John Evo posted a quote from Victor Stenger in "response" to my post on evidentialism.
Just stop for a moment and consider the irony of posting a guy's complaint about a lack of evidence to reply to a post that demolishes the very foundation for the existence and utility of evidence if his worldview is true. Let it sink in.
Now, I've listened to a couple of Stenger's debates, and he never justifies this argument. He just says we "should" expect this and that, but I don't grant him those "should"s. They are questions that deal a priori with the identity of God - Stenger expects and assumes the god he's denying, but to do that, wouldn't he need to tell us that up front? Why so amateurish about this, expecting his audience to read his mind? Where is the exegesis of the god's purported self-revelation?
The God worshipped by the billion of followers of the monotheistic religions either exists or he does not.
And his existence is a legitimate scientific issue.
1) How would we go about proving/disproving a metaphysical question by physical means? What possible science experiment could be performed to test whether God exists?
2) Without God, I'd like to see Stenger/someone respond to the critique of the evidentialist worldview I've laid out in this post. W/o such a defense, no appeal to "science" is even worthwhile; the idea that scientific study could lead to true beliefs is hamstrung w/o such a justification.
3) Stenger then goes on in this quote to make UNSCIENTIFIC statements. If he doesn't take his proposed method seriously, why should I or anyone else?
If God is the intelligent designer of life on Earth, then we should find evidence for that in observations of the structure of life
What is the argument for that?
1) TGOTB is under no obligation to reveal anythg to anyone. He doesn't have to leave His fingerprints.
2) As it stands, TGOTB *has* left fingerprints, but He has specifically said that He hides Himself from the unrepentant, blasphemers, and sophists among the ranks of the unbelievers. John Evo 100% qualifies.
We do not.
Of course, I don't grant that either, but again, this is not even worth discussing until an answer for the evidentialist problem is brought forth.
John Evo seems not to understand this at all, which is too bad. His position is in jeopardy from the metaphysical side, and he's giving me (very shaky) physical opinions. Not too impressive.
If God has endowed humans with immaterial souls and is the source of morality, then we should find evidence for that in observations of human behavior. We do not.
Where is the argument?
1) What kind of evidence is he looking for? Evidence that minds survive death?
2) Don't the vast majority of people in most cultures think that it's wrong, for example, to kill one's own child? Etc.
3) Haven't the vast majority of people throughout human history been (mono/poly/pan)theistic, not atheistic?
4) We've seen over and over again on this blog how atheists can't get even close to being consistent with their atheistic stance, which allows the justification of no moral system as objective but only person-centered. Again, if they won't take their own beliefs seriously, why should anyone else?
If God answers prayers, then we should see miraculous effects of prayer. We do not.
What is his argument for why God "should" answer prayer?
And of course, we don't grant that God doesn't answer prayer, but that's another topic.
If God has revealed truths to humanity, then those truths should be empirically verified. They are not.
Again, no argument as to why we should expect that.
The Bible says that God created the world in an instantaneous process. Just for the sake of argument, doesn't the Big Bang fit that? Why would Stenger say categorically "they are not".
If God is the creator of the universe and the laws of nature, then we should find evidence for that in astronomy and physics. We do not.
I'm not sure what evidence one could expect to find for this.
Although I would like to know Stenger's argument for why we shouldn't presume a Lawgiver where laws exist.
If humans are a special creation of God, then the universe should be congenial to human life. It is not.
Um, the earth is pretty congenial to it.
Therefore, the universe is congenial to human life - the earth exists and humans live there.
This quote from Stenger, if it reflects most of his argumentation in his larger work (which it certainly does of his debate material), shows how out of his depth the man is in this line of argumentation. Better to stick to his branch of physics than to carry on with such continual self-embarrassment.
Thanks to John Evo for posting the quote. With opponents like these, who needs friends?