“Goddidit” is not an explanation

Mr Harris? Hello. I’m Sue from the insurance company. I’ve come to value your artwork. Oh, yes, hello. Do come in. What a lovely house you have here! Is this the piece you want valued? That’s it, yes. How much did it cost? No idea. It was here when I moved in. It’s fascinating. How …

Best Evidence

In courtroom procedure, there is a concept of ‘best evidence’. If you are trying to show that a claim is true, you are obliged to produce the best evidence you can; and if you don’t, then the evidence that you do produce is regarded with scepticism. It implies that something about the ‘best evidence’ would actually damage …

Jermey’s Wager

Here’s Jermey’s Wager: If gods don’t exist, there’s nothing to lose by not believing in them. If gods exist and are reasonable, they won’t penalise you for following the evidence and refusing to believe in them. So there’s nothing to lose by not believing in them. If gods exist and are not reasonable, there’s no way of …

Is The Simulation Argument (SA) the first interesting argument for the existence of a Creator in 2000 years?

Many people don’t find the simulation hypothesis interesting. Whether it’s an ‘argument’ or not depends on whether you think there’s any evidence for it; but it’s hard to see what could count as evidence for a claim that the world is different from how we think it is, but looks exactly the same. And like the other …

Will there ever be “real” evidence of God, or will people keep coming up with scientific reasons for that “real” evidence?

There’s nothing inherently impossible about the idea of evidence for gods, provided the gods aren’t already defined into non-existence by being undetectable. Many people, now and in the past, have believed themselves to be in possession of that evidence, but so far they haven’t been able to persuade everyone—or even a majority of people—that they …

Can scientific logic prove that God is or is not real? Is there anything that can?

The existence or non-existence of gods is an empirical issue, and empirical issues can only be resolved with empirical evidence. The quickest, simplest and easiest way for someone to prove that a god exists is for them to produce that god, in person and in public, for an extended period of time. They should ensure that …

What is the most convincing argument against atheism?

The only convincing argument against atheism would be to produce a god. In person. In public. For an extended period of time. Willing and able to demonstrate his or her credentials on demand, answer audience questions, and provide contact details where further queries will be promptly addressed. That’s a simple, obvious, easy way for anyone to establish that yes, …

What would an atheist accept as proof for God that cannot be smelled, touched, seen, heard or tasted?

Different atheists have different criteria for ‘proof’ of the existence of gods, but none of these criteria have ever been met. But why should we have any criterion that doesn’t involve sense-data in some way? Our senses are the most reliable and effective method that we have for determining what’s real. Anyone claiming the existence of some …

Why don’t atheists like to philosophically argue the existence of the gods?

Some atheists do. Others—like the millions of atheists in China—have probably never heard of philosophical arguments regarding gods. But for those atheists who are aware of these alleged arguments and don’t bother to engage in them, the reasons include: The arguments don’t relate to what people actually understand ‘gods’ to mean. Often the conclusions reached …

Why don’t atheists believe in God when the universe clearly needs God to exist?

If the universe clearly needed a god to exist, then everyone would agree that the universe needed a god to exist. That’s more or less what ‘clearly’ means. Since many people don’t think the universe needs a god to exist, and many many more don’t think it needs your god to exist, you should probably ask yourself why what …

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started