What would it take for the atheist to believe in God?

[shunyadragon]

And philosophical naturalism is not a rationally defendable position.

It needs to be assumed by both perspectives that the existence of God nor the non-existence of God are not provable nor even conclusively rationally defendable positions. because neither position can be logically proven nor convincing to either side..

The question at hand is 'What would it take for the atheist to believe in God?'


The dominant view among what may be called Metaphysical Naturalists is not the belief that there is a logical argument that proves God does not exist, but that 'there is no reason nor objective verifiable evidence that God(s) exist.

The Metaphysical Naturalist may argue that there is a rational argument basis not proof that our physical existence may be explained that the sources of our physical existence can be explained in terms of Natural Laws and and natural processes. There is no objective verifiable evidence for any other possible source.

What argument could the Theist provide that would be rationally defendable alternative?

[tabibito]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1335396][QUOTE=tabibito;n1335376]

In response to the bold I have been on this site for many years, and I have not found no such argument on this site that would conclude that the JEDP hypothesis has been destroyed.

I said: "I am usually in the minority, and certainly not a conservative - both of which have been demonstrated often enough on this site."
In earlier years on this site, my opinion of JEDP was very much a minority opinion - suddenly, I find myself in the majority group.
No one on this site has ever accused me of being a conservative. {ETA - there was one person who thought I might be Eastern Orthodox. IRL that is reasonably common when I interact with members of the Eastern churches. I will frequently be mistaken as a member of someone else's Eastern Church - as in, not a member of the same Eastern church as the person I am interacting with.}

I believe the discussion on the JEDP hypothesis is worthy of a separate thread. In this and other sites I investigated on the opposition they cited scripture to defend their objections which was circular relying on citations of scripture.

I might even consider participating in such a discussion.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=tabibito;n1335376]

With regard to most claims of miracles, I am agnostic - though I do consider how likely they are to be true. I'm not going to criticise people for being sceptical.



Mostly, yes. Circumstances where the atheist will be confronted with material that they can't write off are rare. That is when the "unknown natural occurrence" or "mass hallucination" defences are brought into play.

I was not advancing an opinion that it is - simply demonstrating that a claim was incorrect.

This ia where I believe you have failed as noted in post #469


[quote] And close to the only part of the argument that ever (and by no means usually) withstands scrutiny, though a fair number of the claims must be classified as inconclusive.

Sometimes - at other times assessments are based on available evidence. [and I am usually in the minority, and certainly not a conservative - both of which have been demonstrated often enough on this site.

In response to the bold I have been on this site for many years, and I have not found no such argument on this site that would conclude that the JEDP hypothesis has been destroyed.

I believe the discussion on the JEDP hypothesis is worthy of a separate thread. In this and other sites I investigated on the opposition they cited scripture to defend their objections which was circular relying on citations of scripture.

[tabibito]

You just defined why atheists consider miracles 'subjective,' because personal claims of miracles are only meaningful to those who experience them, or those that are willing to accept them without 'objective verifiable evidence.

With regard to most claims of miracles, I am agnostic - though I do consider how likely they are to be true. I'm not going to criticise people for being sceptical.

No, atheists rarely claim there is . . . "is a perfectly natural occurrence resulting from unknown causes defence, or the "mass hallucination" defence." These would be anecdotal 'hand wave' claims.It is simply the lack of any consistent 'objective verifiable evidence' that atheists is the basis for atheists rejecting miracles

Mostly, yes. Circumstances where the atheist will be confronted with material that they can't write off are rare. That is when the "unknown natural occurrence" or "mass hallucination" defences are brought into play.

'Argument from popularity' is not convincing.

I was not advancing an opinion that it is - simply demonstrating that a claim was incorrect.

The editing and redacting is only part of the argument for JEDP

And close to the only part of the argument that ever (and by no means usually) withstands scrutiny, though a fair number of the claims must be classified as inconclusive.

Assumptions of authorship among conservative Theologians bias their views of JEDP hypothesis.

Sometimes - at other times assessments are based on available evidence. [and I am usually in the minority, and certainly not a conservative - both of which have been demonstrated often enough on this site.]

[shunyadragon]

Dick Harfield
, lives in Sydney, Australia
Answered May 1, 2018

The following comment on the JEDP hypothesis shares my view. .Yes, the original hypothesis is no longer accepted, but the JEDP hypothesis has evolved since.

Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-documentary-hypothesis-JEDP-still-widely-accepted-What-new-discoveries-could-disprove-it-What-new-discoveries-could-strengthen-it

The Documentary Hypothesis is evolving away from the version first put forward in the nineteenth century by Julius Wellhausen, and will continue to evolve as scholars look to improve it. Wellhausen’s Hypothesis is no longer widely accepted, but nearly all scholars believe that the Pentateuch really was developed by multiple scholars in the first millennium BCE and that some variant of the Documentary Hypothesis must eventually be as close to the truth as we can possibly hope to be. They say nothing else has been suggested that explains the Pentateuch better than the Documentary Hypothesis.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

It is far from hypothetical. If by "subjective" you mean "personal," I will agree. Many ordinary things are real but not scientifically verifiable. Miracles are frequently a matter of "you had to be there." The questioning is understandable, but trying to investigate them as though they are some application of natural laws is not.

You just defined why atheists consider miracles 'subjective,' because personal claims of miracles are only meaningful to those who experience them, or those that are willing to accept them without 'objective verifiable evidence.

Yes, even atheists. There is always the "it is a perfectly natural occurrence resulting from unknown causes defence, or the "mass hallucination" defence.

No, atheists rarely claim there is . . . "is a perfectly natural occurrence resulting from unknown causes defence, or the "mass hallucination" defence." These would be anecdotal 'hand wave' claims.It is simply the lack of any consistent 'objective verifiable evidence' that atheists is the basis for atheists rejecting miracles


How do you manage to read "Both [authors] destroy her claim that JEDP is the hypothesis accepted by the overwhelming majority of Theologians" as "the theory of JEDP being destroyed"?

Supporters of JEDP are now in the minority, and often admit that the earlier claims were over-stated. Nonetheless, I do state that JEDP is destroyed based on my own investigations of what it claims as evidence. It is a simple matter to step proponents through what they consider viable evidence and allowing them to see the logical inconsistency of the claims. Even so, a certain amount of editing and redacting cannot be denied.[/QUOTE]

No references provide that represent the broader view of Theologians view of JEDP, since most Theologians take a conservative view of the Bible. 'Argument from popularity' is not convincing. The editing and redacting is only part of the argument for JEDP For example: Assumptions of authorship among conservative Theologians bias their views of JEDP hypothesis.

An interesting overview of JEDP: http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5system_moses/dh10.aspx

[tabibito]

This hypothetical subjective view of possibly how 'some people' consider miracles does not address the objective reason why atheists reject the existence of God. Atheists understandable seriously question the validity of miracles past and present. The bottomline for atheists is objective verifiable evidence for such claims, and this includes the existence of God.

It is far from hypothetical. If by "subjective" you mean "personal," I will agree. Many ordinary things are real but not scientifically verifiable. Miracles are frequently a matter of "you had to be there." The questioning is understandable, but trying to investigate them as though they are some application of natural laws is not.

Of course, among those who strive to explain subjective miracles claim a source other than Gods(s) they because the 'cannot bring themselves to reject miracles' and attribute Many groups that deal with speculation of the supernatural come up with many different explanations, but not atheists.

Yes, even atheists. There is always the "it is a perfectly natural occurrence resulting from unknown causes defence, or the "mass hallucination" defence.

Not an issue in this thread, but claims of the theory of JEDP being destroyed is a very biased over statement. Theologians vary in their view from liberal to very conservative interpretation.

How do you manage to read "Both [authors] destroy her claim that JEDP is the hypothesis accepted by the overwhelming majority of Theologians" as "the theory of JEDP being destroyed"?

Supporters of JEDP are now in the minority, and often admit that the earlier claims were over-stated. Nonetheless, I do state that JEDP is destroyed based on my own investigations of what it claims as evidence. It is a simple matter to step proponents through what they consider viable evidence and allowing them to see the logical inconsistency of the claims. Even so, a certain amount of editing and redacting cannot be denied.

[seer]

Why? It is based on consistent and reliable objective verifiable evidence, where as theological beliefs in God are subjective and very variable and inconsistent and without objective variable evidence.

All the Theological apologetic arguments require assumptions based on belief.

Philosophical naturalism is based on a belief and is not based on verifiable evidence.

Definition:

naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation.

How does one demonstrate that that is true? You can't, it is an unverifiable belief.

[shunyadragon]

And philosophical naturalism is not a rationally defendable position.

Why? It is based on consistent and reliable objective verifiable evidence, where as theological beliefs in God are subjective and very variable and inconsistent and without objective variable evidence.

All the Theological apologetic arguments require assumptions based on belief.

[seer]

The bottomline for atheists is objective verifiable evidence for such claims, and this includes the existence of God. Atheists are fundamentally philosophical naturalists.

And philosophical naturalism is not a rationally defendable position.

[shunyadragon]

There were some. People who wanted so much to believe their preconceptions that though they could not deny the miracles, refused to believe that God had anything to do with them. Also note, quite a few people who have witnessed miracles have to fight to believe they weren't hallucinating - which is frequently a more comforting assessment.

This hypothetical subjective view of possibly how 'some people' consider miracles does not address the objective reason why atheists reject the existence of God. Atheists understandable seriously question the validity of miracles past and present. The bottomline for atheists is objective verifiable evidence for such claims, and this includes the existence of God. Atheists are fundamentally philosophical naturalists.

Hint: The word after miracle in the dictionary is mirage.

Of course, among those who strive to explain subjective miracles claim a source other than Gods(s) they because the 'cannot bring themselves to reject miracles' and attribute Many groups that deal with speculation of the supernatural come up with many different explanations, but not atheists.

Had she read either of them herself, she would NOT be recommending that I do so. Both destroy her claim that JEDP is the hypothesis accepted by the overwhelming majority of Theologians.

Not an issue in this thread, but claims of the theory of JEDP being destroyed is a very biased over statement. Theologians vary in their view from liberal to very conservative interpretation.

[NorrinRadd]

Nothing new, just a sampler related to Dr. Keener's book, for those interested.

[tabibito]

How apposite was Pope.

Prithee elucidate

[tabibito]

Someone started a thread about that. I believe that's the same thread where a certain someone couldn't see the word "volume" in spite of it being repeatedly pointed out, and she still continued to demand it.

Reading through the thread, I now understand why I had that deja vu feeling when the topic came up here.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

JEDP was big half a century or so ago. Since then it has lost much of its luster. I think it raises some valid points but proponents went way too far with their claims and dissections.

The killer was probably the lame dissections. The current "big three" each owe some of their foundation to JEPD, and many proponents still adhere to the flawed methodology. The problem is the start point - it doesn't find a problem and try to explain the causes, rather, it invents an explanation and then tries to find a problem to fit.

How apposite was Pope.