Djevv said:
Yes I understand this definition and I have no issues with you holding to it. But once you start talking about degrees of improbability you are dissembling. I can get rid of Russell's teapot using probability. If you are not sure you are an agnostic IMO, if you are you are an Atheist.
I think you miss the point. By your definition, most atheists are agnostics. In the same sense I am an Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy agnostic. I can't unequivocally disprove their existence, but I live my life as if they don't. Hence, in an absolute sense you could consider me an agnostic (I am willing to change my mind in light of new evidence), but in a practical sense I am an atheist, as given the evidence, I do not believe that a God exists.
If you want to quibble over semantics, that is fine, but it doesn't change my position.
Theologically, scripturally to believe in the God of the Bible you must have a revelation of God, yes. To believe in a God (like Flew now does) you can work out logically IMO ;D.
I have never seen a coherent, logical explanation of any God's existence, let alone the all-seeing, interventionist Christian God. I have also never had any personal revelation (I am not quite sure what the actually means).
I studied at university and was told fact after fact without ever appreciating properly why these ideas were believed. I think I gained a better appreciation of science since reading those sites, because they take aim at all the fundamentals, it helps you evaluate what you really believe. I think they appeal to rationally minded believers who want certainty (like me). I am now much happier with some uncertainty regarding my beliefs that I was. I agree with you that much of the stuff is incorrect or leaves out important detail.
One of the most important 'tools' a scientist learns in their training is the ability to critically analyse their own work and the work of others. The onus lies with the person making the claim to make their case using evidence. From your first sentence in the previous paragraph it doesn't sound like this was especially stressed, which is a shame.
If you are referring to apologist's sites, I am curious why you rely on them, instead of the scientific literature? Those sites have been shown to be, at best, wrong and, at worst, wantonly misleading, on many scientific facts. Wouldn't you be better served to consult the scientific literature, with its BS controls such as peer-review and compulsion to present the evidence to support the assertions made?
The existance of the universe is enough evidence for me.
The existence of the universe provides NO positive evidence for the existence of the Christian god that you worship.
Plantinga has an interesting argument that you don't actually need evidence to believe. It centres around the idea that if God created us then the knowledge of God is part of our nature, and therefore evidence is irrelevant. If we are functioning properly, we believe.
If this were true then wouldn't god have made sure that this inherent belief was universal? Wouldn't all humans believe in the same God? The widespread existence of belief systems does suggest that belief in the supernatural is a natural human condition, probably as a mechanism to make sense of the world aound us. However, the diversity suggests that this is a quirk of our neurological makeup, rather than implanted by a God. Which one?
I actually often wonder if I am deluding myself, but at that moment God usually reveals Himself to me in a way that is wonderful and convincing. In my Christian walk there are a lot more valleys that mountain tops.
Many people are convinced, probably because of the surety, purpose and ultimate reward it provides in one's life. This is why IMO such a belief needs to be analysed with far more scrutiny and skepticism than other beliefs. The likelihood of self-delusion is far too great.
Since 'human perception' is all we have in this world of ours (if I am understanding Evo aright), perhaps it is more signifcant than you think.
Is this some sort of relativist argument? As a scientist I would have expected that you would understand that although we are limited by our perception there are ways of controlling for these limitations.
But of course there IS evidence.
And that is why I believe in Marius Klopper, but not God. Because there is physical evidence of Klopper's existence. There is no such evidence for the existence of your God.
