What Would Evidence For God Be Like?

[Hieronymus]

Firstly, I don't 'hate' Yahweh, or any other non-entity you care to imagine.

Well, i didn't say all atheists hate Yahweh. But i notice many do, or at least dislike Him.
And i think i understand that too.
I just don't agree with it and often find their reasons weak or flawed.

He is as innocent as any other character from fiction.

See what you did there?
You know it's not just fiction, as in "people just making stuff up".
Or at least, you OUGHT to know that's not the case, since you choose to waste my ehm.. your time on CF.
So you have this antipathy against an idea you don't seem to understand or know about...
But that's just how it comes across for me.

He is not the problem. The problem is the people who purport to speak and act on his behalf, in the real world, in ways that affect me and others.

This would be a valid point if there were still organisations with the ambition to rule over people under the flag of Christianity.
Not so sure about how Islam will develop in the host nations though...
It's a part of the Islamic faith to fight for world domination.
Not so with Christians. (comparing the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad here).
But both religions have been (ab)used for ruling over people.
But let's not forget that atheistic views have gone hand in hand with communist regimes too.

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

I.m.o. the choice is to seek truth or not.
If you want to know something about something, in order to be able to form an opinion about it, you follow the evidence, you explore various view points.
Emotions, peer pressure and preferences often stand in the way.

But you know humans...
They have to have a need for truth before they go seek it.

How profound.

Why thank you.

 

[Hieronymus]

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

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

But you believe that mutations and natural selection can account for the whole plethora of organisms on earth, don't you?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

*snip*

Looks to me like you understand pretty well why I would be opposed to religion. You just don't seem to think the threats are anything to be concerned about.

And why would you? They don't concern you.

But let's not forget that atheistic views

Atheism doesn't have views. It has one view - a philosophical position regarding the existence of gods. That's it. Nothing else.

You're still making that extremely basic category error since the last time we crossed paths.

I.m.o. the choice is to seek truth or not.
If you want to know something about something, in order to be able to form an opinion about it, you follow the evidence, you explore various view points.

I agree. But that's not what you said. You said people choose to deny 'God'. I have never 'chosen' any such thing. I am simply, thoroughly unconvinced.

But you believe that mutations and natural selection can account for the whole plethora of organisms on earth, don't you?

Look at that, you actually correctly identified two of the five mechanisms of biological evolution. Add the other three, and you have an accurate description of my belief on the matter.

However, given that hot garbage you posted earlier, you clearly don't know what these words actually mean. So I can't award any points.

 

[Hieronymus]

Looks to me like you understand pretty well why I would be opposed to religion. You're just don't seem to think the threats are anything to be concerned about.

Frankly, i think you're barking up the wrong tree.
You're rightfully concerned about people's ambition to rule over other people.
There's a plethora of ideologies to choose from, which you can deform, hijack and abuse to help you reach your goals.
And some ideologies are rotten to the core in and of themselves, and can be dangerous when acted upon.
They hijacked the Christian faith as a vehicle for suppression and going to wars.
When you actually read the Bible, you'll see that that's not at all how Christianity was intended.
There are even forewarnings and foretellings of apostasy and corruption.

I would say you have a problem with human nature and the corruption and evils that come with (the ambition for) power.
And that makes two of us.

And why would you? They don't concern you.

Well, i live in Western Europe, where Islam is growing fast.
As a Christian i reject their beliefs, which can be a reason to kill me, according to the teachings of their prophet.
On the opposite side the indigenous snowflake population is growing more and more hostile to Christian beliefs too.

Atheism doesn't have views. It has one view - a philosophical position regarding the existence of gods. That's it. Nothing else.

Naturalism:
the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

So that's a whole different worldview than a theist would have.
That doesn't result in a lack of views.
And so there are many folks who have written a library of books from that perspective too, including ideological works.

I agree. But that's not what you said. You said people choose to deny 'God'. I have never 'chosen' any such thing. I am simply, thoroughly unconvinced.

Many people DO choose to deny God.
That doesn't mean ALL people in what ever group do.

Look at that, you actually correctly identified two of the five mechanisms of biological evolution.

It's the same as what i wrote before, but in other words.

Add the other three, and you have an accurate description of my belief on the matter.

Yes, but aren't the other 3 just different kinds of mutation, since mutation only means "change", and in the case of biological evolution, unintended / purposeless change?
I'll look it up though.

However, given that hot garbage you posted earlier, you clearly don't know what these words actually mean. So I can't award
any points.

Seems more like you didn't get the analogy..

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Naturalism:
the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

So that's a whole different worldview than a theist would have.

It sure is. How is that in any way relevant to the fact that atheism is not a worldview?

Many people DO choose to deny God.
That doesn't mean ALL people in what ever group do.

We're talking about atheists, who don't believe there are any gods. So categorically, you're not talking about the same group of people.

It's the same as what i wrote before, but in other words.

No. What you wrote before was vacuous piffle.

Yes, but aren't the other 3 just different kinds of mutation

No.

I'll look it up though.

Good. Hopefully you won't rely on the blithering morons at Answers in Genesis or some other creationist propaganda mill for your information, this time.

Seems more like you didn't get the analogy..

Considering I have had this exchange probably thousands of times with creationists in the past, I find that extremely unlikely.

Which is all to say nothing of the fact that this is completely irrelevant to the thread topic.

 

[cvanwey]

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

I have a question or two?

If the person you are writing this message to, was able to demonstrate evolution by natural selection in a way in which you could not refute it, as well as maybe abiogenesis, and maybe even other fields of study, would this begin to sway your decision process in any discernible way?

Or, would you still hold fast to your current conclusion? It's an honest question, because often times, believers will bring up this argument, but it is actually not one of the reasons they believe in Christ.

 

[gaara4158]

Responding to OP:

Your final premise is an interesting addition. Humanity’s historical attitude toward God shouldn’t affect what constitutes evidence for his existence. He either exists or he doesn’t, and adding in the premise that we’ve been rebelling against God sets you up to frame any request for evidence as a sort of rebellion in itself. You will likely insist that God’s existence is plainly evident and so disbelief is therefore willful. This would, of course, be an error.

There are a few good answers as to what would constitute good evidence for such a God’s existence. My favorite is that such a god would know exactly what it would take to convince me of his existence, and so if he wanted me to believe then he would have provided that. I do not believe, so clearly he has not provided that. So either he does not want me to believe or such a god does not exist.
My more direct answer is that God would have to be detectable in some objective sense. You say he’s invisible, but could he be spotted with SONAR? Does he have a heat signature? Can his voice be picked up by audio equipment? Can I find him without untangling a dozen philosophical arguments and being told I’m a wretched creature and really need to find him? These would be good starts.

 

[xianghua]

I take it, from your response, that you have absolutely no rebuttal to the provided counter evidence, that the bacteria flagellum model does not appear to demonstrate, or lead directly to your specific claimed and asserted God?

I take, that it appears the best rebuttal you have for me is, 'it looks too complex, therefore, it has to be not only a creator, and not only a singular creator, but MY specific creator?'

Is this the gist in which I am to understand from your response?

if you wnat the technical explanation:

1) the flagellum itself is a spinning motor. and we know that a spinning motor is evidence for design even if its mamde from organic components or has a self replicating system.

2) evolutionists showed that some parts of the flagellum can be found in other biological system. but it doesnt prove anything actually. the main reason is because we can find similar parts in both car and an airplane for instance: wheels, fuel tank etc. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

3) even the shared parts of the flagellum with the ttss are different.

 

[xianghua]

Individuals don't evolve.

so take a bunch of self replicating molecules. do you think that we will end up with a walking robot?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

so take a bunch of self replicating molecules. do you think that we will end up with a walking robot?

What a bizarre non-sequitur of a question.

 

[xianghua]

What a bizarre non-sequitur of a question.

what? a ccording to evolution all creatures suppose to evolved from a bacteria-like creature. right? so i asked what if we had a self replicating molecule\natter. do you think that such a molecule can evolve into something like a walking robot?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

what? a ccording to evolution all creatures suppose to evolved from a bacteria-like creature. right? so i asked what if we had a self replicating molecule\natter. do you think that such a molecule can evolve into something like a walking robot?

Again, evolution does not occur at the level of the individual. Your questions betray the fact that you, like all creationists, don't even know what it is you are attempting to criticize. Everything you know about evolution has apparently come from creationist propaganda mills. Or possibly, Pokemon.

 

[cvanwey]

if you wnat the technical explanation:

1) the flagellum itself is a spinning motor. and we know that a spinning motor is evidence for design

I'm afraid this explanation does not appear very 'technical'. Instead, it appears to appeal to the 'argument from ignorance.' (i.e.) 'I cannot think of better explanation', or, 'it's true because you haven't yet proven my assertion false.'

But even conceding or granting every assertion you have made thus far, let's just assume it IS 'designed'; until we get answers to the next set of unanswered questions anyways....

Please now address the other parts of my previous line of questioning.

1. How do you know the designer is a god, and not something else?
2. How do you know the designer is from one god, and not many?
3. How do you know the designer is from (your) asserted specific god alone?

 

[xianghua]

Again, evolution does not occur at the level of the individual

so take a bunch of them. do you think that a population of self replicating objects can evolve into a population of self replicating robots? also remember that evolution start at the individual level that got a new mutation.

 

[xianghua]

I'm afraid this explanation does not appear very 'technical'. Instead, it appears to appeal to the 'argument from ignorance.'

actually its not. we know that a spinning motor need design. in the same way that a watch or a car need design. this is a fact, not belief.


as for your questions: i dont know. my point only refer to design in general and not for a specific dseigner.

 

[Steve Petersen]

"I don't know, therefore God!"

 

[cvanwey]

actually its not. we know that a spinning motor need design. in the same way that a watch or a car need design. this is a fact, not belief.


as for your questions: i dont know. my point only refer to design in general and not for a specific dseigner.

In another words...

'God exists because I don't understand things."

Got it

 

[Silmarien]

There are a few good answers as to what would constitute good evidence for such a God’s existence. My favorite is that such a god would know exactly what it would take to convince me of his existence, and so if he wanted me to believe then he would have provided that. I do not believe, so clearly he has not provided that. So either he does not want me to believe or such a god does not exist.

This honestly seems like the "I abdicate all responsibility for my own decisions" response to the question. That is really the nicest thing I can say about it, lol.

My more direct answer is that God would have to be detectable in some objective sense. You say he’s invisible, but could he be spotted with SONAR? Does he have a heat signature? Can his voice be picked up by audio equipment? Can I find him without untangling a dozen philosophical arguments and being told I’m a wretched creature and really need to find him? These would be good starts.

How could the source of reality be spotted with sonar or have a heat signature? You're speaking of God as if he were a created entity and just another being within the universe, which is not what any theologian means by the term.

I think we've gotten to the point where people are wilfully ignorant about what theism even entails. I don't care if someone's a theist or an atheist, but there are about 1500 years of intellectual history that people are completely oblivious to. That's a little troubling, and means that yeah, maybe we should be untangling a dozen philosophical arguments.

 

[Moral Orel]

This honestly seems like the "I abdicate all responsibility for my own decisions" response to the question. That is really the nicest thing I can say about it, lol.

Are you saying that belief is a choice?

 

[gaara4158]

This honestly seems like the "I abdicate all responsibility for my own decisions" response to the question. That is really the nicest thing I can say about it, lol.

Fair enough, but that’s kind of the point. We’ve discussed the nature of belief before and I still hold that belief is not an act of volition. We can make choices that ultimately influence our beliefs, but we can’t directly choose them. To base salvation on something that can’t easily be “corrected” seems unjust.
In other words, I can either pursue truth in the only way I know how, in which case it is unlikely I will ever conclude that God exists, or I can pursue the belief that God exists and if I am successful, I will have no way of distinguishing my convictions from self-deceit because I would have had to employ the same methods to get there. I don’t know why a god who wanted me to believe would place me in such a dilemma.

How could the source of reality be spotted with sonar or have a heat signature? You're speaking of God as if he were a created entity and just another being within the universe, which is not what any theologian means by the term.

I think we've gotten to the point where people are wilfully ignorant about what theism even entails. I don't care if someone's a theist or an atheist, but there are about 1500 years of intellectual history that people are completely oblivious to. That's a little troubling, and means that yeah, maybe we should be untangling a dozen philosophical arguments.

If God isn’t detectable the way literally anything else in the universe is, what am I to conclude other than he’s not here? Suppose I did untangle the dozen or so philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity. Who is the philosopher’s god? Is it Yahweh? Allah? Spinoza’s? Even if I didn’t find faults in the standard theistic arguments, I don’t see a clear line pointing from “God exists” to “Entry to Heaven is based on xyz so I’d better get my act together.”