Should we believe only in those things for which there is evidence?

[KCfromNC]

Would the amount of people who believe something be enough evidence for you?

Or conversely, if enough people believe something to be wrong, should we stop believing it. For example, the majority of the world's population thinks any one particular brand of Christianity is wrong. It would follow that if popularity indicated truth, Christians need to stop believing.

 

[crimsonleaf]

There is also evidence that religion is a by-product of human evolution, that it had adaptive value in our past.

Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No actual deites required.

You, the article, and a previous poster make my point perfectly. The article stumbles around a number of "could have been"s, "might have"s and "possibly"s, offering a number of alternative views, but strictly avoiding the one additional possible truth, that God exists. It's presuppositional, much like your "no actual deities required" comment.

Do you seriously think that Christians don't KNOW that non-Christians think differently?

 

[Davian]

You, the article, and a previous poster make my point perfectly. The article stumbles around a number of "could have been"s, "might have"s and "possibly"s, offering a number of alternative views, but strictly avoiding the one additional possible truth, that God exists. It's presuppositional, much like your "no actual deities required" comment.

Do you seriously think that Christians don't KNOW that non-Christians think differently?

Noting the title of this thread, where did you establish that "God exists" is "possible"? Keep it to science, please.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Noting the title of this thread, where did you establish that "God exists" is "possible"? Keep it to science, please.

This is where you misunderstand both the title (which doesn't refer to science) and the term "evidence". If you read my previous post you'll see that I'm not describing evidence of anything as proof. It's presuppositional.

Science plays no part in evaluating the truth or otherwise of God. God isn't studied by science, period.

Take the theories about the existence of everything. Science can work backwards causally to a single point of origin, referred to in one theory as the Big Bang. It can describe how it happened, but not why. It can even tell you that prior to the BB time itself didn't exist. This is a concept which is impossible for mere mortals to fully grasp, yet it is a logical consequence of BB theory. Conversely, theists believe that the origin of everything is caused by a sentient, omnipotent being. That belief is as logical a consequence as the conclusion that "nothing" caused everything to exist.

Your view that God is an impossible construct leads me to believe that your atheism is of the strongest kind, ie "there is no God", rather than the more honest, "I have no evidence for God". And before the Flying Spaghetti Monster rears his ugly head I must confess that my honest answer regarding his existence can only be "I seriously doubt it", rather than a definitive "No, he doesn't exist", until I have the power to search every nook and cranny of the universe to determine his non-existence. Which I also seriously doubt either of us will gain.

But the real evidence a Christian has for the existence of God isn't rooted in pure analysis. It's a highly subjective experience. It leads to an inner knowledge which means that believers believe in God in exactly the same way everyone believes in gravity.

 

[bricklayer]

Ha ha ... If you could not prove anything, how could you disprove anything?

Nothing will be "left". They are all there. You adopt an evidence you like and you go with that. It take a great wisdom to be able to stick with such an evidence.

Many know it as the scientific process. Form a hypothosis and test it. The ideas that remain are what we are left to believe.

 

[Davian]

This is where you misunderstand both the title (which doesn't refer to science) and the term "evidence". If you read my previous post you'll see that I'm not describing evidence of anything as proof. It's presuppositional.

Then you misunderstood me. I was only proposing more parsimonious explanations. There is evidence of biological evolution. Deities, not so much.

Science plays no part in evaluating the truth or otherwise of God. God isn't studied by science, period.

Agreed. One would first need a testable definition of this "God".

Take the theories about the existence of everything. Science can work backwards causally to a single point of origin, referred to in one theory as the Big Bang. It can describe how it happened, but not why. It can even tell you that prior to the BB time itself didn't exist. This is a concept which is impossible for mere mortals to fully grasp, yet it is a logical consequence of BB theory. Conversely, theists believe that the origin of everything is caused by a sentient, omnipotent being. That belief is as logical a consequence as the conclusion that "nothing" caused everything to exist.

Or, we dont know. Or, there may be some other explanation.

I have not even seen justification for why this 'being' needs to be sentient. Or omnipotent. Except where those properties are needed for retrofitting ones' beliefs.

Your view that God is an impossible construct leads me to believe that your atheism is of the strongest kind, ie "there is no God", rather than the more honest, "I have no evidence for God".

My view? where did I say that? Are you telling me what I believe?

I would expect, to claim that something is impossible, one would have to have a very precise understanding of the 'construct', its nature, and the knowable laws of physics. I make no such claims.

Are you making those claims, in claiming that this thing is possible?

That is why I asked *you* if such a thing were possible. It is something that has not been demonstrated to me.

And before the Flying Spaghetti Monster rears his ugly head I must confess that my honest answer regarding his existence can only be "I seriously doubt it", rather than a definitive "No, he doesn't exist", until I have the power to search every nook and cranny of the universe to determine his non-existence. Which I also seriously doubt either of us will gain.

What is the point in positing a deity that is so elusive?

But the real evidence a Christian has for the existence of God isn't rooted in pure analysis. It's a highly subjective experience.

How would one differentiate it from self-deception? Or deceit? What method would you employ to verify that someone else, say, at your church, believes what you do? Compare notes?

It leads to an inner knowledge which means that believers believe in God in exactly the same way everyone believes in gravity.

Really? I expect that I could scientifically compare gravitational experiments conducted on Mars with those done by myself on Earth.

How does that work with "God"?

 

[Davian]

Very weak evidence. Without corroborating evidence, particularly scientifically testable evidence, it would be dismissed as an appeal to popularity.

It would depend on the sample of your "population".

Does the popularity of other religions show that yours is wrong?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Then you misunderstood me. I was only proposing more parsimonious explanations. There is evidence of biological evolution. Deities, not so much.

No there's not, do not lie, "macro-evolution" is a man made myth, not science. even if "macro-evolution" happened, God exists, as proven by Plantingas.

The Trinity,(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) Created all reality.

Why the Neo-Darwinian synthesis is not true - YouTube

Are you making those claims, in claiming that this thing is possible?

That is why I asked *you* if such a thing were possible. It is something that has not been demonstrated to me.

The laws of nature are that, laws, which can be changed or turned nonexistent, like gravity for example, so yes miracles are possible. now miracles are a fact due to The Fact of Creation, Impossibility of "macro-evolution" and Jesus Christ Resurrection(Historically and Scientifically(Shroud) proven).


It's been demonstrated so don't you ever say it hasn't, otherwise that makes you a coward, hypocrite, and liar who either has extreme presupposition and needs help or a troll.

Untitled 1

Noting the title of this thread, where did you establish that "God exists" is "possible"? Keep it to science, please.

you want Science you got it, The Shroud, The Bible and Creation deny that and deny all Science.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

You, the article, and a previous poster make my point perfectly. The article stumbles around a number of "could have been"s, "might have"s and "possibly"s, offering a number of alternative views, but strictly avoiding the one additional possible truth, that God exists. It's presuppositional, much like your "no actual deities required" comment.

Do you seriously think that Christians don't KNOW that non-Christians think differently?

Thank you, what you said was great. it's like what Michael Behe said

"Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with magnifying glasses for any clue to the identity of the prepetrator. In the middle of the room, next to the body, stands a large, gray elephant. The detectives carefully avoid bumping into the pachyderm's legs as they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives get frustrated with their lack of progress but resolutely press on, looking even more closely at the floor. You see, textbooks say detectives must "get their man," so they never consider elephants."

An "atheist"/"non-believer" is always going to chose another disproven hypothesis to avoid the facts, God exists and Christianity is The Objective truth.

"Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - Francis Thomson

 

[Davian]

Then you misunderstood me. I was only proposing more parsimonious explanations. There is evidence of biological evolution. Deities, not so much.

...

<snip flame bait>

Do you have anything of significance to contribute to this thread?

 

[Eudaimonist]

An "atheist"/"non-believer" is always going to chose another disproven hypothesis to avoid the facts, God exists and Christianity is The Objective truth.

The arrogance of your position is astounding.

Just because you personally believe that a particular hypothesis is disproven, does not mean that others judge it in the same way.

I can guarantee, both from personal experience and from experience with other atheists, that you that you are mistaken. We're not atheists because we're trying to avoid facts. We see the world differently than you do, and typically because we embrace facts. For instance, we accept evolution over religious creation stories due to the facts involved.

It is a copout to try to explain the nonbelief of others because of some alleged unwillingness to see the truth. People tend to see things differently because they were raised in different ways, or had different education, or read different books, or met different people, or any one of a number of other factors. While mental evasion can happen, for the most part people are honest with themselves about their basic views on reality. One cannot legitimately write off a whole group of people as dishonest. I certainly don't do that with Christians.

"Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - Francis Thomson

In Somalia.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Does the popularity of other religions show that yours is wrong?

Of course not. We do not know which one is right yet. We are still in the stage of looking at the "evidences".

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Do you have anything of significance to contribute to this thread?

In other words, off putting cowardice tactic incapable of refuting anything I wrote.

The arrogance of your position is astounding.

Just because you personally believe that a particular hypothesis is disproven, does not mean that others judge it in the same way.

I can guarantee, both from personal experience and from experience with other atheists, that you that you are mistaken. We're not atheists because we're trying to avoid facts. We see the world differently than you do, and typically because we embrace facts.

Oh yeah? What proof and evidence is there for "atheism" to be accurate and correct? if you fail to answer that question then you become a liar and hypocrite as "atheism" is not facts nor does it have facts. "atheism" is a man made myth that uses unscientific presupposition, myths("naturalism") and "assumptions.

Also, these facts,

The Bible(Historical and Scientific Facts)
Jesus Christ Resurrection(Historical Fact)
The Shroud(Scientific Supernatural Fact)
First Uncaused Cause(Scientific and Philosophical Fact)
Fine Tuning(Scientific Fact)
Morality(Cannot Factually exist without God)
demonic Activity(Experienced by various people with nothing to gain, NDE's and I've experienced them)
Dualism(Scientific Fact)
"macro-evolution" not happening(Scientific Fact)
Intelligent Design(Scientific Fact)

Denying any one of these proven Facts makes you a liar and hypocrite.

For instance, we accept evolution over religious creation stories due to the facts involved.

Why the Neo-Darwinian synthesis is not true - YouTube

"macro-evolution" did not happen, if after watching that video you tell me you believe in the myths of "macro-evolution" then you are an unscientific hypocrite.

Since it did not happen, Creation Happened.

God Exists and Christianity is The Objective Truth.

 

[ranunculus]

Oh yeah? What proof and evidence is there for "atheism" to be accurate and correct? if you fail to answer that question then you become a liar and hypocrite as "atheism" is not facts nor does it have facts. "atheism" is a man made myth that uses unscientific presupposition, myths("naturalism") and "assumptions.

Shockofgod's Moronic Question Answered...YET AGAIN -The Atheist Experience 734 - YouTube

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Shockofgod's Moronic Question Answered...YET AGAIN -The Atheist Experience 734 - YouTube

he didn't answer the question, so I'll ask again in any definition of "atheism", I'll even reword it to the "agnostic" definition,

What proof and evidence is there for "lack of belief" to be accurate and correct?

 

[ranunculus]

"Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - Francis Thomson

That analogy compares atheists to criminals. That's nice. And it implies that we know god exists but are denying him because we don't like the implications. Two can play at that game. Maybe theists cannot leave religion for the same reason a domestic abuse victim can't leave their abuser. Maybe Christians cannot find allah for the same reason an alcoholic cannot find an intervention.

If god is like a policeman maybe that's why you can never find one when it actually matters.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

That analogy compares atheists to criminals. That's nice. And it implies that we know god exists but are denying him because we don't like the implications.

There is no evidence against God, there is substantial evidence for God/Christianity and pascals wager makes "atheism" nonexistent even if there was no evidence.

Two can play at that game. Maybe theists cannot leave religion for the same reason a domestic abuse victim can't leave their abuser.

Incorrect analogy, God is All Loving, Perfect, Holy, and Righteous, not "abusive",.

Maybe Christians cannot find allah for the same reason an alcoholic cannot find an intervention.

allah is false, as islam is false. that's why Christians don't care about "islam" but about The True God, Which Is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

 

[ranunculus]

he didn't answer the question,

Matt Dillahunty's answer from the video at verbatim:

"The question is ill-formed. The question is :'what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true?' Well, atheism is the position of not accepting the theological explanation. It is not accepting the god hypothesis. It is in fact the null hypothesis. It cannot be proven to be true. It is the default position. And christianity and buddhism and hinduism and islam, they have all failed to meet their burden of proof. It's not up to me to prove that there are no gods any more than it's up to me to prove that there isn't bigfoot or fairies of UFOs. The default, the null hypothesis is that these things aren't true. And we wait and reserve belief until they are demonstrated to be true. Does that make sense?"

so I'll ask again in any definition of "atheism", I'll even reword it to the "agnostic" definition,


What proof and evidence is there for "lack of belief" to be accurate and correct?

Because if we operated on the basis that everything is true until it's proven false, that means we would have to believe everything. Literally everything. Every crazy thing anyone can come up with. And people have come up with a lot of crazy stuff over the years.
I mean, what proof and evidence do you have for your lack of belief in hinduism or scientology? It hasn't been demonstrated to be true. That's enough to warrant disbelief.

 

[ranunculus]

allah is false, as islam is false. that's why Christians don't care about "islam" but about The True God, Which Is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

Maybe christians just want Islam to be false because they can't handle the implications of not being able to drink alcohol and eat bacon.
I'm joking of course.
But seriously, I don't know if you're trolling or if you have these sincere beliefs that christianity has already been proven correct but please, don't rely solely on youtube hacks like shockofgod or venomfangx. They are the worst of the worst. Probably worse than Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. And that's saying something. Lane Craig is better, although of course I don't agree with his premises and conclusions.

If you care about whether your beliefs are true, and I hope you do, apply skepticism to them. Challenge them. And don't just listen to what Christians say about atheists. Because it's usually not true. Except the baby eating ceremonies, they got that right.

 

[Rajni]

Like it or not, we all believe. Even when the things we believe have been established on empirical evidence, this is usually based not on our own observations of the evidence, but on acceptance of the findings of others. This is especially so in this increasingly specialised world.

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]I didn't read the entire post as it was a bit[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] long, but the above jumped out at me. [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]I have to agree with this. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]I usually feel like I'm tipping one of society's sacred cows when I say the following, but this is why I take something of a reporter's approach to things of which I'm not a first-hand eyewitness. I refuse to get all doctrinaire about such things as the age of the earth, because believe it or not, when it got it's start ... I wasn't there. So I'll say that it "allegedly" is thus-and-so, rather than "It is so because Expert A tells me so" (which isn't such a far cry from "... for the Bible tells me so").[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]No, whatever belief I have about a "fact" to which I don't have first-hand access will be based upon my having decided to place my faith in (what I believe to be) experts' information about the age of the earth -- or whether a planet is suddenly no longer (considered) a planet. If I stumble across a practical reason to believe it, based on first-hand experience, all the better.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]Even with more current fare, such as the news (when I bother watching it ) -- I can't say I know what's going on in the world, only what is said to be going on in the world. Until I have the energy and the urge to hop into a car/plane/boat and travel to each and every point on the globe to verify for myself that such-and-such took place, I cannot know it happened, I can only believe it happened, based on what I know -- the latter which is not that it happened, but that it is said to have happened (wasn't it Robert Brault who (allegedly) said that one doesn't [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] realize how little accuracy there is in network TV reporting until they cover a story in one's own hometown?).
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] I will usually be able to provide evidence that something is said to have happened before I'll ever be able to provide evidence that it actually did happen. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]Do I carry one huge grain of salt around with me, or what?
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]