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

KCfromNC · Sep 29, 2016

Michael said:
From my (panentheistic) perspective, the whole universe is filled with physical evidence of his existence.

And yet the vast majority of people who believe in god for similar reasons strongly disagree with the god that evidence points to. Weird that so many people who think the evidence strongly points to a specific conclusion all disagree on what that conclusion is.

What most atheist "demand" is a lab demonstrated cause/effect relationship

Citation needed.

KCfromNC · Sep 29, 2016

Michael said:
My purpose in discussing dark matter is that it's a "belief" which most atheists (not all), an scientists in general accept

So do "most" Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims. Funny how things which have evidence in their favor find universal support, while belief in gods seem to be more strongly correlated to where one was born.

dickyh995 · Sep 29, 2016

ScottA said:
And what happened before that...and before that...and before that? ...You can to a Christian forum...and have been demanding proof of God ever since.

Again, the OP is "what makes you or led you to believe that a god does not exist." I simply state that you can't prove a negative. All I am saying is that to accept the claim that there is a God requires evidence, which I have yet to see.

ScottA · Sep 29, 2016

quatona said:
Yes, what?

Yes, I was invited and I came. Doesn´t mean I came "to you".

This is a flat out lie.

So...you did come to a "Christian" forum, you are not talking to me now, and you don't want proof. Excellent.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 29, 2016

Michael said:
Shall we talk about theoretical aspects of particle physics? QM theory? Seen a graviton particle recently?

Not in this thread, it's off-topic.

Since it seems you can't help seeing everything through the filter of your personal obsession with cosmology, and appear unable to directly address even the simplest proposition about something else (I even suggested a couple of possible responses), there seems little point continuing.

ScottA · Sep 29, 2016

dickyh995 said:
Again, the OP is "what makes you or led you to believe that a god does not exist." I simply state that you can't prove a negative. All I am saying is that to accept the claim that there is a God requires evidence, which I have yet to see.

At least you admit your blindness. And I am not being unkind to say so...but as it has been said countless times, by the nature of the subject of God, it is not reasonable to expect physical evidence of a spiritual entity. That seems to be the stumbling block...and it is all just arguing and demands after that, because you do not understand the terms.

But the point is - you came to us, you are here on a Christian forum. Why do you not concede to the terms, so we can move forward?

HitchSlap · Sep 29, 2016

ScottA said:
At least you admit your blindness. And I am not being unkind to say so...but as it has been said countless times, by the nature of the subject of God, it is not reasonable to expect physical evidence of a spiritual entity. That seems to be the stumbling block...and it is all just arguing and demands after that, because you do not understand the terms.

But the point is - you came to us, you are here on a Christian forum. Why do you not concede to the terms, so we can move forward?

I'm here to enlighten you.

Michael · Sep 29, 2016

KCfromNC said:
And yet the vast majority of people who believe in god for similar reasons strongly disagree with the god that evidence points to. Weird that so many people who think the evidence strongly points to a specific conclusion all disagree on what that conclusion is.

It's not really all that surprising when you stop and think about it. Astronomers today do not understand 95 percent of the universe. What little (roughly five percent) they "think" they understand about plasma is mathematically modeled using "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. In short, we live in the dark ages of astronomy where nobody really "understands" the universe physically to begin with. We use placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of it.

Once however one moves themselves out of the creation mythos way of conceptualizing the physical universe, and they start to understand it's electrical nature, it's no longer a dead, vacuous, and lifeless universe. Conceptually however one has to at least make the conceptual change from LCDM theory to EU/PC theory to even begin to consider the empirical implications and potential religious implications of an electrically active universe.

It's not surprising that most humans haven't much interest in Pantheism/Panentheism at the moment, but I suspect that will change over time as we start to observe the physical and electrical similarities between the structures of the universe and the structures of living intelligent organisms here on Earth.

Citation needed.

It wouldn't apply to every atheist even if I spent the time to round one up. Suffice to say that every time that an atheist claims that there is "no" evidence of God, they are either using a non-scientific definition of the term "evidence", or they're applying a purely empirical standard of evidence, or both.

Michael · Sep 29, 2016

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Not in this thread, it's off-topic.

Well, in the sense it relates to the topic of "evidence", it's not completely off topic.

Since it seems you can't help seeing everything through the filter of your personal obsession with cosmology, and appear unable to directly address even the simplest proposition about something else (I even suggested a couple of possible responses), there seems little point continuing.

The whole point in me selecting exotic matter theory as a focal point is because it directly impacts both ends of the physics spectrum. Both particle physicists *and* cosmologists are fixated on finding exotic forms of matter *in spite* of any empirical cause/effect justification of that idea. It's a topic that affects the whole range of physics and therefore science, and demonstrates that "evidence" of a concept isn't limited to "lab demonstrated" cause/effect demonstrations of claim.

Michael · Sep 29, 2016

KCfromNC said:
So do "most" Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims. Funny how things which have evidence in their favor find universal support, while belief in gods seem to be more strongly correlated to where one was born.

I think you'd find a stronger correlation between *religion* and where one was born, but it wouldn't be surprising if public social structures played at least some role in theistic leanings.

quatona · Sep 29, 2016

ScottA said:
So...you did come to a "Christian" forum,

I came to a discussion forum, to be more precise to the part of the forum that isn´t reserved for Christians.
I did not come to you (as you claimed).

you are not talking to me now,

I never said I didn´t. Are there no limits to your dishonesty?

and you don't want proof.

I never demanded proof (as you claimed).

Excellent.

So where´s your apology for your lies?

Standing_Ultraviolet · Sep 29, 2016

Michael said:
My purpose in discussing dark matter is that it's a "belief" which most atheists (not all), an scientists in general accept, pretty much without question, even without a *shred* of empirical cause/effect support in the lab. When most (again, not all) atheists use the term "evidence" in relationship to God, they typically use a non-scientific, and/or a purely empirical cause/effect standard of evidence. The dark matter reference is simply to point out that "science' doesn't require such a thing, and that "faith" is actually an integral part of "science". That seems to not sit too well with most atheists. It tends to be a good starting point of a conversation in relationship to what counts as "evidence" in a "scientific" sense of the term.

Dark matter is really just a placeholder term describing whatever is the cause behind some observed phenomena, like galaxies that have more mass than they should based just on the amount of regularly matter that they contain. Observations outside of the lab are an important part of science, too. Some areas of study, particularly astronomy, deal with things that are either incredibly difficult or outright impossible to bring into a controlled environment for study. That doesn't make them pseudoscience.

Any theory developed to explain an observation should make predictions that can be tested either in a lab, or by looking for them in the Universe at large. Obviously controlled experiments to confirm these predictions are ideal, but again they're not always possible. A theory about what dark matter actually is (or, by contrast, a theory that some sort of unobserved matter is not needed to explain the results found) can be tested by looking to see if its predictions are actually true. You don't have to be able to create it in a lab to do that.

Michael · Sep 29, 2016

TagliatelliMonster said:
No, it's not.

Every single piece of "evidence" that was ever presented to me, was something I was expected to "just believe".

Yet even by asking you to "just believe" in the concept of Panentheism, I'm not asking you to 'just believe' that there are exotic invisible (dark) forms of matter and energy that dominate the universe. Furthermore I can demonstrate a strong functional and mass layout similarity between the structures of the universe and structures found in intelligent organisms here on Earth. I can lay out a pretty good empirical case to demonstrate that the universe itself is electrical in nature, starting with our own sun, and the Earth's aurora.

That's not evidence. That's just piling on claims.

And you don't think that *every* cosmology theory requires that of you?

Give me something I can independently verify and which doesn't require me to believe the claims first, then we might be able to talk.

If we applied that logic, we're right back limiting "science" to purely *empirical* cause/effect demonstrations of claims, and there goes every cosmology theory known to man, save perhaps some variant of EU/PC theory, and/or Panentheism. Even Panentheism will require you to make judgement calls on the value of "evidence", like that similarities in mass/circuit layouts between the macroscopic universe and living organisms.

As it stands, I have never been presented with such.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E2DB173EF936A2575BC0A9609C8B63

If all you can do is go back to this obsession of yours in every single post, then please just let it go.

I'm simply pointing out that even the concept of "evidence" requires us all to make subjective conscious "choices" as to it's "value" to the individual.

I have never spoken about lab experiments or cause/effect relations and I most certainly haven't spoken about theoretical physics or anything of the sort.

Well, no, but your requirement that you not have to "just believe" first does tend to limit claims to things that can be demonstrated in controlled experimentation. While I might be able to convince you that a magnetic field exists in nature, I could never convince you that dark energy, gravitons, string theories, inflation or dark matter existed in nature by such a standard.

If you respond to MY posts, then please address MY posts. And not this hypothetical group of "them' atheists" you keep addressing - whomever they are.

So let's focus on your aversion to having to "just believe" first and how that that might apply to some branch of theoretical physics, shall we?

Michael · Sep 29, 2016

Standing_Ultraviolet said:
Dark matter is really just a placeholder term describing whatever is the cause behind some observed phenomena, like galaxies that have more mass than they should based just on the amount of regularly matter that they contain.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...n-signals-Mystery-unidentified-emissions.html
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=dd997917456bc55737b51428a126dc9d

I fundamentally doubt that we have the ability to know exactly how much light is obscured by dust and plasma in space, so I lack belief that astronomers can accurately estimate the amount of ordinary matter in space. Furthermore the revelations of the past decade make it obvious that the mainstream has been grossly underestimating the number of entire stars in various galaxies, as well as only "discovering" most of the mass of every galaxy in 2012, which just so happens to 'move' and be located just where 'dark matter' is required. In short, I see no evidence that any of that 'missing mass' is anything but plasma and dust.

Observations outside of the lab are an important part of science, too. Some areas of study, particularly astronomy, deal with things that are either incredibly difficult or outright impossible to bring into a controlled environment for study. That doesn't make them pseudoscience.

Actually that would be my primary point with respect to the topic of God. Atheists tend to "assume" some need for empirical cause/effect justification in the lab with respect to the topic of God, whereas "dark" stuff in astronomy demonstrates that no such standard of evidence is used in physics.

Any theory developed to explain an observation should make predictions that can be tested either in a lab, or by looking for them in the Universe at large.

That's was my point by introducing the concept of Pantheism. It can also be used to make cosmology predictions. Keep in mind that most "predictions' of LCDM theory were actually postdicted fits to know data sets, "dark energy" being the most recent change made to fit a specific observation.

Obviously controlled experiments to confirm these predictions are ideal, but again they're not always possible. A theory about what dark matter actually is (or, by contrast, a theory that some sort of unobserved matter is not needed to explain the results found) can be tested by looking to see if its predictions are actually true. You don't have to be able to create it in a lab to do that.

Then one shouldn't have to be able to demonstrate an empirical cause/effect link between "God" and the thing that humans have been writing about for thousands of years either. One cannot have their cake and eat it too. If "science" isn't limited to cause/effect claims of "evidence", then theories about God cannot be limited to such a restricted concept of evidence either.

KCfromNC · Sep 29, 2016

Michael said:
It's not really all that surprising when you stop and think about it.

No, not surprising at all to me given I think this stuff is all in believers' heads.

But it should be a bit more concerning to people who believe in gods.

Astronomers today do not understand 95 percent of the universe.

Sorry, not interested in this tangent.

It wouldn't apply to every atheist even if I spent the time to round one up. Suffice to say that every time that an atheist claims that there is "no" evidence of God, they are either using a non-scientific definition of the term "evidence", or they're applying a purely empirical standard of evidence, or both.

Not in my experience. But since we're just asserting things, suffice it to say that most times when theists talk about the reasons non-believers don't believe, they're just making stuff up.

Michael · Sep 29, 2016

KCfromNC said:
No, not surprising at all to me given I think this stuff is all in believers' heads.

But it should be a bit more concerning to people who believe in gods.

The fact that I didn't personally invent concepts like Pantheism and Panentheism demonstrates that it has been concerning to people who believe in God, including Einstein and Spinoza actually. It's certainly a more 'scientific' definition of the term "God".

Considering the fact that the mainstream (and the public) continues to be mystified by very ordinary electrical processes in plasma in spacetime, it doesn't surprise me that they aren't more interested in the concept of a living universe. It didn't really even interest me either until *after* embracing the electrical aspects of spacetime. They've currently dumbed it down to "magnetism" and gravity, and they've even made those things "bit players" which move around at the mercy of "dark" (invisible) stuff.

Not in my experience. But since we're just asserting things, suffice it to say that most times when theists talk about the reasons non-believers don't believe, they're just making stuff up.

In the sense that I don't read any minds, I can only comment on past communications and patterns I've noted in those discussions. The need for empirical cause/effect justification of God by some/most atheists is simply not a "scientific" standard of evidence. It's therefore their own subjective beliefs that dictate their "choices".

KCfromNC · Sep 29, 2016

Michael said:
The fact that I didn't personally invent concepts like Pantheism and Panentheism demonstrates that it has been concerning to people who believe in God, including Einstein and Spinoza actually.

But I thought you said you believed in a god which communicated with humans. If so, you're talking about something way different that the pantheism of Einstein and Spinoza.

Which kinda goes back to my point that while believers seem to agree certain things are evidence for their belief, that very good evidence seems to point to totally contradictory conclusions. If believers don't even know what they mean by god, how do the rest of us have any hope of learning?

It's certainly a more 'scientific' definition of the term "God".

What falsifiable predictions does it make?

Considering the fact that the mainstream continues to be mystified by very ordinary electrical processes

Booorrrrinnngggg!

The need for empirical cause/effect justification of God by some/most atheists is simply not a "scientific" standard of evidence.

In what way?

Michael · Sep 29, 2016

KCfromNC said:
But I thought you said you believed in a god which communicated with humans. If so, you're talking about something way different that the pantheism of Einstein and Spinoza.

Well, I do tend to lean toward Panentheism rather than Pantheism for that very reason. Still, the physics would be exactly the same.

Which kinda goes back to my point that while believers seem to agree certain things are evidence for their belief, that very good evidence seems to point to totally contradictory conclusions. If believers don't even know what they mean by god, how do the rest of us have any hope of learning?

As far as I know the only difference between us is the notion of a "personal" God. Evidently Einstein didn't have a particularly "personal" relationship with the thing that he called God, but that's not really my fault, nor is it much of a problem. It simply demonstrates that humans experience the presence of God differently, and perhaps some not at all.

What falsifiable predictions does it make?

I'd be inclined to start with the electrical aspects.

Booorrrrinnngggg!

You should try listening to the mainstream talk about "dark" stuff for a decade while none of their "lab predictions" worked out.

In what way?

It's far more restrictive of a standard of evidence than is ever applied in the realm of "science". In that way.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 29, 2016

Michael said:
My purpose in discussing dark matter is that it's a "belief" which most atheists (not all), an scientists in general accept

"Accept" as what? Certainly not "truth".

I'ld rather say "as the most likely idea currently available". Or "the least unlikely", if that makes you feel better.

"The most interesting field of study at the moment".

"the track that is thought to have the best chance of providing answers"

, pretty much without question

That is a lie.

, even without a *shred* of empirical cause/effect support in the lab. When most (again, not all) atheists use the term "evidence" in relationship to God, they typically use a non-scientific, and/or a purely empirical cause/effect standard of evidence. The dark matter reference is simply to point out that "science' doesn't require such a thing, and that "faith" is actually an integral part of "science". That seems to not sit too well with most atheists. It tends to be a good starting point of a conversation in relationship to what counts as "evidence" in a "scientific" sense of the term.

That is essentially the same rant that you have replied to me several times over the past 2 days. It would be funny to see the statistical occurance of this rant in your total postcount. My money is on "many times". I also expect it to be evenly spread throughout the different sub-forums.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 29, 2016

Michael said:
Yet even by asking you to "just believe" in the concept of Panentheism, I'm not asking you to 'just believe' that there are exotic invisible (dark) forms of matter and energy that dominate the universe.

Nobody is asking me to believe that. "just" or otherwise.

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

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Author: Walking Like Einstein

Well-Known Member

Author: Walking Like Einstein

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

"God"? What do you mean??

Dunkleosteus

Contributor

Contributor

Regular Member

Contributor

Regular Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads