsophisticated view of hell, but it's one most fundamentalists propound, so I can't blame anyone for citing it), and also gains you the possibility (however small) of spending eternity in bliss. Rather than say that there's no rational reason, it provides a rational reason based on the idea that it is rational to do what is in one's self interest. Now, I don't believe that Pascal's Wager has ever actually caused anyone to have sincere faith in Christ, so it's not worth mentioning. But it's rationality would not seem to be in question, even if you disagree with the premise that "there is a chance (however small) that God exists". But you said that you were an agnostic, and so you would seem to affirm this premise.
*and if you're going to say "there's no reason to disbelieve in god" let me just remind you that I am agnostic. I do not know, nor am I in any way confident that I'm even capable of 'knowing' the true answer to such a question. Unless some long haired dude in a robe comes to my house and does some cool miracles.
I'm going to assume you're joking and don't want me to launch into a lengthy defense of the resurrection...? jk. I understand that impulse.