Why or what is it that makes you or leads or led you to believe that a God does not exist...?

[Michael]

Totally different issue.
You don´t get 100 different definitions of "current American president".

In terms of his/her character attributes we might, and that's effectively your beef with the term "God" since you probably aren't going by a actual physical definition of that term.

The term "dark matter" has been associated with axions, WIMPS, Sterile neutrinos and a half dozen other concepts I can think of. Ambiguity in terms isn't an automatic disqualifier in science.

I don´t expect the "topic of God" to be anything.
I am describing a fundamental problem for the discussion whether a God exists or not (which isn´t a discussion we have about the American president). The term "God" isn´t copyrighted, and everyone can call "God" whatever they see fit. I could easily call something I believe in (e.g. the universe) "God" and then call myself a theist. The term "God" doesn´t lend itself to a meaningful discussion.

Sure it does, as long as we define the term and the "effect" we're trying to claim it has.

And the interesting thing is: You don´t discuss that with the person who believes in, postulates and describes a God playing "hide-and-seek", but you want to discuss it with me.

That is due to the fact that I see no evidence that the "God" that I believe in plays hide and seek, yet you suggested that he did. I have no trouble "seeing" the God that I believe exists in everything around me.

 

[quatona]

In terms of his/her character attributes we might,

..but I am not trying to find out whether America has a president by descriptions of his character.

and that's effectively your beef with the term "God" since you probably aren't going by a actual physical definition of that term.

Me? Why would I define it? I am left to go by the plenty of various definitions out there. Some involve physicality, some exclude it.

Sure it does, as long as we define the term and the "effect" we're trying to claim it has.

And these definitions and claimed effects vary greatly. That´s the problem.

That is due to the fact that I see no evidence that the "God" that I believe in plays hide and seek, yet you suggested that he did.

It´s more like you interfered in a discussion between me and a guy who described God in a hide-and-seek manner. Read all the posts, address the correct person.

I have no trouble "seeing" the God that I believe exists in everything around me.

Fine. Discuss this with this fellow Christian of yours who believes God wants to be asked before He shows up. If you come to an agreement, feel free to come back to me.
Don´t draw me into discussions that I have no business in.

 

[quatona]

So, no, we are not shifting the burden of proof - in fact, we are not asking that of you either.

This is actually exactly what the OP did.

 

[ScottA]

This is actually exactly what the OP did.

As I said...what do you expect for first coming to us and demanding proof?

 

[Michael]

Fine. Discuss this with this fellow Christian of yours who believes God wants to be asked before He shows up.
If you come to an agreement, feel free to come back to me.
Don´t draw me into discussions that I have no business in.

In terms of personal communication, I tend to agree that there's a "knock and the door shall be opened" component to it, so I suspect we're actually in agreement on that issue.

 

[Rebecca12]

Overly simplified, but:

Your parents teach you about their particular religion and there is better than a good chance that you will have the religion that you grew up with. These beliefs are reinforced through church and community. And may be further reinforced by personal experiences of a religious or mystical nature. One of the most frequent pieces of evidence people point out to me of their own personal belief is such personal religious experiences. Given the multiple religions in the world that have inconsistent texts and differing and beliefs, I do not find religious texts or tradition persuasive. Given lack of verification of events which run counter to what we know about the physical world, I do not find ancient stories of miraculous events persuasive. Given that personal experiences of a religious or mystical nature can be explained psychologically and neurologically, I am not persuaded by people's personal experiences of a God. Logical arguments in support of a God (of whatever religion) are not evidence of an actual God, and at most represent possibilities. Possible does not mean likely. And people do not believe things based on possibilities. Extraordinary claims do have to pass a pretty high evidentiary bar to be persuasive. I imagine it would take a lot for the Christians here to believe in Hindu gods.

If I was on a jury in a civil court of law (which operates with a lower standard of proof than a criminal court) I would say that proponents of the world's various religious have not shown that it is more likely than not that their view of God is correct. In fact, they have not shown that it is more likely than not that any God exists. Or even likely at all.

Certainty is an emotional state, not a rational one. I don't suffer from it. I concede the possibility of some coherent concept of God which could possibly be true, but it the closer you get to the specifics of a particular religion the less possible they seem.

 

[quatona]

As I said...what do you expect for first coming to us and demanding proof?

In neither came to you nor did I demand proof from you.

As I said...this is the thread where the OP came to us and asked for something.
To be precise: A guy came to the science forum and asked an apologetics question.

 

[quatona]

In terms of personal communication, I tend to agree that there's a "knock and the door shall be opened" component to it, so I suspect we're actually in agreement on that issue.

Ok. I used to be under the impression that a panentheistic God wasn´t a personal entity, to begin with.
That´s another thing that makes it hard for me to start contemplating on the issue: Nowadays believers often introduce all sorts of modern, naturalistic, generic and whatnot god concepts - and in the end it turns out that what they actually believe in isn´t that far from the good ol´ bearded skydaddy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes. The reason I brought up BB theory is to point out that "evidence" is not always limited to empirically (lab) demonstrated cause/effect mechanisms and processes. As with my example(s), "cause" is often "assumed" from the observed effect, as we might "assume" the existence of God based upon the "effect" that God has on human beings on Earth.

The problem is one of defining the term "evidence", and then evaluating the *quality* of the evidence in an "objective" manner.

As with the "expansion of space" claim, some ideas are simply not lab supportable, but that fact doesn't preclude such ideas from scientific consideration, and even the potential for "scientific evidence" to be used to support the idea. Atheists tend to accept that fact as it applies to "science", but they typically do not accept that fact as it applies to the topic of God.

Again, this is not relevant to my post. I did not qualify what "type" of evidence. I didn't speak about labs or physics or science or what-have-you.

In the words of Frozen: "let it gooo, let it gooooooooooo,..."

And stop addressing me with a group label.

 

[Dave RP]

Many of these discussions are pretty pointless, if you believe the bible is gods word, then you will find all the evidence you need in the wonders of nature. If you don't believe in god then the bible is just a series of stories with a moral, and you will seek evidence for the wonders of the universe in scientific analysis. Neither side can "prove" the other right or wrong, one is based on belief in a supernatural all powerful god, the other believes that eventually science may give all the answers we seek. Personally I don't believe in god, but I am also certain that science has an awful lot to find out, and may never discover all the answers.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not really sure what, or how, to respond to this.

It doesn't need a response because it doesn't address the question, it's a red-herring in the form of a 'tu quoque'. Your reasonable demand for evidence is being dismissed because, in Michael's opinion, the particular scientific theory he objects to isn't based on evidence.

Sounds like a rather random rant against science.

It does, doesn't it?

 

[KCfromNC]

In terms of his/her character attributes we might

if hearsay and subjective personal opinion is really that bad for something we have everyday experiences with - such as people - imagine how wrong all of the hearsay is about gods. If we only had some physical evidence to go on to clear things up...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I wouldn't try to impose a higher standard on the topic of God than I would apply to the topic of astronomy or particle physics. There hasn't really been that much "consistency/time" as it relates to BB theory, certainly not thousands of years of consistency. I'm not sure that a consistency argument really does you any good. Even if we assume "divine inspiration" is involved in any specific writings we have to work with today, it's still written by human beings.

I outlined my reasons for expecting some degree of consistency; whether science has greater or less consistency isn't relevant.

Um, scientific beliefs change over time too so I'm still not impressed with the argument that you're trying to make about a lack of consistency. How many "dark matter" hypothesis are there to choose from? Inflation models? Your requirement of "consistency" and uniformity over *thousands* of years isn't really a credible argument from my perspective. There is always ambiguity in "science", and yet that ambiguity isn't grounds for outright dismissal of the concept.

I'm talking about god concepts not science. I outlined my reasons for expecting some degree of consistency - you haven't addressed them.

[Variety of belief isn't limited to the topic of God, and people kill each other over all sorts of goofy stuff. That's really not a valid argument either IMO.

I outlined my reasons for expecting some degree of consistency in God beliefs in particular - you haven't addressed them.

The consensus that God exists, or that Jesus is an "expert" on the topic of God, take your pick.

I've described the variety of ideas labelled 'god'; there's no consensus there.

The fact that variety of belief is observed in any field of science is not evidence that it's strictly a human concept. I can think of at least three different mathematical definitions of gravity, but those variations in "belief" do not demonstrate that gravity itself is a "human concept". It "might" be a valid criticism as it relates to "dark matter", but then why wouldn't we automatically reject all such "poorly defined/constrained" concepts?

I'm not talking about science.

I might expect that some humans will report meeting 'God", and have life altering experiences during near death experiences. Indeed even atheists report such events.

Those are well explained by the physiology & neurology of the brain under physiological stress - and they can be elicited under controlled conditions in other ways (g-LOC, drugs, direct & indirect brain stimulation, etc).

I might expect that humans consider the topic of God to be "sacred", and more important than say political affiliation. I might therefore expect religion to have a higher emotional value than typical beliefs.

That is the general nature of religious belief - and there are plausible explanations in evolutionary and behavioural psychology.

Who decides probability?

That depends; it's a statistical and knowledge-based issue - if explicit data is not available, a decision can be made on inference from past experience (i.e. previous occurrences) and knowledge of how the world behaves (science).

From my (Panetheistic) perspective God is the single most "natural" thing in nature. I don't subscribe to the assumption that God must be "supernatural", in fact quite the opposite. From my perspective, God *is* nature.

In that case, the question doesn't arise - but one wonders why you don't just stick with 'nature' as the term for it.

But this really highlights my original point on god concepts - if they can be so diverse as to not even have the supernatural in common, it's hard to see how the claims, that there is/are objectively real god/gods, and that the claimants really have knowledge of it/them, can be more than creative imagination.

It's an excellent way to learn to quiet one's own thoughts and feelings.

Yes, I know what it is, as I said, I do meditate.

It's a tool to quiet the mind so that communion with God is distinguishable from individual thought/feeling.

Since, as you say, God (to you) is nature, communion with God is communion with nature, and since you and your thoughts/feelings are also part of nature, it is also communion with yourself.

There is a sense in which I feel a closer relation to nature and see my thoughts/feelings more as part of nature when meditating, and I have feelings of awe and wonder at many natural things, but I don't see any reason to call nature 'God' - can you explain why you do?

 

[Michael]

Ok. I used to be under the impression that a panentheistic God wasn´t a personal entity, to begin with.

The difference between pantheism (what you're describing) and panentheism is the notion of "personal interaction". I tend to believe that God does interact with humans on Earth, hence the leaning toward panentheism rather than pantheism.

That´s another thing that makes it hard for me to start contemplating on the issue: Nowadays believers often introduce all sorts of modern, naturalistic, generic and whatnot god concepts - and in the end it turns out that what they actually believe in isn´t that far from the good ol´ bearded skydaddy.

Well, if you compare cosmology theories, panentheism doesn't require the introduction of forms of matter and energy which do not exist on Earth, whereas current "scientific" models require four unique "acts of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab). Even awareness shows up on Earth in a variety of forms so ascribing the universe with awareness isn't nearly as "iffy" as claiming that 95 percent of it is composed of a type of energy and matter that has never been seen in labs on Earth.

At least my "sky daddy" isn't mostly invisible.

 

[Michael]

if hearsay and subjective personal opinion is really that bad for something we have everyday experiences with - such as people - imagine how wrong all of the hearsay is about gods. If we only had some physical evidence to go on to clear things up...

From my (panentheistic) perspective, the whole universe is filled with physical evidence of his existence. What most atheist "demand" is a lab demonstrated cause/effect relationship, but even "science" doesn't impose that rigorous of a standard of "evidence" to support various concepts.

 

[quatona]

The difference between pantheism (what you're describing) and panentheism is the notion of "personal interaction". I tend to believe that God does interact with humans on Earth, hence the leaning toward panentheism rather than pantheism.

Thanks for explaining.
So you believe in a personal God.

 

[Michael]

I outlined my reasons for expecting some degree of consistency; whether science has greater or less consistency isn't relevant.

It's absolutely relevant! IMO "religion" was simply a precursor to "science". Religion has been used by humans since the dawn of time to make sense of the world around them, to explain their place in the universe, and to explain how humans and the universe got here.

Like "science', "religion" has "progressed over time". Religions have formed a "consensus" on monotheism for instance.

You can't condemn "religion" for evolving in terms of knowledge. It's like claiming that "science' is untrustworthy because it changes all the time. That's not a valid argument against the concept of "God", anymore than the introduction of "dark energy" automatically falsifies BB theory because it's a "new" idea.

I'm talking about god concepts not science. I outlined my reasons for expecting some degree of consistency - you haven't addressed them.

I have addressed them. You're imposing a purely irrational standard on "religion", one you surely do not impose on "science".

If 100 folks were required to describe the nature and character of the current President, we'd probably get 100 different answers about the nature of his "character". FYI, Pantheism and Panentheism have greater consistency over time than LCDM theory. By your logic we must throw out BB theory too because it changes dramatically every other decade. Dark energy makes up a full 70 percent of LCDM theory, and it was only "introduced" into BB theory about 2 decades ago. So much for "consistency/time".

I've described the variety of ideas labelled 'god'; there's no consensus there.

There's a "consensus" on the concept of monotheism. There's actually even a "consensus" that Jesus was an expert on the topic of God.

FYI, there's no real consensus on the makeup of dark matter, or dark energy, or inflation models. There's actually *many* of these "sub-hypothetical-options" to choose from within the framework of BB theory.

I'm not talking about science.

Why not? You should be. You're imposing a *non scientific* standard of evidence (and consistency) on "religion" and topics related to God than to any other topic in the universe.

Those are well explained by the physiology & neurology of the brain under physiological stress - and they can be elicited under controlled conditions in other ways (g-LOC, drugs, direct & indirect brain stimulation, etc).

Well explained? It's nice that you think so, but I don't suppose you have a published scientific study to support that claim do you?

That is the general nature of religious belief - and there are plausible explanations in evolutionary and behavioural psychology.

There's also a very plausible explanation in a panenthestic universe.

In that case, the question doesn't arise - but one wonders why you don't just stick with 'nature' as the term for it.

The term "nature" doesn't necessarily imply a consciousness.

But this really highlights my original point on god concepts - if they can be so diverse as to not even have the supernatural in common,

That's actually true for "dark matter" models too. MACHO concept of "dark matter" don't require "exotic" forms of matter, wheres the more "popular" concepts of "dark matter" (WIMPS/Axions) do require a "supernatural" form of matter. You are still imposing a list of requirements on the topic of God that you are not applying to cosmology theories, or particle physics theories.

it's hard to see how the claims, that there is/are objectively real god/gods, and that the claimants really have knowledge of it/them, can be more than creative imagination.

Yet you think that astronomers know down to the last few percentages how much "baryonic" matter exists in the universe?

Yes, I know what it is, as I said, I do meditate.

Great. I found that technique and that skill to be very valuable in my life, right up there with learning how to type.

Since, as you say, God (to you) is nature, communion with God is communion with nature, and since you and your thoughts/feelings are also part of nature, it is also communion with yourself.

That is physically and technically true, and I am (we all are) in fact 'one with' nature/God. I would say it's a form of communion with Self (capital S) rather than (little) self.

There is a sense in which I feel a closer relation to nature and see my thoughts/feelings more as part of nature when meditating, and I have feelings of awe and wonder at many natural things, but I don't see any reason to call nature 'God' - can you explain why you do?

Because along with that awe and wonder that I too have experienced, I've also experienced love and compassion and a much greater sense of awareness that I cannot explain internally.

 

[Michael]

Thanks for explaining.
So you believe in a personal God.

Yes.

 

[Michael]

Again, this is not relevant to my post. I did not qualify what "type" of evidence. I didn't speak about labs or physics or science or what-have-you.

In the words of Frozen: "let it gooo, let it gooooooooooo,..."

And stop addressing me with a group label.

Fair enough. I don't really have a problem with the way you use the term "evidence". It's actually relatively consistent with the scientific use of that term. Where we seem to be struggling is the notion of a subjective interpretation of evidence vs. an objective interpretation of evidence. Since atheism represents a minority position on the topic of God, how can you be sure that your interpretation of evidence related to God is 'objective'?

 

[Michael]

It doesn't need a response because it doesn't address the question, it's a red-herring in the form of a 'tu quoque'. Your reasonable demand for evidence is being dismissed because, in Michael's opinion, the particular scientific theory he objects to isn't based on evidence.

I'd say that LCDM is based loosely on "evidence", but it's not empirical cause/effect "evidence", it's more akin to special pleading that goes something to the effect: We can't figure it out with ordinary physics, so we *have* to introduce new matter/energy concepts to get our theory to work right.

Panentheism requires none of that nonsense. In fact, I can build a very strong empirical case for an "electric universe" that is full of circuitry, just like our brains. The only thing that isn't easily 'demonstrated' (empirically) is "awareness" of the universe itself, mostly because I don't control it.

My beliefs in God are *at least* as much rooted in "evidence" as any other cosmology theory.

It does, doesn't it?

That's actually unfortunate because I'm a big fan of "science". I simply recognize that it has limitations, and I simply prefer a purely empirical explanation of the universe rather than one that requires four unique supernatural components. Electric Universe theory is still a "scientific" theory, so in no way do I feel I have to abandon "science" simply to reject LCDM theory. I have no beef with "science", just one or two specific "hypotheses", mostly related to cosmology theory. I embrace the concept of an ancient Earth, and evolutionary theory as well. Science is fine by me, but I don't buy every scientific claim that comes along. The BICEP2 fiasco from a few years ago demonstrates that I'm not crazy for being skeptical.