An open call for evidence

[ug333]

Why?

Because there are multiple books all claiming such evidence. Because literally any idea could be written down on paper, that doesn't make any idea true. An historical document may be sufficient evidence to believe the mundane from a physical perspective (A man existed named Julius caesar) but I can't imagine it ever being sufficient evidence to believe an extraordinary claim (Julius Caesar is a god).

It can be sufficient evidence to EXPLORE a claim further, but I don't see how it could ever be sufficient to be more.

As I mentioned earlier, Naturalism of the Gaps reasoning is just as problematic God of the Gaps reasoning. So someone saying that they don't know what caused the universe, but it wasn't God, is just as problematic as someone saying that they don't know what caused the universe, so it must be God. We should argue from what we do know, not from what we don't know. It's fine if you don't know what caused the universe, but if you go from agnosticism to naturalism, then you need to defend your position, and I find the answers that naturalism comes up with to be at least as hard to believe as those found in theism. In other words, if you have no need of God to explain the origin of life, then you need to be able to explain how it originated without God. If you have no problem buying the waving the magic wand of billions of years and presto, you've got life, then you should have no problem with accepting the existence of God.

I'm not saying it wasn't god that created the universe, I'm saying I don't know what explanation there is for the existence of the universe. You say it's god, and I ask for evidence of that claim. If I'm not convinced by your evidence, I withhold belief. That's skepticism.

Abiogenesis is a little different, but in general I would give the same response.

If you accept naturalism, materialism, and evolution, then you can't think of your cognitive faculties as being reliable. Under evolution, our behavior is adaptive toward survival and reproduction, so the same goes for the neurology that causes our behavior. The neurology that causes our behavior also causes our beliefs, so what we believe makes no difference in regard to whether it is true as long as it increases our adaptability. So if you take a particular belief, then it is as likely to be true as false, which means that the probability that our cognitive faculties give us reliable information about what is true would be rather low. So anyone who believes naturalism, materialism, and evolution has good reason to doubt whether they or any other belief that is produced by their cognitive faculties is true.

This is quite simple: I take it as an axiom that my senses approximate reality. We then test our understanding of reality against that which we perceive. This allows us to identify our flaws (which DO exist for the exact reasons stated above) as we check and cross-check ourselves against the actual real world. If we discover that we have a hyperactive agency detection, it allows us to be more skeptical of our natural intuition in these cases.

This works so long as we accept the axiom that our senses approximate reality. It doesn't require perfect logic or a perfect perception of reality, just good enough to validate ourselves against the real world.

I can not prove that it is true which is why it is an axiom. But I find it utterly fruitless to assume it's false.

Since you are bothering to talk to me, I assume you share the assumption of my axioms. If you and I both agree, and I grant them as axioms, we can move on from here

 

[Soyeong]

Because there are multiple books all claiming such evidence. Because literally any idea could be written down on paper, that doesn't make any idea true. An historical document may be sufficient evidence to believe the mundane from a physical perspective (A man existed named Julius caesar) but I can't imagine it ever being sufficient evidence to believe an extraordinary claim (Julius Caesar is a god).

It can be sufficient evidence to EXPLORE a claim further, but I don't see how it could ever be sufficient to be more.

There are all sorts of books that argue for all sorts of mutually exclusive positions, but that doesn't not mean that we can't accept what any of them claim or that their claims are equally supported by the evidence. So while I agree that we shouldn't accept anything just because it was written down, neither should we reject anything just because it was written down, so we should evaluate each claim on its own merits. Regardless of whether or not you believe that the Gospel accounts are historically accurate, something extraordinary happened 2000 years ago that altered the course of history, so you should believe that something extraordinary happened. The vast majority of all evangelical and secular scholars accept is as an historical fact that Jesus died by crucifixion, that the tomb was empty, the the post-resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith, so the issue is in regard to what is the best and most comprehensive explanation for these historical facts. If the resurrection is the best explanation, then it is reasonable to accept it at least up until you find a better explanation.

The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus' Resurrection

I'm not saying it wasn't god that created the universe, I'm saying I don't know what explanation there is for the existence of the universe. You say it's god, and I ask for evidence of that claim. If I'm not convinced by your evidence, I withhold belief. That's skepticism.

Abiogenesis is a little different, but in general I would give the same response.

Nobody believes something when they aren't convinced by the evidence, so that's just normal. Being skeptical is in regard to how much evidence someone requires relative to others before they will consider it to be sufficiently convincing.

If you have a causal series ordered per se, such with a hand moving a stick, which is moving a rock, which is moving a leaf, then all the secondary members in that series derive their causal power from the earlier members of the series, so there must be a primary member of that series of which all the secondary member derive their causal power and which does not derive its causal power from anything else, otherwise it would just be another secondary member of the series, and without which the other members would not exist as a causal series. So there necessarily must be a primary cause from which everything derives its causal power, but which is not caused by something else. This is a characteristic that is attributed to the classical God of theism, so if I can show that this cause has other characteristics that are attributed God, then it is reasonable to refer to this cause as God.

Aquinas (A Beginner's Guide): Edward Feser: 9781851686902: Amazon.com: Books

This is quite simple: I take it as an axiom that my senses approximate reality. We then test our understanding of reality against that which we perceive. This allows us to identify our flaws (which DO exist for the exact reasons stated above) as we check and cross-check ourselves against the actual real world. If we discover that we have a hyperactive agency detection, it allows us to be more skeptical of our natural intuition in these cases.

This works so long as we accept the axiom that our senses approximate reality. It doesn't require perfect logic or a perfect perception of reality, just good enough to validate ourselves against the real world.

I can not prove that it is true which is why it is an axiom. But I find it utterly fruitless to assume it's false.

Since you are bothering to talk to me, I assume you share the assumption of my axioms. If you and I both agree, and I grant them as axioms, we can move on from here

Someone can not use their sense to verify that their senses approximate reality, so I agree with the axiom that my senses approximate reality, however, I have argued that it is self-defeating to believe in naturalism, materialism, and evolution, and that someone can't consistently believe those things and hold to that axiom. But perhaps I have misunderstood you and you don't hold to those positions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Faith first: I had faith, but nothing that I experienced in that time convinces me in hindsight that God is real. I had real experiences, but they all seem clearly explained through known scientific and psychological phenomenon. As a skeptic I withhold belief until I find evidence proportional the significance of a claim. If that isn't a solid way of going through life, I would love to hear what standard I should use for belief.

ug333,

Pardon my skepticism about your skepticism, but I usually find that nearly half of what atheists and agnostics spout regarding being open to "other considerations" for standards of evaluation pertaining to religious belief is parrott talk. And much that drops from their lips is a regurgitation of the New Atheist's spiel that gets bandied about, swirling round and round like refuse in a toilet, and originating with John Loftus, Valerie Tarico, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, the late Christopher Hitchens, Peter Bogghossian, Micheal Shermer, among others like them, and before them.

What I'm going to suggest, I do so with qualms, but I get really tired of atheists and agnostics coming here, asking for help (or really pretending to) and then shewing off, with a hand-wave, just about every alternative consideration that might be available, usually because they all think their particular Scientific Predilections make for a nice poker hand; perhaps they think they've got a "Royal Flush."

Well, if they think something like that--and I think they do--I'd have to agree with them to some extent. What they have is a Royal Flush, or at least it will be; and its fitting to call it this because all of the banter, however thoughtful it may be, comes from their obstinate behinds and is a result of a form of Spiritual Constipation, one permeated with a fixation upon experience and empirical positivism--their underlying assumption being that anyone should be able to put God in a jar. With this kind of epistemological expectation, no wonder all of their deliberations about Christianity have a tough time ... passing that solid!

If you're going to "withhold belief until you find evidence proportional to the significance of a claim," you're going to be waiting a long, long, long time.

Good luck with all that, ug333!
2PhiloVoid

 

[Vicomte13]

I would believe a claim with sufficient evidence. A well documented amputee being healed would be very convincing that something is going on to me and to MANY skeptics, and it wouldn't have to be personal to me at all. Several of them would be unquestionable evidence of something amazing. Yet all cases like that have occurred in areas or times when clear records were not or could not be kept.

Internal "miracles" are consistent with my understand of human psychology. So it isn't evidence of the need for a supernatural power by my standards.

That last paragraph intrigues me. Are you saying that if I'm precious to God he will prove himself to me, but if I'm not he won't and I'll end up in hell?

Hell? Who is talking about Hell? I never mentioned it.

 

[user385]

My conscience confirms that Jesus Christ is God. Do you feel a desire within you to believe in Jesus Christ? Jesus is trying to get your attention. I may be able to answer some of your questions easier if I could know why you are asking the questions in your original post. I am glad that you want to know about God. God wants you to believe in Jesus. What are you really wanting to know? I ask these questions so I can be able to answer your questions. If Jesus visibly and physically appeared to you what would you ask Him? What would Jesus have to do so that you would believe in Him? I dont want for these questions to bother you. I enjoy a good discussion.

 

[user385]

I do not in any way want for this question to bother you. Are you willing to examine the evidence that God has given you all throughout your life? It is possible that you are wanting God to do something that He refuses to do. He loves you. He wants you to examine the evidence that He has given you. If God refuses to do what you are wanting Him to do how would you feel? God has made His eternal power and Godhead known through all of creation.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Hello.

My two cents.

To answer the original question regarding evidence. First you must ask what evidence you require.

Nt says that the non believer has consciouness and creation as 2 witnesses to Gods creation. This is the only forms scientific evidence.

To have a relationship with God is different. God will give you spiritual gifts joy, peace, love etc and then there are gifts of tongues, prophesy, etc. Jesus said he would leave us the Comforter - the Holy Spirit.

In order to get the evidence one must follow the formula. In the book of malachi it gives you the answer.

'God where r u?' - Humans
'Where r u?' - God

You must knock and the door will be open. How can those inside know your outside unless you draw attention.

You must give and you shall receive.

In order to have a relationship with God. You must take the first step and seek God.

You are nearly there. Only Jesus' sheep hear their sheppard. You have heard your sheppard calling, now make the move and come to Him.

Jesus has an offer, you really have nothing to loose by trying.

Not all of us get struck off horses or taken up by whales.

The key to meeting God is to:
Accept jesus into your heart first.

How this is done, centre yourself to God and offer yourself to Him. Visually open your heart, accept Him. Say it with conviction.

Say the lords prayer, and with full focus and an open heart commit yourself to God by acknowledging that He is who He is. Father, creator and salvation. Focus for a little bit of time by repeating the name of jesus and while doing this humble your heart and acknowledge your imperfections.

If while doing this or after this you feel joy, new, fresh or a different scope of mind. This is the start of feeling the spirit.

The holy spirit when it descends on you is like joy, backflips, a huge sensation of love - uncontrollable. If you havent felt it yet dont worry.

Where there are three ppl, the spirit will be present. If you really want this remarkable gift of joy and peace, keep trying.

You need to build a relationship with God first to get the spirit. You need communication with God which is the true definition of prayer.

Hope this helpz

Also you need faith, love and hope in God. This is also a good start

 

[ug333]

Hell? Who is talking about Hell? I never mentioned it.

I agree, you didn't. That's why I posed it as a question, as I thought it might be implied but I was far from certain.

So perhaps you can clarify what you meant in that last paragraph. Because I wasn't quite clear. Thanks!

 

[juvenissun]

I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist. To find the truth, I often revisit beliefs I have. Right now I am revisiting theism.

I'd love to hear the best evidence you have for God. How would I find out if he's real?

I'm really looking to listen, not argue. So while I may respond to tell you why the argument doesn't convince me (if it doesn't), please understand I'm just helping you understand my position so you can counter me.

I appreciate anything you have to offer.

I think you need to do something to find the evidence on yourself. You can not sit there and let people show you the evidences. You won't except them.

There is no free lunch on anything. So, what are you going to do to find out if there is any evidence or not?

 

[Vicomte13]

I agree, you didn't. That's why I posed it as a question, as I thought it might be implied but I was far from certain.

So perhaps you can clarify what you meant in that last paragraph. Because I wasn't quite clear. Thanks!

Sure. What I meant is that in some number of years, you'll die, and then you will discover that you are still alive and conscious, as a spirit, and you'll go on a journey away from here. So, at that point, the answers to at least some of your questions will be clear.

That's true for everybody, of course, which is why I don't think the question is particularly urgent.

By THAT I mean that I am not moved by a frantic desire to go out and tell people what I know about God and about what comes next, etc., from my own personal experiences, because truth is, everybody gets there soon enough and finds out for himself.

If somebody wants to know beforehand, to know now and not wait - that I can help with because I know, I've been, I've seen.

For awhile I thought this made me super-special and that I should go tell everybody, but I quickly learned that nobody believed me, or they thought I was nuts, and with a little reflection I realized that I wouldn't much accept that sort of thing from anybody else either.

I strove for awhile to find objective, third-person physical miracles, evidence in the world that others can see that indicate what I would tell them. Found a mountain of it and used that, for awhile. But it's tiring because people argue with you, and really, if God wanted them to know that now, he'd tell them, or make them receptive to it. If they're not, then it's not their time yet, and I'm certainly not going to change that.

And why would I try anyway? God's got it under control, and the river's going to move at the rate it's going to move - I can't push the river even if I wanted to.
I thought I wanted to, long ago, but soon enough I realized that I'm not really interested enough in other people's religion or spiritual state to spend MY time, that I could be spending doing what I want to do, haranguing them about something they're going to find out anyway sooner or later, so I stopped.

What caught my eye about your thread here is that you have much of the mindset that I did before God grabbed my face and talked to me, except that I always had that childhood miracle to tell that the Universe particularly loved me for some reason. It was never hard for me to believe that I was special, and I never walked around with the self-flagellation cord that some Christians find stylish. It's pointless.

That's why I'm talking to you. I see a kindred spirit.

 

[Meowzltov]

Every time I get depressed, I become an agnostic, so I'm very familiar with the kinds of arguments an agnostic might have against theism. I also know from my self talk what things I say back that keep me an agnostic rather than become an atheist.

1.
What is the cause of the Big Bang?
All of explanations are non-scientific -- they cannot be tested by science. They can be argued, but NOT TESTED. For anyone to hang their hat on a particular idea is a religious belief, whether it is exploding multiverses or God. The fact is, once there was nothing, no matter and no energy and no time and no space, and then there was something. Science has shown this. That sure sounds like Creation ex nihilo to me.

2.
The direction of the universe?
Some people call this design. But I don't want to oversimplify. We can hardly stand to bear our large brained babies our of our small wombs it is so painful, that doesn't sound like that great of a Designer. So what's going on? If you look at particulars, things look random, but if you look at the direction, you see a pattern. think of a tree. The branches go every which way. You never know where another branch is going to pop out or exactly which way it is going to go. But if you look at the tree,IT GROWS UP towards the sun. In the same way, since the moment of the Big Bang, every "choice" of which laws of nature to have, have set into motion a fall of dominos that however curly and chaotic the chain, all flow in the same direction, and that is to the evolution of morally sentient life. Chance? I don't think so.

3.
Insanity? Or trusting my experience?
I have had religious experiences. I am what they call an ecstatic mystic. You can look that up online if you like. It connects me with the Divine in a way like no other in the world. There are only two possibilities: either it is a valid experience, or I'm nuts and my perception cannot be trusted. I can't live a normal life walking around thinking I can't trust my perceptions -- that WOULD drive me nuts.

4.
Trusting common sense?
Common sense is often connected to INTUITION, which is when our unconscious minds connect the dots on a very high level. It is a form of reasoning itself, and not to be treated lightly. Common sense tells us our lives have meaning and purpose, that what we do counts, not just to us, but objectively. When I say common sense I mean that this sense is so strong that we simply take it for granted, we don't even think about it. Even if we adopt a philosophy is logically opposed to it, we will still be inclined to believe it. And there ARE philosophies out that that are opposed to it. Atheism has as its worldview that there is no objective meaning; we only have the meaning we make for ourselves (which really can't be real meaning then). So the atheist has a conflict between his reasoning mind and his intuition. What should he do? I suggest that the odds are much, much greater that an error is being made in the realm of reasoning.

 

[Vicomte13]

The fact is, once there was nothing, no matter and no energy and no time and no space, and then there was something. Science has shown this. That sure sounds like Creation ex nihilo to me.

It does sound like that. But no, science has not shown that once there was nothing, and now there is something. That also cannot be demonstrated empirically. That itself is a belief. We cannot look back to nothing. As far back as we can see, there is something. We then extrapolate that back to nothing, but that's mathematical speculation, not science. We build the model back using that speculation, but we never get back scientifically to nothing, we only get back to something.

 

[Meowzltov]

It does sound like that. But no, science has not shown that once there was nothing, and now there is something. That also cannot be demonstrated empirically. That itself is a belief. We cannot look back to nothing. As far back as we can see, there is something. We then extrapolate that back to nothing, but that's mathematical speculation, not science. We build the model back using that speculation, but we never get back scientifically to nothing, we only get back to something.

Not true.

 

[Hawkins]

I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist. To find the truth, I often revisit beliefs I have. Right now I am revisiting theism.

I'd love to hear the best evidence you have for God. How would I find out if he's real?

I'm really looking to listen, not argue. So while I may respond to tell you why the argument doesn't convince me (if it doesn't), please understand I'm just helping you understand my position so you can counter me.

I appreciate anything you have to offer.

What evidence do you have for what you yourself just did yesterday?

History is never about evidence, it's about witnessing. Someone wrote about what you did yesterday for others to get to know what you just did. Basically there's no other way round. In modern times, we can tape and record what you did, however that's just the enhanced form of witnessing, say, someone can still fake it by editing and messing the record timer. You still need faith to believe what is shown.

That said, the difference between history and religion is that, history is the witnessing of something you can comprehend by your experience and speculation. Religion is the witnessing of something which may go beyond your comprehension. Both can contain truth and both can be faked. Both may not be evidenced.

By disregarding the part of history unsupported by evidence simply means there's no history at all.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist. To find the truth, I often revisit beliefs I have. Right now I am revisiting theism.

I'd love to hear the best evidence you have for God. How would I find out if he's real?

I'm really looking to listen, not argue. So while I may respond to tell you why the argument doesn't convince me (if it doesn't), please understand I'm just helping you understand my position so you can counter me.

I appreciate anything you have to offer.

Like empirical, solid evidence; or at least an airtight rational argument?

I'm not aware of any.

-CryptoLutheran