Is there evidence for or against a higher power?

[ElusiveTruth]

There is an important if small distinction between an atheist who simply does not believe in a higher power and an atheist who believes that a higher power does not exist. The former is essentially neutral and does not believe in God, or whatever, and simply hasn't found evidence to support a belief in a higher power. The latter goes a step further and pretty much claims that there is no higher power or God. It is a small distinction but when you get down to it, it does make a big difference.

An Atheist that claims that a higher power can not exist or that God does not exist is making a claim similar to the claim that a higher power does exist or that God does exist. It is simply the opposite claim. One says he exists the other says he does not and ultimately neither can prove or disprove their standpoints. A claim that apples do not exist is as absolute as a claim that apples do exist.

To claim that I have found no evidence of a higher power is one thing... to claim that therefore the higher power does not exist is another matter all together. If you make the second claim... feel free to prove it. After all... such a claim is hardly scientific unless it is actually supported by evidence. And lack of evidence does not constitute evidence. We'll see whether you evidence does any better than the "evidence" that a higher power does exist.

Some claim that science conflicts with a belief in a higher power. But is that really true? Science is objective and tries to remain unbiased. Individual scientists might be swayed one way or another but ultimately science does quite well with regards to staying unbiased. Science is essentially neutral on the topic of religion and theism or atheism. Both sides, though atheism in particular, use science to support their viewpoints but ultimately science has not proved the existence or non-existence of a higher power. I have noticed that there are quite a few atheists here who fall under the category of those that make the claim that a higher power does not or can not exist. I challenge such atheists to bring forth their evidence. The other side of coin can play too... if you have evidence for a higher power bring it forth but beware you in particular will have a hard time on this forum.

For those of you who claim to be skeptics and simply don't believe anything without evidence this is you chance to reveal your true colors... are you truly just a skeptic? Are you truly objective? Do you really base your beliefs on evidence and experience? Or have you actually taken a standpoint and you look through a lens that aligns all evidence in support of your beliefs?

Let the Games Begin!

[theophilus]

Science is essentially neutral on the topic of religion and theism or atheism.

Is it possible to be neutral on this subject? A scientist might do his research without consciously thinking about the question but isn't the fact that he doesn't consider the subject important enough to consider an indication of subconscious bias? Everyone has some kind of underlying beliefs and these beliefs influence how he interprets what he observes.

I believe that the existence of life is an evidence there is a God because there is no way something that complex could have come into existence by chance. But if someone who either consciously or unconsciously has already assumed that everything can be explained by natural means alone examines the same evidence he will interpret what he sees in the light of what he believes.

[crimethinker]

There is an important if small distinction between an atheist who simply does not believe in a higher power and an atheist who believes that a higher power does not exist. The former is essentially neutral and does not believe in God, or whatever, and simply hasn't found evidence to support a belief in a higher power. The latter goes a step further and pretty much claims that there is no higher power or God. It is a small distinction but when you get down to it, it does make a big difference.

Positive/strong/hard vs. negative/weak/soft atheism. Most atheists are weak atheists.

An Atheist that claims that a higher power can not exist or that God does not exist is making a claim similar to the claim that a higher power does exist or that God does exist. It is simply the opposite claim. One says he exists the other says he does not and ultimately neither can prove or disprove their standpoints. A claim that apples do not exist is as absolute as a claim that apples do exist.

To claim that I have found no evidence of a higher power is one thing... to claim that therefore the higher power does not exist is another matter all together. If you make the second claim... feel free to prove it. After all... such a claim is hardly scientific unless it is actually supported by evidence. And lack of evidence does not constitute evidence. We'll see whether you evidence does any better than the "evidence" that a higher power does exist.

For me it depends on the properties of the "higher power" in question. The god of the Bible is absurd enough to warrant effective strong atheism toward it, though as with all (most) things, you can't say that it absolutely doesn't exist. The same goes for Russell's teapot and Sagan's invisible dragon.

If it's simple deism (which in effect is "something that caused the universe to exist" -- very few people are deists) vs. atheism, then the atheists should be less certain in their denial.

Some claim that science conflicts with a belief in a higher power.

Who? I've never heard this claim. Stephen Hawking said that god was unnecessary for the universe to exist, not that it conflicts.

Otherwise, it again depends on the specific properties of the "higher power" or the mythology surrounding it. The Biblical creation account, for example, conflicts with science. So does Noah's Ark. Omnipotence conflicts with logic. If you're willing to get specific and not just "god" or "higher power", science and logic have much to say on the matter.

Science is essentially neutral on the topic of religion and theism or atheism.

Again... specifics... Science is neutral only to value judgments, which many religions consist of. If the religion makes some claim about history or external reality, however, science can judge whether the claim is true or not. Science is an atheist because "god" has no particular meaning to it.

I have noticed that there are quite a few atheists here who fall under the category of those that make the claim that a higher power does not or can not exist.

I doubt it.

[barts]

There's another distinction, it seems to me. Does one believe in a "higher power" in a general sense, or one of the many thousands of anthropomorphic "gods" who people names, believe in and worship, and assign characteristics and intent to?

It's one thing to say there is some undefined, nebulous "higher power". (Vagueness is so convenient, isn't it?) It's quite another to ascribe personality, form, and intent to this power. The former is vague and labile enough (from moment to moment) not to warrant consideration, let alone belief. Indeed, what's to believe in? And to what end? The latter, however, is ripe for scrutiny because claims are made. As yet, I've not become aware of any god that withstands scrutiny. It's for that reason all beliefs in all gods devolve in the end to blind and uncritical faith.

So, when you use the term "higher power", is it in the vague, undefined, nebulous sense, or did you have a particular "higher power" character in mind? God? Allah? Shiva? Thor? Zeus, perhaps?

[ElusiveTruth]

Is it possible to be neutral on this subject? A scientist might do his research without consciously thinking about the question but isn't the fact that he doesn't consider the subject important enough to consider an indication of subconscious bias? Everyone has some kind of underlying beliefs and these beliefs influence how he interprets what he observes.

I believe that the existence of life is an evidence there is a God because there is no way something that complex could have come into existence by chance. But if someone who either consciously or unconsciously has already assumed that everything can be explained by natural means alone examines the same evidence he will interpret what he sees in the light of what he believes.

Let me put it this way... science is not out to prove or disprove a higher power. Scientific evidence, theories and facts can be used for or against a higher power.

P.S

Individual scientists might be swayed one way or another but ultimately science does quite well with regards to staying unbiased.

And yes.... that is exactly what I mean when I say it is neutral. Evidence can be used to support either side.

[Angry Citizen]

Like others have said, it depends greatly on the god in question. I ascribe chances to gods. Zeus? Very little. Yahweh? Very little. Deist god? 50/50. Of all the religions, only Buddhism elicits serious consideration and it is agnostic.

[Thanatos]

Like others have said, it depends greatly on the god in question. I ascribe chances to gods. Zeus? Very little. Yahweh? Very little. Deist god? 50/50. Of all the religions, only Buddhism elicits serious consideration and it is agnostic.

What's the probability of Azathoth?

[finder]

By ElusiveTruth: Let the Games Begin!

I have basically come to the same conclusion as you. When one is as objective as they can be there really is no evidence that is immune to subjective interpretations one way or the other. Even the atheist argument that deism is the only one with a 50% likelihood. That argument stems from the predisposition that any god that exist would be too preoccupied in being god to interact with human beings. Thus rendering their "scrutinizing" subjective, not objective. It is my belief God designed things so that we must have faith. Not blind faith for there is enough evidence to be interpreted in favor of God, Yahweh. But still faith never the less. It may seem foolish or even petty at first but it would also seem a bit foolish and arrogant to believe we in our finite state have a better understanding of reason then God in his infinite state. In the end I think God devised a way for us to voluntarily reveal to ourselves if we desire our imperfect and corrupt ways or the perfect, contented ways of God. And by doing so we have no excuse for unbelief.

[Jack]

When one is as objective as they can be there really is no evidence that is immune to subjective interpretations one way or the other.

Evidence is meant to be interpreted, evidence is that which suggests a conclusion. Evidence is not proof. A single piece of evidence can be interpreted any number of ways. A conclusion doesn't become convincing until there's a preponderance of evidence pointing at one conclusion that accounts for all the evidence. If two or more conclusions are equally suggested by the evidence then obviously more evidence is required before a single conclusion can be drawn.

It is my belief God designed things so that we must have faith. Not blind faith for there is enough evidence to be interpreted in favor of God, Yahweh.

This statement presupposes the existence of god. A supposition is not evidence of anything beyond a person's desire for a conclusion to be true. I fail to see any physical evidence that suggests irrefutably that any particular god exists, let alone any god, nor has evidence been presented that conclusively establishes a realm beyond the physical, often referred to as the supernatural, in which a god could exist free of the constraints of the physical universe.

By the way, the phrase "blind faith" is redundant. Religious faith, according to Hebrews 11:1 ("Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.") consists of belief without regard to the existence or lack of existence of evidence substantiating that belief.

[finder]

By the way, the phrase "blind faith" is redundant. Religious faith, according to Hebrews 11:1 ("Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.") consists of belief without regard to the existence or lack of existence of evidence substantiating that belief.

That can be derived if you choose an edition to suit your position. I trust the King James in it's accuracy for several reasons you probably wouldn't agree with, point being Hebrews 11: 1 in the KJ edition is more consistent with what we know from the oldest scrolls discovered...

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Anyone who claims to be familiar with the Bible should know that God has never called us to blind faith. Or they just never understood its message, either way you are wrong.

[Jack]

...the evidence of things not seen

That doesn't change anything. As I said, evidence is a factor in a proof, it isn't in itself proof. Faith may be called evidence, but it's insufficient evidence in and of itself to convince a skeptic that a god exists, let alone a specific god. If faith is evidence of things not seen the person who relies solely on faith is not looking for a preponderance of the evidence. That would require considering more factors than just faith.

[finder]

That doesn't change anything. As I said, evidence is a factor in a proof, it isn't in itself proof. Faith may be called evidence, but it's insufficient evidence in and of itself to convince a skeptic that a god exists, let alone a specific god. If faith is evidence of things not seen the person who relies solely on faith is not looking for a preponderance of the evidence. That would require considering more factors than just faith.

As I alluded, you can interpret it that way in order to support your forgone conclusion. However, if it is read in context to the overall message of the Bible you can not in all honesty interpret it that way unless you just don't comprehend what you read. The Bible often explains how God would do something like give victory over a much larger enemy so that "They will know I am their God and they are my people." Or in the new testament Paul would appeal to the very observance of nature that should allow us to conclude God is the architect. Again, you have changed nothing and I believe you have no understanding of scripture.