Fallaneze

No it isn't. That's at best indirect evidence of consciousness. Even if human behavior were direct evidence of consciousness, just because we both agree that consciousness isn't an illusion doesn't mean that that assumption is rationally justified on the basis of observable evidence. 

First, what evidence supports your belief that no God(s) exist?

Second, are you aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? "Evidence" means information indicating whether something is true or not.

Third, "antitheist" refers to an attitude towards theism - it is not a position on whether the claim "God exists" is true or untrue. By law of excluded middle, the proposition "God exists" is either true or not true. If it's true, then theism is true. If it's untrue, then a-theism is true. Those are the only two options. God either exists or does not.

As an atheist, you either (1) believe there are no God(s) or (2) neither believe nor disbelieve there are any God(s).

Are you in camp (1) or (2)? 

Of course I believe consciousness isn't an illusion. But if you're trying to convince me that there's observable evidence (independently verifiable and perceivable) of consciousness, then you'll need to show it to me.

It seems silly to be skeptical of your own consciousness. The very act of thinking about yourself should show that positing yourself to be unaware is absurd.

You said IF consciousness isn't an illusion then you consider yourself to have observable evidence of it. What if I don't grant that automatically?

Why would I need to grant you assumptions if the thing has independently verifiable perceivable observable evidence for it?

So you do have independently verifiable observable evidence of consciousness?

Feel free to argue for your own definition of God. God to me is a creative consciousness so I do believe God is a being.

Are my behaviors the same thing as my consciousness? You have observable evidence of people's behaviors but do you have observable evidence of their consciousness?

Can you use some independently verifiable observable evidence to determine that? 

Next question: do you have any observable evidence of consciousness?

Will you continue to find things meaningful even though there is no observable evidence of meaning?

So the claim "there is no observable evidence of meaning" is true?

It's not a matter of determining whether we have a shared understanding of meaning but whether "meaning" itself is an "independently verifiable perception." Where can I perceive observable evidence of meaning?

How is "meaning" an "independently verifiable perception"?

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "observable evidence." Can you provide a definition?

You can observe people. You can observe actions. You can observe the consistency between people's statements and their actions. Indeed, all of those all have observable evidence.

But do you have observable evidence of meaning? If so, how can you show meaning to me so that I may observe it?

Okay, so "observable evidence" is so loosely defined so that even though we can't observe meaning we can still consider there to be observable evidence of meaning?

You have no observable evidence of meaning. In order for you to be self-consistent, you must either remove the requirement that something must have observable evidence in order to be believed or you must find everything meaningless.

There is no observable evidence of 'meaning.' If you only believe in things that have observable evidence for them, then you must not find anything meaningful.

Yes. 

Because information that indicates the truth of something doesn't just come from what we can observe.

Again, "observable evidence" won't get us any closer to answering whether God does or does not exist because a "prime, eternal consciousness who created the universe" has no physical, observable characteristics.

Again, whether God's existence is "provable or "unprovable" is irrelevant. All we should concern ourselves with is whether belief in God's existence is more rational than not. A belief is more rational than not when there's sufficient evidence for that belief. There's sufficient evidence for a belief when there's more information indicating that it's true than untrue.

Our perception of reality is a construct of information-processing. 

I believe in the existence of a prime and eternal consciousness who created the universe. I also believe that moral realism is true and the only way that the implications of moral realism can be consistent is if an arbiter of humanity exists which coincides with the existence of a prime and eternal consciousness who created the universe.

Yes that would be true.

To keep consistency. We may have a shared understanding that "deity" refers to the defintion of "God" being used in this thread but for people who are just joining in they may think that it refers to a different meaning.

"Prime" meaning "first." I will get to your second and third points as our discussion progresses.

So, do we have an agreed upon definition of God, evidence, sufficient evidence, and that the question of whether God exists must be evaluated logically rather than through empirical inquiry?

"Prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe" is not any specific version of God nor did I imply that it was anything different.

(1) I object to your use of the term "observable" since we've established that the question of whether God exists is not subject to empirical inquiry. The differences must exist in understanding alone. 

(2) we are not discussing "deity", we are discussing "God" defined as a "prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe."

Once you accept or reject these points I'll continue.

Have you ever learned anything by reading about it? If yes, then knowledge can be shared. To say that knowledge can't be shared is a self-defeating statement since that itself is purported to be a statement of knowledge. If it's not purported to be a statement of knowledge then it's meaningless. We might as well be talking in gibberish. Nskekekekemdkdod wieodididkdkdk wodododkoeowpeodkdldododo wosododkdkdnowowododod

I've frequented discussion boards for a long time and the number of atheists always outnumbers the number of theists. Why is this? Is it because atheism is inherently a position of skepticism while theism is generally a position of faith (and therefore no further questioning is necessary?) I think it's a shame.

For anyone trying to follow along with the central discussion, here is where it left off.

Secularmerlin asks, "Do we further agree that no amount of evidence short of sufficient justifies belief?"

To which I responded "yes."

I'm waiting to see his next move.

I appreciate your knowledge and careful epistemological approach to this but in order to share knowledge, at all, statements *must* be capable of being invariably and universally true. 

At a certain point, a belief becomes more rational than not. My criteria for sufficient evidence is when there's more information supporting the claim than against it. A "preponderance" of information is difficult to measure but I don't think it's a fruitless pursuit.

 

Yes. "Sufficient" evidence is the threshold for rationally warranted belief. A belief is rationally warranted when the preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of the claim. 

I don't see how knowledge is possible unless we assume the 3 fundamental laws of logic are invariant and universal. In any logical framework the framework and consistency must be equal to itself. In order for consistency to have any meaning, A must = A. 

I'd examine the differences in explanatory power between a God versus no God world and see which one ours best resembles.

Yes. 

Depends entirely on how you define theism.

"Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities.

...

Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in God or gods."

I've gone into a bit more of the specifics behind what I mean by "Supreme Being" (prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe.)

How do you define "provable"? And is the claim that "all claims are improvable" itself improvable?

Why?

After determining the weight of the evidence for and against the claim, it's more rational to believe the claim if the evidence is more for it than against it, and it's more rational to disbelieve the claim if there's more evidence against it than for it.

I agree and that is why logic must be used when evaluating non-empirical truth claims such as the existence of God. 

Good, we agree on the definition of evidence.

Knowledge can be obtained rationally and empirically. For evaluating non-empirical claims, like the existence of God, we need to rely on rationalism. We can't evaluate the claim empirically. Since evidence is defined as information indicating whether a claim is true or untrue, we need to identify any evidence that can be obtained rationally. That's where we'll pick up.

I don't want the aliens example to derail the thread but it depends on the definition of alien being used and the scenario presented. You had mentioned alleged cases of alien abduction, not the mere existence of an advanced alien race.

We need to agree on a defintion of evidence before proceeding. This is the definition I am using:

"information indicating whether a claim is true or untrue."

I defined "God" as "prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe."

Aliens, alien aircraft, and abductions are all posited to be material entities that interact with earth's population and are therefore subject to observation. A "prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe" is not. Accordingly, empirical observations gets us nowhere when applied to the existence of God. This is why logic and reason must provide us with the evidence in this instance.

I want to stay on track but I will say this: there is evidence against alien abductions. This is why, as you imply, disbelief in alien abductions is the more rational stance. 

Evidence, defined in post #5, means: "information indicating whether a claim is true or untrue." Without getting sidetracked too much, we have inductive evidence against alien abductions. Our observed absence of these occurrences warrant disbelief in the claim.

Are we using the same definition of "evidence"? 

So you have no information indicating whether God, as defined, does or does not exist? And to clarify, you're saying that neither belief nor disbelief in the existence of God are more rational in comparison to each other?

What do you mean by "prove"?

You can "prove" something mathematically. You can "prove" something scientifically. You can "prove" something in court. 

In my view, "proving" whether God exists or not is setting an artificially high threshold of evidence. All we should concern ourselves with is whether it is more rational to believe God does or doesn't exist. That's it.

So how do we determine which belief is more rational? That wholly depends on the preponderance of evidence. Evidence is information indicating whether a claim is true or untrue. If the evidence weighs in favor of the claim, it's more rational to believe the claim. If the evidence weighs against the claim, it's more rational to disbelieve the claim. If we are unable to attain any information to indicate whether God does or doesn't exist, or if the evidence is exactly equal for and against, then we simply withhold belief and can't make a determination of which belief is more rational.

"God" in the general sense meaning "prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe."

Why assume that mental causation must have a preceding chain of causes? Do you have no response to (1) - (5)?