What Would Evidence For God Be Like?

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's the difference between evidence and proof?

Proof produces certainty, while evidence merely provides confirmatory support.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some people do believe that eye witness testimony is credible. It is at least not credible for you. Would you fault others for being persuaded?

But, as he explained, it's not sufficiently credible for you either.

Because you don't believe Jospeh Smith's testimony.
You don't believe the testimonies of chakra alignment healers.
You don't believe the testimonies of alien abductees.
You don't believe the testimonies of Mohammed.
You don't believe the testimonies of bigfoot or the lochness monster.

You actually only "believe" those testimonies that agree with what you already believe religiously.

This means that you don't believe in testimony. Rather, you believe in confirmation bias.

 

[Tinker Grey]

let me ask you this: do you think that if we had a self replicating molecule it can evolve into something complex like a walking robot?

Take it back to the CvE forum.

 

[Tree of Life]

Proof produces certainty, while evidence merely provides confirmatory support.

So proof is simply very strong evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So proof is simply very strong evidence?

I don't get what you find confusing about what I said.

No. Really strong evidence, doesn't produce certainty. It just makes something very very very likely.

Proof is what you find in math and stuff.

 

[Tree of Life]

I don't get what you find confusing about what I said.

No. Really strong evidence, doesn't produce certainty. It just makes something very very very likely.

Proof is what you find in math and stuff.

Is it possible to prove that a defendant committed a crime?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is it possible to prove that a defendant committed a crime?

In the US, you may recall, it is required to "prove beyond reasonable doubt." It is impossible to prove beyond all doubt.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is it possible to prove that a defendant committed a crime?

Not in the sense of absolute certainty, no.

This is why courts have those qualifications of burdens like preponderance of the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, etc.

There is no qualification that says "with absolute certainty", or not even "beyond all doubt".

 

[Tree of Life]

In the US, you may recall, it is required to "prove beyond reasonable doubt." It is impossible to prove beyond all doubt.

Are scientific and rational proofs of the same mettle?

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't understand the confusion.

Is your god omniscient? If so, it knows what would convince me.
Is your god also omnipotent? Then it is capable of making it happen.
Is your god also good (omni-benevolent)? Does it love everyone including me? Does it require me to acknowledge it in order to "save" me? Then it would want to do what it can to make what it knows would convince me to acknowledge it.

If your god is omniscient and omnipotent, it also knows how to do that thing that would convince me without violating my free-will (anticipating an objection).

All your points indicate that you dismiss God because He doesn't do what you think He should do.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yeah. No. A god that allows anyone to go to hell when he could prevent it is evil.

So you're against human freedom of choice and responsibility then.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So you're against human freedom of choice and responsibility then.

An omniscient, omnipotent god could convince me without violating freedom of choice.

 

[Hieronymus]

You know you are being scammed when the Bible says that 'without faith it is impossible to please God.'

Oh okay..

The point would be that your suspicion that atheists really believe is as baseless as asserting that Xians really disbelieve.

What are Xians? Sounds like a Chinese tribe.
As for your point, if all atheists (the ones that propose God does not exist, not agnostics calling themselves atheists) really wouldn; t believe in God, than why do so many of them motivate their beliefs with reasons to hate God?
Why is R. Dawkins always angry when he shares his views on God?

But maybe i know why.
At least, there seems to be an issue in particular.
Let's quote Darwin (who by the way was not an atheist):

"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine."

I fully agree with this, but i disagree with the bolded part.
It is however the traditional view, which is despicable in my opinion too.
It is even considered "controversial" on CF when you address the scriptural problems the traditional view has.
But i know the traditional view is a common reason to dismiss God or even hate Him and everything associated with Him.
I've been struggling hard with this issue myself for some 2 years, but i was convinced God of the Bible = God Almighty.
Never before have i hated God so much as i did then.
Fortunately at some point i had the cohones to research this question to be sure where to stand on this.
Sorry i digress, but long story short, i discovered the case for the traditional view is quite weak, whereas the case for conditional immortality is much much stronger, based on what the Bible teaches.

So i'm just saying that i understand the reasons why people hate God and choose to deny Him.
Especially in our self entitled snowflake culture, there is more besides that big objection, and many people are eager to quite mine the Bible to justify their hate.

In all, it's a sad state of affairs..

 

[Hieronymus]

An omniscient, omnipotent god could convince me without violating freedom of choice.

I guess He could.
But who are you to decide He should?

 

[Hieronymus]

I think we can just all pack our bags, and close shop Meaning, we can just close this thread now.

Bye then.
(i mean, you can also just leave...)

 

[Hieronymus]

Individuals don't evolve.

You, like all creationists, don't even understand the subject you are attempting to criticize.

If you understood what you actually believe, you wouldn't be such a zealot.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If you understood what you actually believe, you wouldn't be such a zealot.

Since you apparently have access to the information, tell me - what do I actually believe?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So i'm just saying that i understand the reasons why people hate God and choose to deny Him.

Firstly, I don't 'hate' Yahweh, or any other non-entity you care to imagine. He is as innocent as any other character from fiction. He is not the problem. The problem is the people who purport to speak and act on his behalf, in the real world, in ways that affect me and others.

Secondly, no one 'chooses' what they believe. You are either convinced, or you are not. I am
not.

In all, it's a sad state of affairs..

How profound.

 

[Hieronymus]

You believe that corrupted code that still runs and is copied, and accumulates corruption as it gets copied, provided it still runs, can miraculously come up with new purposeful code and in larger amounts (more bytes).
And not just in the margins, but producing completely different kinds of operating systems and specialized applications, better than any programmer (human level intelligent design) ever could.
And if you're a naturalist, you have to account for the systems necessary to write, copy, read and implement the code too, with unconscious forces of nature.
You will have to account in general for the fact that the emergence of living nature went in the opposite direction of the natural process of decay.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You believe that corrupted code that still runs and is copied, and accumulates corruption as it gets copied, provided it still runs, can miraculously come up with new purposeful code and in larger amounts (more bytes).
And not just in the margins, but producing completely different kinds of operating systems and specialized applications, better than any programmer (human level intelligent design) ever could.
And if you're a naturalist, you have to account for the systems necessary to write, copy, read and implement the code too, with unconscious forces of nature.
You will have to account in general for the fact that the emergence of living nature went in the opposite direction of the natural process of decay.

Nope. I believe exactly none of that. Next time you want to demonstrate your magical mind-reading powers, you're going to have to do better than parroting the rectally-extracted naked assertions of your favorite creationist propaganda mill.

Or don't. By all means, keep pretending to know what you're talking about. You make a useful example of yourself.