Evidence for God

[Wiccan_Child]

Since a certain someone turned the other thread into a tirade against atheism (while simultaneously lamenting how all atheists broad-brush Christians - go figure), I thought I'd hit the big red reset button.

Is there any evidence for the existence of any deity whatsoever?
Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that any deity exists?
Is it possible to ever decide either way? Must belief in gods be based purely on faith?

And, please, let's keep this about the evidence and rationale for believing in gods. Discuss atheism only as it pertains to the evidence.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Since a certain someone turned the other thread into a tirade against atheism (while simultaneously lamenting how all atheists broad-brush Christians - go figure), I thought I'd hit the big red reset button.

Smart move.

Is there any evidence for the existence of any deity whatsoever?

I don't know that we've settled what constitutes evidence yet.

Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that any deity exists?

Inductively? No.

Is it possible to ever decide either way? Must belief in gods be based purely on faith?

It may be definitionally impossible - depending on how God is defined.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Smart move.

I don't know that we've settled what constitutes evidence yet.

Well, what constitutes evidence in general? For evolution, say?

Inductively? No.

But a priori arguments are so fun!

It may be definitionally impossible - depending on how God is defined.

I've always liked "Intelligent creator(s) of the universe".

 

[Greg1234]

Since a certain someone turned the other thread into a tirade against atheism (while simultaneously lamenting how all atheists broad-brush Christians - go figure), I thought I'd hit the big red reset button.

Is there any evidence for the existence of any deity whatsoever?
Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that any deity exists?
Is it possible to ever decide either way? Must belief in gods be based purely on faith?

And, please, let's keep this about the evidence and rationale for believing in gods. Discuss atheism only as it pertains to the evidence.

1) There is only one source from which all force emanates. Thats what we call God. Therefore, the terms "any deity", (which is in fact a subliminal invocation to your own perception of God, around which evidence is expected to be given), will merely be seen as the manifestation of God in different phases and forms. With the top down perception of the hierarchy (man's view) establishing any being within which that source prominently manifests, a higher being, as God.

2) Evidence for God has already been given. Man. Reasons as outlined in the visible manifestation of an invisible phenomenon (God) . Also, the fact that with the removal of Darwinism, it is clearly visible (and up to date) that naturalistic processes cannot assemble the man. The onus then actually lies on the atheist (twister effect) to provide evidence that lifeforms can be assembled through chance. This is not being given and the Darwinist will then say that one day it will. What reason is there to believe that? Because God began as a concept to explain what ignorant hominids did not know. Do I hold that belief? No. Is the belief correct? No. With man created, and the basis of atheism resting on improper analysis, it is fair to say that the input from atheism is not required.

What can propel atheism though, is if it attaches itself to something. It cannot possibly survive on its own. Its taken over science. Now there is a symbiotic relationship established so strong, it's just short of your appliance being tagged with the sticker "Made in Atheism". This relationship creates the illusion of a superior man. One held in high esteem by society. It is not just by accident that the terms "bronze age" is attached to text relating to God. It is a mechanism of mind control. One which feeds on the disparity between "bronze age" and "information age". It is not by accident that theists are constantly told that they are dumb and atheism is intelligent. Again, reputation to them is key. Because if atheists can get a foothold as the intelligentsia of state, then it is easier to dodge questioning, a critical look at this atheism thing, and establish the right of way. Then people will look up to them as the pioneers and leaders of tomorrow. We are well aware that sticking a territorial flag in the sands of time is so critical, as the present as well as the past, has escaped your reach.

To be sure, there are many theists who have fallen into this trap. What is important to note though is that when one peels the atheists off the back of science, forces him to use science like everybody else and not be science, all you have are men. Just men, rebelling and talking loud.

So what?

So strong in fact, has reputation become, atheist speculation surpasses empirical facts supporting theism when they are shown. As given in the previous example, an atheist saying that one day science will get a naturalistic cause for life is somehow, in someway, greater than the empirical everyday fact that man cannot be assembled through purely naturalistic processes. What keeps this machine going? Apart form the faulty analysis of text, a constant supply of ad homs. The theist must keep believing that you are king. And you'll make sure of that. Do I believe that the atheist holds the heirlooms of intelligence? No.These are beliefs and claims to faithlessness isn't viable. You're just a man. Speaking of which, is evidence for God.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Well, what constitutes evidence in general? For evolution, say?

Observable, confirmable facts. As Heinlein says somewhere, if you can't express it in numbers, it's not fact - it's wishful thinking.

But a priori arguments are so fun!

That's why I find most theists so amusing.

I've always liked "Intelligent creator(s) of the universe".

Well, it's a bit restrictive, but OK.

 

[Greg1234]

That's why I find most theists so amusing.

It is worth stating though, that it is for amusement, why you are here. Threads are not established to find evidence for God. They are given to propagate the atheist belief that there is no evidence for God.

The request for evidence, it is believed, is a "trump card". So instead of just saying it, erm... why not depend on the "lousy at supplying such data". That's what is expected. What will be seen as accepted. Which is why when evidence is presented, atheists begin repeating the line.

Because this is where the tape ended. Notice a lack of counter arguments. Just a another thread to show "the lousy at supplying such data" in the continued exaltation of atheism and Darwinism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is worth stating though, that it is for amusement, why you are here. Threads are not established to find evidence for God. They are given to propagate the atheist belief that there is no evidence for God.

Then don't post in this thread. Everyone wins.

The request for evidence, it is believed, is a "trump card". So instead of just saying it, erm... why not depend on the "lousy at supplying such data". That's what is expected. What will be seen as accepted. Which is why when evidence is presented, atheists begin repeating the line.

The purpose of this thread is to determine why people believe different than me. Presumably, they have their reasons. I am curious as to those reasons. Whether you believe those are my intentions are irrelevant - if you think I'm underhanded, don't post in the tread.

Because this is where the tape ended. Notice a lack of counter arguments. Just a another thread to show "the lousy at supplying such data" in the continued exaltation of atheism and Darwinism.

The thread is not even a day old. Have patience. Older threads have much better replies; me and Chesterton are having a very long conversation over in EC about all sorts of things - the nature and origin of morality, the evidence for God, the evidence for Christianity, all sorts.

Some people are open to discussions, and respond honestly and openly - they get long, fascinating debates.
Some people only come here to bemoan an imagined persecution - and they genuinely wonder why they don't get invited to the cool threads.

Anyway. If you're going to derail the thread, kindly bugger off.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

1) There is only one source from which all force emanates. Thats what we call God. Therefore, the terms "any deity", (which is in fact a subliminal invocation to your own perception of God, around which evidence is expected to be given), will merely be seen as the manifestation of God in different phases and forms. With the top down perception of the hierarchy (man's view) establishing any being within which that source prominently manifests, a higher being, as God.

I'll take that as a description of your beliefs on the nature of divinity.

2) Evidence for God has already been given.

To whom?

Man. Reasons as outlined in the visible manifestation of an invisible phenomenon (God)

What manifestations are these?

Also, the fact that with the removal of Darwinism, it is clearly visible (and up to date) that naturalistic processes cannot assemble the man. The onus then actually lies on the atheist (twister effect) to provide evidence that lifeforms can be assembled through chance. This is not being given and the Darwinist will then say that one day it will.

Without getting into why the terms 'Darwinism' and 'Darwinist' are archaic, we 'Darwinists' are quite capable of explaining the origin of man - and, for that matter, life on Earth. If you have questions as to these theories, make a thread in C&E, or PM me. It's a fascinating topic, but not one to be had here in Philosophy.

What reason is there to believe that? Because God began as a concept to explain what ignorant hominids did not know. Do I hold that belief? No. Is the belief correct? No. With man created, and the basis of atheism resting on improper analysis, it is fair to say that the input from atheism is not required.

The onus is on the theist to explain why, not on the atheist to explain why not. The atheist doesn't have to explain everything in wholly natural terms to be justified in her stance - she is justified by the sheer lack of evidence and rationale supporting theism. As it happens, we do have a theory which satisfactorily explains biological diversity in wholly natural terms. We don't need it to reject theism - atheism has existed long before Darwin.

Blah blah blah

The rest of your post was off-topic. Imagine that.

 

[Greg1234]

Then don't post in this thread. Everyone wins.

You all have something to say. Its a shame that you just don't come out and say it. Maybe its the forum rules. But you could still pull a Mr "consol". And this post wasn't addressed to you by the way.

The thread is not even a day old. Have patience. Older threads have much better replies; me and Chesterton

How does what you and Chesterton are discussing have anything to do with quotes like "lousy at supplying such data". Or "I don't expect you to provide any evidence" by the likes of others. It really doesn't apparently. But for some reason you seek to cover this up.

Anyway. If you're going to derail the thread, kindly bugger off.

Your derail is my explanation. Of course you are head of this thread so exercise your right.

To whom?

The man was given.

What manifestations are these?

Lol. The man.

but not one to be had here in Philosophy.

Well you see, thats a really unfortunate. Because though the atheist sees man as a purely materialistic being, the man is much more than that in theism. So while you may only see the physical and partially the mental, the threefold physical mental and spiritual is recognized. Hence, coming to the philosophy section and not expecting to see the man can only be resolved if you tune your expectations. The man will overlap in a physical discussion, a philosophical discussion, a religious and spiritual discussion. Why? Because he belongs to all three. So while you cry "derail" the man will not be left out.

The onus is on the theist to explain why, not on the atheist to explain why not.

In reality though, atheism is not a "why not" or a lack of (both sides can play that game by the way). The religious text are here. Why?
T: Divine influence
A:Ignorant hominids.

Not "not the divine" Not the divine does not make the texts disappear. They're are still here. The most neutral position is still that they wrote themselves (positive belief), or merely it was written through purely physical means (positive belief). The explanation for why he believes they should not be regarded is not simply "not the divine", but deductively implies a reference to that of a lower caste, quality or disposition of the writer (positive belief).

As it happens, we do have a theory

Ok. (I don't want to derail)

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Greg, you make this claim quite often, but you never explain it. Do so now.

WHY is man evidence of god? Be specific.

 

[Greg1234]

Greg, you make this claim quite often, but you never explain it. Do so now.

WHY is man evidence of god? Be specific.

This was actually repeatedly given. More most recently:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7506672-18/#post56030808

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

This was actually repeatedly given. More most recently:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7506672-18/#post56030808

Man is not evidence of god because - using your analogy - man is not a guaranteed consequent of god. If the radio waves exist, the blips MUST exist. But if god exists, man does not have to exist.

Or again - to use your analogy - we know of other, testable ways to make the lights. But we have no other evidence that radio waves exist. We cannot test them, we cannot measure them.

Unless you can show that man is solely a consequence of an otherwise unobservable deity, man is not evidence of god.

 

[Greg1234]

Man is not evidence of god because - using your analogy - man is not a guaranteed consequent of god. If the radio waves exist, the blips MUST exist.

No. Thats like saying unless I turn on a radio, then radio waves don't exist. Just because there are radio waves in the air does not guarantee that you will know. Especially if you have no devices on hand.

Or again - to use your analogy - we know of other, testable ways to make the lights. But we have no other evidence that radio waves exist.

That must mean they don't exist. And we can make a car, another testable way to make a machine.

We cannot test them, we cannot measure them.

We can detect them.

Unless you can show that man is solely a consequence of an otherwise unobservable deity, man is not evidence of god.

In actuality, I don't need to show you the radio waves. Nor is it possible. The manifestation of same as a voice on the radio is evidence for radio waves. Which was your request.

You posit, that there are little men inside the radio, fine, go ahead. Its clear that you would first need to learn how a radio works (in order for you to understand that the voice on the radio is "solely a consequence" of a higher frequency of energy). Thats not my duty but your responsibility when entering this argument. Highlighting the inherent futility of these requests.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

No. Thats like saying unless I turn on a radio, then radio waves don't exist. Just because there are radio waves in the air does not guarantee that you will know. Especially if you have no devices on hand.

You don't even understand your own analogy, do you?

That must mean they don't exist. And we can make a car, another testable way to make a machine.

I've no idea where you're going with that.

We can detect them.

We can't detect God. Analogy fails.

In actuality, I don't need to show you the radio waves. Nor is it possible. The manifestation of same as a voice on the radio is evidence for radio waves. Which was your request.

Not in the slightest. Did you even understand my request?

You posit, that there are little men inside the radio, fine, go ahead. Its clear that you would first need to learn how a radio works (in order for you to understand that the voice on the radio is "solely a consequence" of a higher frequency of energy). Thats not my duty but your responsibility when entering this argument. Highlighting the inherent futility of these requests.

You haven't even shown it's a radio. Is English your first language? You seem awfully incoherent for someone speaking English.

 

[Greg1234]

You don't even understand your own analogy, do you?

If the radio waves exist, then a voice on the radio must be heard. Or that there must even be a radio in a house. That's your assertion. A house for example, can have radio waves without a voice on a radio. Or even a radio. A voice on a radio is not a direct corollary of radio waves. The assertion is false.

We can't detect God. Analogy fails.

This was given

Not in the slightest. Did you even understand my request?

Unless I can show you that the voice on the radio is a result of radio waves in an isolated state, then the voice on the radio is not evidence for radio waves. Its not me who needs to understand at this point, but you. You wanted evidence for radio waves, they were given. You were directed to learn about the voice on the radio, how it is made, and gain an understanding of the radio. The analogical reference to "little men" you believe you've found inside the radio, making the voice on the radio, is Darwinism.

You haven't even shown it's a radio. Is English your first language? You seem awfully incoherent for someone speaking English.

Vibration and frequency as the nature of reality was also given.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How does what you and Chesterton are discussing have anything to do with quotes like "lousy at supplying such data". Or "I don't expect you to provide any evidence" by the likes of others. It really doesn't apparently. But for some reason you seek to cover this up.

Your beef with Rilke's Granddaughter is your own. Are you really going to tar all atheists for what one atheist did?

Your derail is my explanation. Of course you are head of this thread so exercise your right.

Stick to the topic, and you're welcome to stay

The man was given.
Lol. The man.

Given your discussion with Rilke's Granddaughter, it seems you're saying that man is evidence for God just as a voice on the radio is evidence for radio waves, correct? That for a voice to be heard on a radio, radio waves must exist (otherwise the device wouldn't work, and we wouldn't hear the voice)?

If so, it's easy to demonstrate the link between the voice and the wave, but can you demonstrate the link between man and God? If I understand you correctly, I think it's a false analogy: in essence, though the wave is the only tenable explanation for the voice, God is not the only explanation for man.

Well you see, thats a really unfortunate. Because though the atheist sees man as a purely materialistic being, the man is much more than that in theism. So while you may only see the physical and partially the mental, the threefold physical mental and spiritual is recognized. Hence, coming to the philosophy section and not expecting to see the man can only be resolved if you tune your expectations. The man will overlap in a physical discussion, a philosophical discussion, a religious and spiritual discussion. Why? Because he belongs to all three. So while you cry "derail" the man will not be left out.

While that does verge on the philosophical, I was referring to the veracity of the theory of common descent as not belonging to the Philosophy forum. While I'm happy to talk about the veracity of common descent, abiogenesis, the Big Bang, etc, that discussion isn't here.

In reality though, atheism is not a "why not" or a lack of (both sides can play that game by the way). The religious text are here. Why?
T: Divine influence
A:Ignorant hominids.

Not "not the divine" Not the divine does not make the texts disappear. They're are still here. The most neutral position is still that they wrote themselves (positive belief), or merely it was written through purely physical means (positive belief). The explanation for why he believes they should not be regarded is not simply "not the divine", but deductively implies a reference to that of a lower caste, quality or disposition of the writer (positive belief).

The default position for how the texts came to be is "I don't know". From that, we can make a series of probable conclusions - that modern books were written by human hands, translated by humans from earlier texts, etc. The question isn't where the books came from, but who authored them.

We agree humans exist. We don't agree that deities exist. An atheist, who doesn't affirm that deities exist, is under no onus to explain why these books are here - but, by and large, they'll say "Humans wrote them". This no more invalidates the 'no comment' stance of atheism than saying "Humans built the Gherkin" does. If theists want to attribute religious texts to divine beings, fine, go ahead. Atheists, by definition, acknowledge that this is possible, but don't affirm it outright. Theists, who affirm that deities exist, usually attribute their religious text to divine authorship, while dismissing other such texts as frauds or errors.

So, yes, atheism is indeed a lack of belief, rooted in evidence.

I'm also surprised you would cite religious texts in general; are you saying that God authored the Qu'ran and the Vedic texts?

 

[uberd00b]

1) There is only one source from which all force emanates. Thats what we call God.

Rather that's what you unjustifiably call God. Somebody else may simply call it the origin or source of the universe and their description would be more accurate. You can't just take an existing thing call it God and then declare God proven. The word God comes with certain connotations, like intelligence, wilful action and a bizarre fascination with a bunch of backward iron age goat herders in the middle east. None of these things can be attributed to the source.

2) Evidence for God has already been given. Man. Reasons as outlined in the visible manifestation of an invisible phenomenon (God) . Also, the fact that with the removal of Darwinism, it is clearly visible (and up to date) that naturalistic processes cannot assemble the man. The onus then actually lies on the atheist (twister effect) to provide evidence that lifeforms can be assembled through chance.

Chance? Why talk about chance? It seems life was absolutely inevitable given the state of the universe.

This is not being given and the Darwinist...

You know when you use these words like chance and darwinist you betray your sources as those liars-for-Jesus the creationists, these are their buzzwords.

...will then say that one day it will. What reason is there to believe that?

Well granted this is true (and I doubt it is) what about the simple fact that every question we've ever asked has had a naturalistic answer and there is no reason to think any other type of answer is necessary or likely?

You're just a man. Speaking of which, is evidence for God.

No it isn't.

Still no evidence for God. To be honest my personal standards aren't even as high as wanting evidence. In an effort to make this easier for the theist I have often just asked for a single good reason to think God exists.

 

[Greg1234]

If so, it's easy to demonstrate the link between the voice and the wave, but can you demonstrate the link between man and God? If I understand you correctly,

This is about detection and the nature of man. Though there are other examples, the manifestation of the Christ by Jesus more notoriously.

I think it's a false analogy: in essence, though the wave is the only tenable explanation for the voice, God is not the only explanation for man.

I think the "other explanation" is well known in these parts.

The default position for how the texts came to be is "I don't know"

.
Its a position which requires a belief since the authorship was given as a part of the text. Therefore, to say "I dont know" is to discard what has been given, which is a result the belief that the origins of writing (as depicted) are from another nonviable source (of choice).

We agree humans exist. We don't agree that deities exist. An atheist, who doesn't affirm that deities exist, is under no onus to explain why these books are here

He has no choice. They are here. Even if he says that it is not knowable as to why they are here, it is still a belief in regards to the debasing of authorship and the nature of the man as given.

- but, by and large, they'll say "Humans wrote them".

We are well aware of the fact that humans wrote them. The discarding of text is not because humans wrote them though, nor is their reverence. You took a stance. So even if I asked you "if humans wrote them why do you discard them" then your beliefs will come out. Thats why they are said to come of a lower race of man, etc. Both sides believe that humans wrote them, yet this constant does not produce an equal stance. Hence the reason for divergence cannot be "humans wrote them". You still have to explain the divergence in your explanation as the text speak on the conclusion (God). The divergence is just as evident as the texts themselves.

Atheists, by definition, acknowledge that this is possible, but don't affirm it outright.

But there is an affirmation. The atheist says that it is possible, turns around and the text is still there. "It is possible" is not the affirmation which fulfills the existence of said texts. There is also the disregarding of authorship. Which goes back to the nature of the man, and the origin of man at the extreme.

Theists, who affirm that deities exist, usually attribute their religious text to divine authorship, while dismissing other such texts as frauds or errors.

But this doesn't explain your current stance. Its merely shifting the focus then slinking out of sight.

So, yes, atheism is indeed a lack of belief, rooted in evidence.

There are still beliefs. An positive affirmation like the it is not knowable is essentially the authorship of the bible is to be disregarded. This isn't based on evidence.

I'm also surprised you would cite religious texts in general; are you saying that God authored the Qu'ran and the Vedic texts?

Understand what God is first. The bible is being studied not the Quran and merely reading texts without any kind in depth analysis is malpractice. A Buddhist may claim that Buddhism is atheistic for example, but an understanding of what the Buddha is warrants investigation, as this is against the very nature of its divinity. But I'm not a Buddhist nor has there been an extensive study into this.

Religions often overlap. Some of the Greek heroes which can be found in the Greek Pantheon, in the bible, may merely be depicted only as the last line in Genesis 6:4. Depictions of Zeus may also serve as the Demiurge as given by Plato, which is a slightly different concept. But both were ancient Greece. Hence the "if you believe in God why don't you believe in Zeus" is not entirely accurate. It only means that what was given in ancient Greece or the titan that was ancient Egypt, is not studied. Some text so deeply encrypted, its isolation to a fifth level initiate of said time is guaranteed. Only decoded and simplified by other religions, including Christianity. Hence none are entirely different. What you call "Allah" may just be what I call "God" and so forth. So its not as easy as the predictions of your persuasion would like it to be.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Mystical experience is potential evidence for God's existence. Depending on one's definitions.

The two below are the first in the list from Dictionary.com.

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

Because mystical experience acts as a ground for belief, or is sufficient to produce the belief "'God exists' is true" in certain people,

Therefore by dictionary definition, there is evidence for God's existence. Ostensible evidence at least.

The question is now not one as to whether mystical experience can be called evidence, but one of standards of evidence, IOW "ought mystical experience be relied upon as evidence?"


I expect a lot of equivocation with the term "evidence" to follow, on top of my own efforts.

"No by 'evidence' I mean clearly demonstrated apodeictic proof of Gods existence!!!"

Well you should have said that at the outset, rather then change the rules of the game halfway through the thread...

 

[Greg1234]

backward iron age goat herders in the middle east.

"Backward", "iron age" and "goat herders". And you want to talk about "buzzwords"?

liars-for-Jesus the creationists

We get it

Well granted this is true (and I doubt it is) what about the simple fact that every question we've ever asked has had a naturalistic answer and there is no reason to think any other type of answer is necessary or likely?

To believe. I didn't even have to ask if you held this belief. Its like a universal. You think that justifies your belief that one day man will find a naturalistic explanation for life? And negates the empirical fact that stochastic processes are not assembling a man? If you want to hold that belief, that's fine. In fact it is imperative that you do. But it's not a shared belief.

Still no evidence for God.

Sure.