Argument for God's existence.

[createdtoworship]

That’s like asking for proof a cat is not a dog. It’s right there in the definition.

but phylogeny says that most animals have descended from a common ancestor, so are you sure you can define cat and dog in a mutually exclusive way?

I’m going to read between the lines and assume you’re asking how we can tell the difference between any given perception being a mirage or a hallucination. And that’s simple enough: ask yourself whether the perception is in line with the kinds of circumstances under which mirages are known to happen. Ask others if they, too, can see the mirage. Take a picture and see if the mirage shows up. Is the answer no to at least two of those questions? You’ve got a hallucination.

you are correct you can settle if a mirage is a hallucination by consulting with other eye witnesses. But then again you are having faith in external sources. You believe they are telling the truth, correct?

And? You also don’t need facts to prove things in the exact same way. In fact, disproving one thing requires proof of another. So what’s your point?

no disproving something does not require proof at all, you simply refute the logic for example.

Why do you only ask for proof of things you don’t want to believe, but easily accept other things as “common knowledge?”

they are different things, common knowledge is different than proof. You don't have to have proof to believe in something, it's called faith. I believe in God because there is proof (I adress this in post one of this thread), but to believe in the Bible, and Jesus it takes more faith. Even though the fact that Jesus existed is common knowledge among most scholarly circles. But common knowledge is not proof. But it is good enough to have a faith that is not blind faith. I hope that answers your question into why I use both terms.

 

[createdtoworship]

And I did prove it, logically. Hallucinations and mirages are by definition two entirely separate phenomena, so one is by definition not the other. Why are you struggling with this?

but you cannot prove that a mirage is not a hallucination without having faith in some external witness. That is not proof. I guess we have different definitions for proof.

The existence of mirages is proven.

not without having faith in externals.

Are you asking me personally if I can do the demonstration for you? I could, if I were so inclined, but why should it be me?

because you know that it's impossible to prove nearly any fact, other than math, and this is a perfect example. It's just you usually realize that you can't and don't try. So it's fun seeing you squiggle to try to make this work for you.

There’s plenty of actual scientists out there who already did the work so I don’t have to. Seriously, just go look it up.

this is a bandwagon fallacy. A few hundred years ago scientists unanimously believed in God. Does that make it true? This is not proof.

Way to miss the point. Your whole argument has been that scientists disproved spontaneous generation without facts and without proving anything, and I have shown you that that is not the case. So you need to abandon this notion that scientists don’t use facts or facts don’t exist. It’s bizarre and wrong.

the point is that you agree that you dont' need facts to disprove something, all you need is a refutation to the logic. For example if your argument is not valid. Say I say 2+2=3, that is an invalid statement, logically speaking. I did not attest to any outside facts other than what was in the actual argument.

It teaches us that you have defined the word “fact” in a way that is entirely useless and entirely peculiar to you alone.

bandwagon fallacy, again.

 

[gaara4158]

but phylogeny says that most animals have descended from a common ancestor, so are you sure you can define cat and dog in a mutually exclusive way?

In the same way that you are not your cousin, yes. Don’t be disingenuous.

not without having faith in externals.

If you’re appealing to global skepticism to salvage your point, you’ve lost.

because you know that it's impossible to prove nearly any fact, other than math, and this is a perfect example. It's just you usually realize that you can't and don't try. So it's fun seeing you squiggle to try to make this work for you.

I’ve already told you the type of proof we’re discussing isn’t mathematical, it’s “proof” in the colloquial sense, as in sufficient empirical evidence to warrant belief. So your whole little spiel about science having no mathematical proof is a red herring. It doesn’t matter. Find a better excuse to reject science that’s inconvenient to your worldview.

this is a bandwagon fallacy. A few hundred years ago scientists unanimously believed in God. Does that make it true? This is not proof.

It’s evidence. And it’s not the bandwagon fallacy. Seriously, just go look up how mirages work. It’s not controversial.

the point is that you agree that you dont' need facts to disprove something, all you need is a refutation to the logic. For example if your argument is not valid. Say I say 2+2=3, that is an invalid statement, logically speaking. I did not attest to any outside facts other than what was in the actual argument.

There are certain types of claims that can be shown to be false, or disproved, purely by virtue of some logical contradiction in the premises. That does NOT mean that all claims can be disproved that way or that claims that can’t be disproved this way can’t be disproved. Further, this is also true for proving things. So again, whatever you’re trying to say I agreed to doesn’t matter. It’s great we agree on something. You’re still wrong about proving something wrong without facts being any easier than proving something right without facts. It depends entirely on the claim.

bandwagon fallacy, again.

It’s never been the bandwagon fallacy. It’s been you equivocating.

 

[gaara4158]

you are correct you can settle if a mirage is a hallucination by consulting with other eye witnesses. But then again you are having faith in external sources. You believe they are telling the truth, correct?

Yes, because there is no evidence that everyone should be lying to me along with my eyes.

no disproving something does not require proof at all, you simply refute the logic for example.

That’s called a proof. You are proving the presence of a logical contradiction.

they are different things, common knowledge is different than proof. You don't have to have proof to believe in something, it's called faith. I believe in God because there is proof (I adress this in post one of this thread), but to believe in the Bible, and Jesus it takes more faith. Even though the fact that Jesus existed is common knowledge among most scholarly circles. But common knowledge is not proof. But it is good enough to have a faith that is not blind faith. I hope that answers your question into why I use both terms.

You’re going to have to provide better definitions of faith, common knowledge, and proof before that answer can even begin to make sense.

 

[ananda]

so basically you are saying you reject general relativity for subjective Buddhism. Well you can do that, that's ok. But don't expect us to look at it as a persuasive argument.

No, I'm saying I believe knowledge obtained via personal, direct observation is superior to knowledge obtained via speculation/reflection/logic (and the latter is superior to knowledge heard from others/hearsay).

 

[Caliban]

That is because since the 1920's secular humanists have controlled the Establishment, which includes public schools from 1st to 12th grade, the government, public university education, popular entertainment, and the mainstream media. All of which teach us that the Christian God is either irrelevant or non existent. So most scientists have been brainwashed with this propaganda against Christianity for 90 years.


Because His communication to us has told us that He still exists and is perfect and good. And then once we start believing in Him our experiences confirm what His word has said about Him.


Many scientists have but they either get ignored or blacklisted by the academic establishment. Read Dr. Jerry Bergman's book "Slaughter of Dissidents."

Maybe consider that instead of everyone being conspiratorially brainwashed, they are simple unpersuaded by theistic arguments. For example you write that, "...His communication to us has told us that He still exists and is perfect and good..." Do you see how this is unconvincing to those who don't already believe? People say the same thing about the Koran--I don't find that argument convincing when Muslims give it; why would it be compelling when you do?

Look, the world is changing; religious thinking in the West is in decline. You are going do have to do more intellectual work to convince a growing skeptical population that there is an invisible, all knowing God who want a relationship with them. Don't just preach or convince the already convinced. Bring real, hard evidence. But, don't say we are all brainwashed just to get believers off the hook. I'm one of those brainwashed educators, by the way.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Think about what you’re saying. Every eye is fully functional as long as it’s doing what it does. You’re proposing evolution produce an eye that does nothing. That’s not how evolution works.

No, that is what would be expected if evolution were true, that there would be vestigial organs that no longer have function, but that is not what we find, so evolution is unlikely to be true. Most so-called vestigial organs have now been found to have functions.

 

[Caliban]

No, that is what would be expected if evolution were true, that there would be vestigial organs that no longer have function, but that is not what we find, so evolution is unlikely to be true. Most so-called vestigial organs have now been found to have functions.

That is not how the evolutionary process works. The eye evolved through small degrees because those allele changes that helped a creature detect light increased reproduction, thereby passing on those genes on to the next generation. Here is a link:
Eye Evolution

and another:
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

 

[Ed1wolf]

In case this point has not already been drilled down extensively; doesn't it seem odd that a claimed all powerful God's existence is still being debated after such time?

God chose not to have overwhelming evidence, though it is pretty close to overwhelming evidence for His existence, because of His desire for us to freely choose Him and not be forced against our will to believe in Him. Also, He wants us to grow spiritually and that requires some belief based on faith. But most belief is based on evidence as Christ taught by doing all His miracles as evidence for who He was.

cv: It also appears odd that God used to 'intervene' with His creation often, but now chooses to remain 'hidden' to many/most.

No, God has never intervened supernaturally often. The Bible covers a period of 13.8 billion years and if you count up the number of supernatural events, they are very small for such a long period. The bible teaches that 99.9% of the time the universe operates according to natural law. Read Jeremiah 33:25.

cv: Seems as though the mundane knowledge of the one true God's existence might be common knowledge by now?

And yet, instead, theists appear reduced to presenting such argumentation for His mere existence, to this day; and most likely moving forward.

It is common knowledge but due to humans natural hatred of the true God, they try to rationalize away His existence from childhood on. And by the time they are adults most have made up their own version of God or a small percentage of people who often have bad relationships with their fathers, ie, atheists, have come to think there is no evidence for His existence.

cv: Does anyone have anything tangible/useful/relevant to at least lay to rest further skepticism, doubt, or disbelief for His claimed mere existence?

There is enough evidence to pretty much do so, but see above about human nature's natural hatred of Him. But the overwhelming majority of humans believe in some type of supreme being.

 

[gaara4158]

No, that is what would be expected if evolution were true, that there would be vestigial organs that no longer have function, but that is not what we find, so evolution is unlikely to be true. Most so-called vestigial organs have now been found to have functions.

Of course we find vestigial organs all over the place. That’s not controversial. But I’m not talking about vestigial organs, I’m talking about organs that never had a function but slowly developed one over generations. That’s the sort of “half eye” you’re suggesting we should find. And that’s not correct.

 

[createdtoworship]

In the same way that you are not your cousin, yes. Don’t be disingenuous.

but remember you said this:

That’s like asking for proof a cat is not a dog. It’s right there in the definition.

so technically you are not saying that I am not my cousin (because we are the same species, you specifically said that it is foolish to ask for proof that a cat is not a dog), different species. And then I posted how different species according to your own view share common ancestry. So I believe it still refutes what was said, and is not disingenuous at all.

If you’re appealing to global skepticism to salvage your point, you’ve lost.

say I can say that God exists, and provide a scientist that says He has found evidence that God exists. But He a fundamental christian. Wouldn't you question His motive for finding God? I admit honestly that bias exists, and questioning the fact that you exclusively used external sources to prove your point is not a losing battle. Can you prove your sources were not only honest about their reporting, but were not biased in the least? I didn't think so.

I’ve already told you the type of proof we’re discussing isn’t mathematical, it’s “proof” in the colloquial sense, as in sufficient empirical evidence to warrant belief. So your whole little spiel about science having no mathematical proof is a red herring. It doesn’t matter. Find a better excuse to reject science that’s inconvenient to your worldview.

"so is sufficient empirical evidence to warrant belief" really proof? I would say no. So you refute yourself here when you equivocated empirical evidence for proof. When they are different things. I never equivocated the two, but fully understand that proof is proof, and evidence is not necessarily proof. You would do wise to distinguish them as well, for future success in debate.

It’s evidence. And it’s not the bandwagon fallacy. Seriously, just go look up how mirages work. It’s not controversial.

are you honestly saying that if I say because the majority of scientists believed in God a few hundred years ago, that God must exist, that I would not be using the bandwagon fallacy? If I can commit a bandwagon fallacy by literally saying the same thing you do, then why can't you commit the same fallacy?

There are certain types of claims that can be shown to be false, or disproved, purely by virtue of some logical contradiction in the premises. That does NOT mean that all claims can be disproved that way or that claims that can’t be disproved this way can’t be disproved. Further, this is also true for proving things. So again, whatever you’re trying to say I agreed to doesn’t matter. It’s great we agree on something. You’re still wrong about proving something wrong without facts being any easier than proving something right without facts. It depends entirely on the claim.

yes all claims can be refuted by logical weakness. Logical weakness is something that can refute any known claim, granted it has a weakness. I never said that a comment that has no weakness can be refuted by claiming it does in fact have a weakness. I simply said that when you refute comments, it is not required to have proof. There are many examples of refuting comments due to invalidity using inherent information in the text that refutes it.

It’s never been the bandwagon fallacy. It’s been you equivocating.

Saying you hear no evil, and see no evil does not help you from committing that evil over and over again.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I'm saying I believe knowledge obtained via personal, direct observation is superior to knowledge obtained via speculation/reflection/logic (and the latter is superior to knowledge heard from others/hearsay).

so the context of these statments was that you were rejecting a known scientific law, and saying that "buddhism" is better. Is this still how you want to play this?

 

[gaara4158]

so technically you are not saying that I am not my cousin (because we are the same species, you specifically said that it is foolish to ask for proof that a cat is not a dog), different species. And then I posted how different species according to your own view share common ancestry. So I believe it still refutes what was said, and is not disingenuous at all.

John is not Jacob, a dog is not a cat, and a mirage is not a hallucination. This is not that. This is basic logic. Stop it. Just stop.

say I can say that God exists, and provide a scientist that says He has found evidence that God exists. But He a fundamental christian. Wouldn't you question His motive for finding God? I admit honestly that bias exists, and questioning the fact that you exclusively used external sources to prove your point is not a losing battle. Can you prove your sources were not only honest about their reporting, but were not biased in the least? I didn't think so.

I wouldn’t care about the scientist’s biases. The evidence speaks for itself. Seriously, just go look it up.

"so is sufficient empirical evidence to warrant belief" really proof? I would say no. So you refute yourself here when you equivocated empirical evidence for proof. When they are different things. I never equivocated the two, but fully understand that proof is proof, and evidence is not necessarily proof. You would do wise to distinguish them as well, for future success in debate.

Then you’re just being precious with the word “proof” and it is absolutely meaningless to point out that scientists don’t have proof. Because you do admit that scientists provide evidence sufficient to warrant belief. So as I said your whole “proof” spiel is a red herring.

are you honestly saying that if I say because the majority of scientists believed in God a few hundred years ago, that God must exist, that I would not be using the bandwagon fallacy? If I can commit a bandwagon fallacy by literally saying the same thing you do, then why can't you commit the same fallacy?

That’s not at all what I said, and you should know it by now. Just go read one of the half dozen times I explained it to you again.

yes all claims can be refuted by logical weakness. Logical weakness is something that can refute any known claim, granted it has a weakness. I never said that a comment that has no weakness can be refuted by claiming it does in fact have a weakness. I simply said that when you refute comments, it is not required to have proof. There are many examples of refuting comments due to invalidity using inherent information in the text that refutes it.

A refutation requires either proof of a logical “weakness” or a factual error. So far you have failed to provide either for the science you object to.

Saying you hear no evil, and see no evil does not help you from committing that evil over and over again.

And you’re walking proof of that.

 

[createdtoworship]

John is not Jacob

but they are the same species,

a dog is not a cat

but they have common ancestry and have evolved from the same animal according to you own logic. ,

and a mirage is not a hallucination

this conclusion does not follow the two previous premises. .

This is not that.

It depends actually, on what this and that are. Again you don't know this for a fact.

This is basic logic. Stop it. Just stop.

I refuted every example, so I fail to see your difficulty.

I wouldn’t care about the scientist’s biases.

that is not good to admit.

The evidence speaks for itself. Seriously, just go look it up.

Second hand evidence. Not evidence that you personally gathered, that is filtered through biased and imperfect people.

Then you’re just being precious with the word “proof” and it is absolutely meaningless to point out that scientists don’t have proof. Because you do admit that scientists provide evidence sufficient to warrant belief. So as I said your whole “proof” spiel is a red herring.

how is revealing that science needs to work harder at "proofs" a "meaningless" task?

That’s not at all what I said, and you should know it by now. Just go read one of the half dozen times I explained it to you again.

I refuted it every time, but go ahead and repost your gotcha point once again. But it will have similar results.

A refutation requires either proof of a logical “weakness” or a factual error. So far you have failed to provide either for the science you object to.

it does not need proof of anything, just a basic observation of a weakness. Most conversation is based on common knowledge. You use common knowledge for mirages, and call it proof. But I showed a weakness in it, that of hallucinations. I never proved it was a hallucination, I only revealed that it is possible. You must now prove that it is not the case, in order to say that all mirages are real.

 

[ananda]

so the context of these statments was that you were rejecting a known scientific law, and saying that "buddhism" is better. Is this still how you want to play this?

The main problem I see with your "known scientific law" is that it operates on the physical plane of existence, not on the phenomenological plan.

 

[gaara4158]

I refuted every example, so I fail to see your difficulty.

I am not trying to prove that any given perception you have that you interpret as “mirage” isn’t actually a “hallucination” with this line of reasoning. I already took care of that on another line. I am explaining to you that the words “mirage” and “hallucination” have entirely different definitions. One is literally not the other, no matter what similarities you can point out between the two. You’re just being difficult because it causes you physical pain to agree with me.

Second hand evidence. Not evidence that you personally gathered, that is filtered through biased and imperfect people.

Anything I provided you, even if I did it myself, would be secondhand evidence to you. You understand that, right?

how is revealing that science needs to work harder at "proofs" a "meaningless" task?

Science is not in the business of logical proofs. It is in the business of evidence. When scientists do use logical proofs, the premises include well-evidenced facts that were discovered scientifically. It’s meaningless to complain that the facts themselves aren’t “proven.”

I refuted it every time, but go ahead and repost your gotcha point once again. But it will have similar results.

You never refuted it, you kicked and screamed and plugged your ears. But saying you can see no evil, nor hear nor evil, does not prevent you from committing that evil all the time.

it does not need proof of anything, just a basic observation of a weakness. Most conversation is based on common knowledge. You use common knowledge for mirages, and call it proof. But I showed a weakness in it, that of hallucinations. I never proved it was a hallucination, I only revealed that it is possible. You must now prove that it is not the case, in order to say that all mirages are real.

How do you know your basic observation of a weakness isn’t a hallucination?

 

[Moral Orel]

this conclusion does not follow the two previous premises.

What in the world? That wasn't a conclusion, and the other two bits weren't premises. They were all analogies, simply comparisons, of one another. You don't even know what an argument is?

 

[cvanwey]

can erosion cause mount rushmore? If so, then you have a miracle. If not then your point is moot. So I guess I really don't think you have a coherent argument here.

I'm specifically addressing your main point, with the painter analogy. So let's try this yet again.

Both painted pictures on man made canvases (and) chiseled faces on mountains are presumed done by humans. The crux of this matter is nature vs super-nature.

Erosion is deemed a natural process, right? What about the mountain in which the faces were carved upon? Is the mountain from God (or) completely natural based processes????? The reason I ask, is because I would presume the erosion upon the chiseled faces were not aided by God.

Recap:

painted pictures - made by humans
canvas - made by humans
faded paint 100 years later - natural processes

chiseled faces - made by humans
mountain - ???
erosion - natural processes
_________

Another recap... Anything deemed natural is either accounted for in 'nature' (i.e.) made by humans, animals, and/or occurs as natural processes.

How do you determine if the product/object/etc in question was conducted by 'intelligent design'?

 

[cvanwey]

That is because since the 1920's secular humanists have controlled the Establishment, which includes public schools from 1st to 12th grade, the government, public university education, popular entertainment, and the mainstream media. All of which teach us that the Christian God is either irrelevant or non existent. So most scientists have been brainwashed with this propaganda against Christianity for 90 years.

Please cite the best piece of evidence which demonstrates the existence of God/Yahweh? Then please demonstrate how, in this day and age, the 'scientific community' is able to continue to side-step/reject this strongest piece of evidence? Because at the end of the day, it's about the evidence. And yes, people can reject it. And yes, people can hold to differing standards of 'evidence.'

Thus, let's start with the 'best' piece of smoking gun evidence, and then decipher how 'science' 'brainwashes' society.

On a side note, I don't recall being in a science class, and reading in a book, 'see, this means there is no God.' Maybe you are referring to an instructor or two, whom interjected their own personal views about 'how' we got here.?.?.?

Because His communication to us has told us that He still exists and is perfect and good. And then once we start believing in Him our experiences confirm what His word has said about Him.

Okay. I hear this exact same conjecture from people whom believe in opposing god(s). Presupposition is a power 'thing.' It is easy to draw intent and meaning, and invoke any deity in which you preemptively believe upon.

Many scientists have but they either get ignored or blacklisted by the academic establishment. Read Dr. Jerry Bergman's book "Slaughter of Dissidents."

It's starting to appear that you think the scientific community has a vendetta against 'truth' (i.e) suppressing God? I'm going to ask you point/blank....

Do you feel 'science in general' is making a deliberate attempt in suppressing truth, which you feel instead points to God?

Because I can tell you that it seems obvious to the opposite; that it would appear specific sects of theistic driven doctrines seem to want to 'spin' science to work in their direct favor.

The only reason I'm asking is because it would appear you are eluding to this 'conclusion'?

 

[cvanwey]

God chose not to have overwhelming evidence, though it is pretty close to overwhelming evidence for His existence, because of His desire for us to freely choose Him and not be forced against our will to believe in Him. Also, He wants us to grow spiritually and that requires some belief based on faith. But most belief is based on evidence as Christ taught by doing all His miracles as evidence for who He was.

I think you may have missed my point. There is still legitimate debate as to His mere existence. Seems as though, by NOW, the debate would be over. The debate is no more settled, than it is for any other debatable topic regarding the 'for/against' existence something or someone in question.

And news flash, I'm not in sheer denial of His known existence anymore more or less than with any other claimed asserted god(s), ghost(s), spirit(s), alien(s), etc....

I just find the presented evidence lacking for any 'causal agent' specifically, if any at all?.?.

Seems as though, after 30+ years of attempting to locate His presence (i.e.) Yahweh, I would have been successful by now?

It is common knowledge but due to humans natural hatred of the true God, they try to rationalize away His existence from childhood on. And by the time they are adults most have made up their own version of God or a small percentage of people who often have bad relationships with their fathers, ie, atheists, have come to think there is no evidence for His existence.

Sir, if it was 'common knowledge', skeptics, atheists, agnostics, and doubters would not be wasting their time here. We might instead still debate taught doctrines of this known agent's existence, and maybe how we don't agree. But the topic of mere existence would a settled topic.

It seems as though you are stating I know of Yahweh's existence, and I'm just in some sort of denial?

There is enough evidence to pretty much do so, but see above about human nature's natural hatred of Him. But the overwhelming majority of humans believe in some type of supreme being.

Again, what is the best piece of evidence for His direct existence?

And again, the question remains, is it more probable that humans adhere to evolution - (invoking intentional agency)? Or, is God instead infusing His presence into us?