Evidence of God in the world?

[Mountainmike]

I’ll talk about evidence with people who aren’t so quick to dismiss evidence on principle of it coming from a site they disapprove of.

Pure sophistry on your part. I don't care what site it comes from per se. I do care that original sources are found and checked and not misrepresented as they normally are on sceptic sites, which is why they are a waste of time for anyone interested in researching the evidence.

I also research both sides of arguments, you seemingly research neither, but you accept the conclusions of one side because it supports your world view. I prefer critical thinking and science.

So far you give no indication you even look at evidence. And unless you do you have no business posting on a thread about evidence. Come back when you are willing to research it.

 

[Mountainmike]

What possible evidence allows you to leap from an empirical model to a supernatural one?

A false dichotomy and straw man. Supernatural is not a model and arguably just a subjective word.

What interests me is evidence:
(1) in which the axiomatic model appears not to apply
Combined with
(2) clear link to a theistic event , dogma or aspect
Like forensic evidence of a Eucharistic miracle.

Which you might discover if you ever look at the evidence.

 

[gaara4158]

Pure sophistry on your part. I don't care what site it comes from per se. I do care that original sources are found and checked and not misrepresented as they normally are on sceptic sites, which is why they are a waste of time for anyone interested in researching the evidence.

I also research both sides of arguments, you seemingly research neither, but you accept the conclusions of one side because it supports your world view. I prefer critical thinking and science.

So far you give no indication you even look at evidence. And unless you do you have no business posting on a thread about evidence. Come back when you are willing to research it.

Go and read all my replies to you again. You don’t even fully comprehend those, I doubt you comprehend both sides of the issues.

 

[Mountainmike]

You write all the usual sophistry mixed up with all the usual strawmen that protects an atheists apriori world view

I would "prefer if YOU trust your reason" more than your prejudice.

Which bit of "read the original sources - not skeptic sites - if you want to know the truth" do you object to?

I have always thought it must be profitable to run a sceptic site because the readers are so unscientific and so undiscerning they will accept ANY argument misrepresentation or falasy provided the skeptic conclusion is reached for which piece of confirmation bias they give each other "critical thinking" awards!. And then other sceptics even refer to the void of reason and evidence as somewhere others should look! Myself I prefer the actual evidence.

You seem to find it safer to attack your strawman view of what I know and study based on pure assumption :than to debate a single example and see which one of us knows more of the arguments made by both sides.
It seems you dont "prefer to trust your reason" enough to enter such debate.


This is an evidence thread. Come back when you want to talk evidence and science - having read the evidence would be good. If you dont want to talk evidence, butt out.

Go and read all my replies to you again. You don’t even fully comprehend those, I doubt you comprehend both sides of the issues.

 

[FIRESTORM314]

It's not a trick question. I'm asking you if there's any belief you can't adopt merely by faith. The correct answer to that is no, there is no belief you couldn't adopt merely by faith. Faith can be used to justify any belief you want, even if it's false. Therefore, faith is not a reliable method of coming to true beliefs. So, you'll have to excuse me for not starting out with faith in my search for truth.

I didn't think it was a trick question - I just didn't understand what you were asking.

Well that could be an excuse for someone in a Muslim Country or Even India or China. There is much untruth flying around so we must examine the facts of our belief - do we get the confirmation from God Himself or do we listen to our spiritual teachers or even our own minds? The confirmation is Christ In You - it is from God.

But you are in the US - and Christianity is the main religion. You have been exposed to a whole lot of Christian Teaching and the bible says Faith comes by hearing. You didn't hear. The second thing you miss is that the Holy Spirit is very much active in the world - he has probably questioned you many times himself without you even knowing it - in your dreams , in your mind when you are awake, etc. You have so far have not responded to the Spirit himself or even believed a word of human testimony. If you had - you would know the Truth.

Again - I remind you - God himself is the observer and looking at you for you to prove who you are.

He sees the Muslim and the Hindu too. He knows they don't have the written word. He is able to test them all by himself. You are more fortunate than they are as you have the added bonus of human teaching and preaching and access to the written word. You would therefore have very little excuse for not coming to true beliefs. ( using your own words )

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure, we don't have the perfect epistemology at our disposal so we shouldn't lean too heavily on any single one. It just puzzles me that you would take the Bible and let it dictate how you evaluate its claims when I can't imagine you do that for anything - or anyone - else. Do you do the same for the Qur'an and the Vedas?

Yes, I do. And what that means is that I allow each religion to define itself, AND ONLY THEN do I attempt to "empirically test" it out.

The caveat in this is that I actually do have to mediate and interpret what the Biblical writers, or those of any religion, are trying to tell us, which is where Philosophical Hermeneutics comes in. So, there has been a good measure of study [and rational deliberation] that has come into my epistemic journey before I've been able to find "faith." Of course, it also helps if a religion seems to appeal to me on an aesthetic level as well, which Christianity certainly does.

Now, back to what you said about "not leaning too heavily on any single one." I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? It almost sounds like you and I share some intuitions about epistemology, but at the same time, I'm wondering: if we can't lean too heavily on any single epistemology, then when we handle and engage Christianity on an individual basis, what are we doing epistemically........really? And how would our realization that no one epistemology completely works then mediate (or cut down) attempts at "being empirical" while handling biblical concepts?

 

[Mountainmike]

Amazing.
On a thread that purports to be "evidence of God" not a single atheist has challenged any of the evidence I suggested they look at. They not only refuse to discuss it! They refuse to even look at it!

I meet and have met many scientists, including the odd nobel laureate.
Some of them part of our sciecne history. Like Gabor who invented holography before there was even a laser to prove it! He used small holes in gold film to make low grade coherent light. Very interesting fellow to talk to. Got a nobel prize for his trouble.

Fascinating people all. One thing they all have in common is a fascination for what they dont know - they will read publications on ideas they wholly discount, on the off chance they might discover something they didnt know or new insight that will get them thinking. Indeed much science progresses by thinking the unthinkable. It is what makes up the mindset that gets people to want to be scientists.
Ive ended up reading a lot of fanciful skeptic nonsense because ot that curiosity - and equally fanciful theist nonsense too. The "lunatic fringe" as Ray Rogers once described them , help nobodies cause.

Einstein declared that common sense was a net sum of all prejudice. So just because it isnt common sense, gives nobody the right to dismiss it- until they have first investigated.

Its why I am so critical of such as Dawkins refusing to even read the evidence on telepathy, because he apriori disagrees with the premise. He wasnt being a scientist that day. Indeed one of the creeds he used with Carl Sagan was
"extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" is just about as unscientific as you can be. No scientist would ever state that. All claims must pass the same threshold.

But the pure sophistry used by atheists on here to avoid reading anythign that challenges their world view is astounding!

They will use any strawman to avoid even looking.

Are they are scared of evidence unless it comes with a readymade conclusion from their favourite skeptic dictionary? Is it a worry of that some piece of evidence that might rattle their apriori prejudice? If all this is so debunkable, why are they afraid to even engage the conversation, engage with science or evidence or even with critical thinking?
Or Is it a measure of just how deep seated their atheist belief is?

So we have a thread on evidence on which atheists wont even look at evidence, so because the atheists failed to even to take to the field:

Game, set and match.

Christianity 1 - Atheism 0 - By default.

 

[gaara4158]

Amazing.
On a thread that purports to be "evidence of God" not a single atheist has challenged any of the evidence I suggested they look at. They not only refuse to discuss it! They refuse to even look at it!

I meet and have met many scientists, including the odd nobel laureate.
Some of them part of our sciecne history. Like Gabor who invented holography before there was even a laser to prove it! He used small holes in gold film to make low grade coherent light. Very interesting fellow to talk to. Got a nobel prize for his trouble.

Fascinating people all. One thing they all have in common is a fascination for what they dont know - they will read publications on ideas they wholly discount, on the off chance they might discover something they didnt know or new insight that will get them thinking. Indeed much science progresses by thinking the unthinkable. It is what makes up the mindset that gets people to want to be scientists.
Ive ended up reading a lot of fanciful skeptic nonsense because ot that curiosity - and equally fanciful theist nonsense too. The "lunatic fringe" as Ray Rogers once described them , help nobodies cause.

Einstein declared that common sense was a net sum of all prejudice. So just because it isnt common sense, gives nobody the right to dismiss it- until they have first investigated.

Its why I am so critical of such as Dawkins refusing to even read the evidence on telepathy, because he apriori disagrees with the premise. He wasnt being a scientist that day. Indeed one of the creeds he used with Carl Sagan was
"extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" is just about as unscientific as you can be. No scientist would ever state that. All claims must pass the same threshold.

But the pure sophistry used by atheists on here to avoid reading anythign that challenges their world view is astounding!

They will use any strawman to avoid even looking.

Are they are scared of evidence unless it comes with a readymade conclusion from their favourite skeptic dictionary? Is it a worry of that some piece of evidence that might rattle their apriori prejudice? If all this is so debunkable, why are they afraid to even engage the conversation, engage with science or evidence or even with critical thinking?
Or Is it a measure of just how deep seated their atheist belief is?

So we have a thread on evidence on which atheists wont even look at evidence, so because the atheists failed to even to take to the field:

Game, set and match.

Christianity 1 - Atheism 0 - By default.

We looked at it. We also looked at you and concluded a productive discussion isn’t likely. But whatever you need to tell yourself.

 

[Mountainmike]

We looked at it. We also looked at you and concluded a productive discussion isn’t likely. But whatever you need to tell yourself.

More sophistry. You cannot look at the breadth of evidence I presented in that time. So your statement is as you know totally false.
So lose a point in critical thinking.. And You lose another point in critical thinking for the adhominem strawman focus on me in place of valid logic, trying to play the man not the ball.

Still no comment on evidence on an evidence thread.?
So I win that round too.

Christians 2 . Atheists -2

But seriously, I am genuinely interested: why do you bother posting on an evidence thread when (a) you are not interested in discussing it and (b) not interested in reasearching it?

 

[gaara4158]

Yes, I do. And what that means is that I allow each religion to define itself, AND ONLY THEN do I attempt to "empirically test" it out.

The caveat in this is that I actually do have to mediate and interpret what the Biblical writers, or those of any religion, are trying to tell us, which is where Philosophical Hermeneutics comes in. So, there has been a good measure of study [and rational deliberation] that has come into my epistemic journey before I've been able to find "faith." Of course, it also helps if a religion seems to appeal to me on an aesthetic level as well, which Christianity certainly does.

Now, back to what you said about "not leaning too heavily on any single one." I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? It almost sounds like you and I share some intuitions about epistemology, but at the same time, I'm wondering: if we can't lean too heavily on any single epistemology, then when we handle and engage Christianity on an individual basis, what are we doing epistemically........really? And how would our realization that no one epistemology completely works then mediate (or cut down) attempts at "being empirical" while handling biblical concepts?

What I mean is that not all propositions are empirically testable, so an epistemology based on empiricism can only get us so far. It is premature to dismiss a claim based solely on our inability to demonstrate it empirically. However, that doesn't give us license to use whatever method we want to evaluate such claims, and it especially doesn't give the one making the claim license to direct the way you evaluate it. What I'm referring to is mostly our intuitions about things that are beyond our scope of investigation; aliens, other universes, an afterlife, and yes, God. We can't demonstrate their existence or non-existence, but we still have standards for what we consider to be likely true vs. not among these types of things.
I do think if you want to understand the Bible as it is intended to be understood, by all means go through the process it prescribes. I just have a problem going from understanding what it's trying to instill in its followers to actually believing in the factuality of its claims. One can imagine a much cruder manuscript demanding uncritical acceptance of its one dogmatic claim, that suicide by cop is the only way to ascend to a blissful afterlife. Why do you reject this manuscript but accept Christianity?

 

[gaara4158]

I didn't think it was a trick question - I just didn't understand what you were asking.

Well that could be an excuse for someone in a Muslim Country or Even India or China. There is much untruth flying around so we must examine the facts of our belief - do we get the confirmation from God Himself or do we listen to our spiritual teachers or even our own minds? The confirmation is Christ In You - it is from God.

But you are in the US - and Christianity is the main religion. You have been exposed to a whole lot of Christian Teaching and the bible says Faith comes by hearing. You didn't hear. The second thing you miss is that the Holy Spirit is very much active in the world - he has probably questioned you many times himself without you even knowing it - in your dreams , in your mind when you are awake, etc. You have so far have not responded to the Spirit himself or even believed a word of human testimony. If you had - you would know the Truth.

Again - I remind you - God himself is the observer and looking at you for you to prove who you are.

He sees the Muslim and the Hindu too. He knows they don't have the written word. He is able to test them all by himself. You are more fortunate than they are as you have the added bonus of human teaching and preaching and access to the written word. You would therefore have very little excuse for not coming to true beliefs. ( using your own words )

That means absolutely nothing to me because I don't start out with the belief that God is real. Are you suggesting I should, because I live in America?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are dozens of arguments that suggest God exists.

Here are three good reasons to think that God exists:

God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

Christians hold a wide range of views on how or why God doesn't answer prayer. But Jesus taught his followers that they would suffer for his name sake. Paul also commends his apostolic authority partially to his level of suffering. Millions of Christians died martyrs deaths believing that suffering for what they believed was more important than worshiping a false God, or denying God.

The evidence for God's existence must come first. Then the answer of why Christianity as opposed to a plethora of other religious world views comes next. Best to bite off one piece at a time.

Finally, these are hard question worthy of careful thought. Theism is not obviously the case. We must engage the inferences fairly and fully.

3 PRATT's that every street apologists repeats like a mantra, not caring at all about how infested they are with arguments from incredulity, from authority, from ignorance, special pleading,...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here's my puzzle

Prove this isn't a dream.

One sentence in, and we're already at the first fallacy.
You're asking to prove a negative.

At the moment I think this Forum is a dream and this thread is a dream. This question is a dream and everything I am typing is all a figment of my imagination. I can feel the keyboard, I can hear it's sound but again this all could be my imagination.

And you concluded that, how?

As with all dreams - IT SEEMS VERY REAL. Anything could happen - If it's a good dream then a lovely young lady might appear and the dream might just shift to me walking through fields of barley holding hands with her walking bare foot . If I'm lucky she might give me one of those smiles

Now, if I've had some strong cheese, then this dream just might warp into something more sinister. The Avatar for John Cleese might stand up and would be wearing leather undies and a suspender belt. Then Start doing a silly Monty Python Walk. The OP might produce a voodoo doll with my face on it. He would pose a problem question that would keep me trapped in this thread forever. Then again , the Dream just might Go on and On with us debating and debating and debating.

Prove this isn't a dream.

How about you first prove that you can manage to actually make sense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It depends on the Experience ( however you define that? ) & then the proof would only be proof to the person receiving it.

Then you don't understand what "proof" and "evidence" is.
The whole point of those things, is that you can show it to other people to prove/demonstrate the accuracy of a claim.

If you can't do that, then all you have is a belief and a claim that is not in evidence.

You yourself would still have to make a decision based on my testimony and your own reasoning. Your own reasoning will be influenced by many things within yourself. The test equipment itself ( your mind ) could be slightly flawed?

Can your interpretation of your experiences be flawed?
Surely you are aware of how humans are very much capable of having experiences and draw completely incorrect conclusions about the nature and cause of those experiences?

The question is: how do you find out if your conclusion is accurate or not?
And by extension, how can we, third parties, find out?

Salvation is by faith.

So is crystal healing, sceances, horoscopes, fortune tellers,....

Only bad salesmen and con-men require you to have "faith".
And religions.

Can you solve the puzzle to prove this is not a dream? Could an experience solve it?

I'm not seeing a puzzle in your post.
I'm only seeing half random sentences that don't seem to make any sense.
And either way, I can't prove a negative.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh come on - this is my puzzle and I did state earlier there was a reason for it. Consider it prep for my testimony
This dream seems to be following my last assumption in that we would go on and on debating. It's a dream.

Prove that we aren't just brains in vats.
Prove that we don't live in the matrix.
Prove that an undetectable dragon isn't about to eat you.


Proving a negative: logically impossible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The only purpose in looking to this kind of evidence is to validate the source of the truth claims (the Bible). It matches the historical, scientific, archaeological evidence perfectly.

No, it doesn't.

This is because it is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God.

Clearly, it isn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Without doubt you have a bias.

Sure. I'm biased against arguments infested with logical fallacies.
I fully admit. Guilty as charged. And proud of it.

You should have the same bias. It will prevent you from believing invalid reasoning.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you somehow missed the point of the whole lesson. I can conclude not only that you have a bias - you are also not very good at reasoning.

Sorry dude, but if you first ask people to prove a negative and then don't accept the answer saying that "you can't logically prove a negative", then it's not the people who give that answer who are not very good at reasoning....

Now that can indeed be proved by an IQ TEST.

Fallacious logic is fallacious, no matter the IQ of the one using such logic.

In other words - you wouldn't see the Evidence even if it smacked you in the face

It's kind of hard to see (or feel) invisible and undetectable "evidence".

What "evidence"??

I've gone past thinking I'm in a Coma - I think I am in suspended animation but capable of conscios thought
Prove I'm not in suspended animation and all this is a figment of my imagination !

And once again..... asking to prove a negative.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well it's nice to see you want to play again - the test was a test of your attitude after all.

Maybe the "test" tells us something about your attitude as well...

Well - let's now suppose I am me ( human ) and you are God. This channel is all we have to communicate with.
You have to persuade me this is not a figment of my imagination and you are for real. Can you do that?

Considering that this is the only channel, I don't see how it could be proven that you're talking to a god and not just a human pretending to be a god. Or an AI bot pretending to be a god. Or a demon of another religion pretending to be the god you believe exists.

Now - let's also suppose there is no other people in this thread. Having got your proof that you used to persuade me you are real ( if indeed you can ). How would I be able to persuade the rest of the people in the forum that you are also real without them seeing the contents of this thread. Could I do that?

I'll rephrase the, to be honest: ridiculous, hypothetical and reformulate it like this:

If I am convinced of claim X by evidence set Y, could I then convince others of the accuracy of claim X after permanently destroying all the evidence of set Y?

I'm sure you could. People irrationally believe things without evidence all the time.
Would they be rational to accept claim X as true? No.
Would a rational person, who values evidence, be convinced of the claim without having access to the evidence? No.

Yes, this means that it can be rational to not believe a claim, wich isn't in evidence bu that in fact is accurate.

The thing is though, you need the evidence to be able to confirm that claim as being accurate. You need to first find out that it is actually accurate to be rational in accepting it as accurate.

Without the evidence, how could you possibly know that the claim in fact IS accurate?
What is, is what is. But what is, isn't necessarily what you know.
You can't know what is, until you actually know.

You know?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is it reasonable? Again - Is it not a question of Truth?
The revelation came to someone who passed God's selection test and that was also a question of Truth.

Or so that person claims.

The question was "Do You Believe This?"

You haven't given us any reason to.
Do you go around believing whatever people merely claim?