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

[Michael]

Look, here you demonstrate the first and foremost problem: "God" being a moving target. As soon as you rely on the description given by one believer, the next believer will define "God" to be completely different.

So? If you asked 100 people to describe the character of our current (or next) President, you might get 100 different answers too. We're unique individuals with unique beliefs on almost every topic under the sun, including the sun in fact. Why would you expect the topic of God to be different in that respect?

No. Actually, I am pretty confident that a possibly existing God who is interested in an "intimate, personal" relationship with me finds his way to make his existence known to me. I don´t believe for one moment that this God would play the stupid hide-and-seek game that you assume your God plays.

If one embraces Panetheism (as I do), the notion of God playing "hide-and-seek" with anyone sounds very silly indeed.

 

[Michael]

The same thing that is "stopping" me from knowing anything else..........the absence of evidence.

In my experience, even the term "evidence" becomes highly subjective, and atheists typically apply a *non scientific* definition of that term as they apply it to the topic of God. "Science" has never required a direct empirical cause/effect demonstration of a claim, whereas atheists tend to require one, but only as it applies to the topic of God, and nowhere else.

There is no empirical "evidence" that gravitons are the carrier particles of gravity, nor any lab demonstration of "space expansion", or hypothetical forms of matter. Science doesn't require a direct cause/effect demonstration of a claim to claim that "evidence (and in some sloppy cases "proof") has been presented.

In terms of the evidence of the existence of "God", history speaks for itself. It's loaded with human accounts of their relationship with something they call "God", since the dawn or recorded civilization.

 

[Cute Tink]

Try "talking to him", and "watch" for a response, is only one example... Like "God, if your real, show me please (or then) please..." Is a good example, to start with...

Oddly enough that's partially why I'm not a believer. I did this after I started questioning my beliefs and the response was nothing. I felt nothing and I realized I never had.

 

[Michael]

I was hoping you could point to something that one would expect to see if there was a god and would not expect to see if there wasn't one.

Well, for starters, I would expect to see humans writing about their relationship with God if God exists, and I wouldn't necessarily expect to observe that behavior if no such creator existed. Ditto over the "consensus" on this topic within the human population of the course of the past couple thousand years.

I see no such signs - on the contrary, all appears as one would expect if gods were the product of human imagination.

Atheists tend to see what they want to see, and ignore what they wish to ignore. It's a process known as confirmation bias. We're all a bit guilty of such behaviors.

I'd suggest that empirical physics is the final arbitrator, but even by such a standard, it's impossible to rule out the possibility of the existence of "God".

The traditional 'tri-omni' Abrahamic god concept is rightly criticised for being logically contradictory and incoherent.

In my experience, that typically is a term applied to an 'Old Testament' concept of God, and Islam also has Abraham at it's roots, so it's a term that relates to at least three current religions, including modern day Judaism, Islam, and of course "Christianity". Christ however defines "Christianity", not the "Old Testament".

It was not an atheist 'imposition on reality' but an invention of the religious. It certainly doesn't work in the real world because it isn't real. A more realistic god concept might not be so easily dismissed, but it is what it is. It seems to me reasonable to me not to believe something unless there is convincing evidence or argument for it; I see no sign of either.

Exactly what kind of "sign" were you looking for, and have your tried meditation?

 

[Michael]

The lack of evidence.

In my experience, the term "evidence" is typically abused by atheists as it relates to the topic of God, particularly when combined with the term "no".

In "science", the term "evidence" does *not* require a lab demonstration of the cause/effect mechanism in question. "Space expansion" is an example of a claim that enjoy *zero* lab support. Often an "uncontrolled observation" (photon redshift) is used as "evidence' to support such a claim, but ordinary physical processes also "cause" photon redshift.

I bring this up because the term "evidence" as it's used in science does *not* require a lab (controlled) demonstration of a claim. Simply the "effect" is enough to "imply" a cause, and the effect becomes the evidence of the hypothetical cause.

To turn mere beliefs into actual knowledge, you need evidence. Independent, verifiable evidence.

That's typically meant to require a purely "empirical" standard, yet that standard is not used in "science" today, and it's never been used in "science". If that were the standard being used in science, there would be no interest in QM ideas about gravity, no belief in "dark matter", or "dark energy", or "space expansion" of any sort.

No. Just like I never went to sleep with garlic all over by bed, just because there "could be" vampires visiting me during my sleep.

IMO that's a cop out. There is a valid scientific question as to the existence of a 'creator', and it has a valid scientific answer.

 

[Michael]

The Hebrew's were the first to conceive of "Monotheism",....

Well, not exactly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

 

[Michael]

I don't "choose" to believe these things. Rather, reason and evidence compells me to.

The problem is that there's actually a subjective (often personal) aspect associated with the term "evidence". We effectively and subjectively "choose" what we will accept as "evidence" and what we will not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that there's actually a subjective (often personal) aspect associated with the term "evidence". We effectively and subjectively "choose" what we will accept as "evidence" and what we will not.

I don't.

EDIT: maybe I should explain a little.

What I try to do, when trying to determine the truthvalue of things, is just be reasonable / rational. I like to believe as many true things as possible and the least amount of false things. I also want to be rationally justified in my beliefs. Objectivity is an important ingredient in that.

I also didn't "choose" that I was going to take that approach. Or at least not that I'm aware off.

The idea of actively subjectively choosing what type of evidence I would accept, is just weird to me.

Suppose someone says: "This guy told me that aliens kidnapped him last night" and then hands over a few blurry pictures of a black sky with 2 unidentifiable lights on it.

This is not sufficient evidence.
This is not believable.

I cannot "choose" to find it believable.
I cannot "choose" to accept the picture as evidence of flying spaceships.
I cannot "choose" to accept the hearsay anecdote at face value.

It is simply unbelievable, unacceptable. By compulsion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In my experience, the term "evidence" is typically abused by atheists as it relates to the topic of God, particularly when combined with the term "no".

In "science", the term "evidence" does *not* require a lab demonstration of the cause/effect mechanism in question. "Space expansion" is an example of a claim that enjoy *zero* lab support. Often an "uncontrolled observation" (photon redshift) is used as "evidence' to support such a claim, but ordinary physical processes also "cause" photon redshift.

I bring this up because the term "evidence" as it's used in science does *not* require a lab (controlled) demonstration of a claim. Simply the "effect" is enough to "imply" a cause, and the effect becomes the evidence of the hypothetical cause.



That's typically meant to require a purely "empirical" standard, yet that standard is not used in "science" today, and it's never been used in "science". If that were the standard being used in science, there would be no interest in QM ideas about gravity, no belief in "dark matter", or "dark energy", or "space expansion" of any sort.



IMO that's a cop out. There is a valid scientific question as to the existence of a 'creator', and it has a valid scientific answer.

Not really sure what, or how, to respond to this.

Other then to say that I disagree with the last part. At least, I've never heared of any such thing. Appreciating how much impact such a model would have, I consider it extremely unlikely that such a model exists, without it making tremendous noise in the scientific community and actually being part of our common knowledge and education.

Do you agree with what I said, that for mere "beliefs" to turn into "knowledge", you require evidence, a testable explanatory model? Or not?

Sounds like a rather random rant against science.

 

[Michael]

Not really sure what, or how, to respond to this.

Other then to say that I disagree with the last part. At least, I've never heared of any such thing. Appreciating how much impact such a model would have, I consider it extremely unlikely that such a model exists, without it making tremendous noise in the scientific community and actually being part of our common knowledge and education.

Do you agree with what I said, that for mere "beliefs" to turn into "knowledge", you require evidence, a testable explanatory model? Or not?

Sounds like a rather random rant against science.

If it came across as a rant against science, I missed the mark. Sorry.

I'm not blaming the scientific method for it's own failures, I'm simply noting that it has them, and noting the difference between "evidence" that is based upon empirically lab demonstrated cause/effect mechanisms, and "evidence" as the term is used in science today (and always). The term "evidence" has never required a laboratory demonstration of the claim. Often "faith" is the only way even even connect "cause", to "effect" in fact. While any form of matter might cause lensing patterns in space, it requires "faith" (in the unseen) in the lab to believe that an exotic form of "dark matter" is the cause. Likewise photon redshift has many known empirical causes, but "space expansion" remains an "act of faith" on the part of the believer. The concept of space expansion is not an idea that enjoys any empirical laboratory support.

Atheists tend to apply purely empirical standard of evidence as it relates *only* to the topic of God, whereas they allow for a much broader definition of "evidence" as it relates to "science". That was my point. I wasn't meant to be a rant against science. I'm actually a big fan of science, if not every "scientific" hypothesis.

 

[Michael]

I don't.

Yes you do, just like me and everyone else.

EDIT: maybe I should explain a little.

What I try to do, when trying to determine the truthvalue of things, is just be reasonable / rational. I like to believe as many true things as possible and the least amount of false things. I also want to be rationally justified in my beliefs. Objectivity is an important ingredient in that.

Hmm. The term "objectivity" sounds a tad dubious coming from an atheist when atheism is such a minority viewpoint within the human population. What makes your personal experiences and beliefs any more 'objectively' true? I get the feeling that the terms rational and reasonable also hide a great deal of subjective choice.

I also didn't "choose" that I was going to take that approach. Or at least not that I'm aware off.

Most of us are not really aware of our own biases. I'm certainly no exception. If I have a known bias, it's a preference for empirical solutions.

The idea of actively subjectively choosing what type of evidence I would accept, is just weird to me.

Weird or not, we all do it, and I'm guilty of it too. For instance, if you ask an astronomer for "evidence" of "space expansion", they'll be happy to tell you that there is evidence to support the idea based on photon redshift and GR equations. The problem with that claim from my perspective, is that the claim of space expansion is ultimately not something that can be demonstrated in a controlled experiment, rather it forever remains an "act of faith" in the unseen (in the lab). The "believer" must first "believe" that space expansion *can* occur, and then redshift "evidence" is used to suggest that it "does* occur based upon the "effect" (of redshift) alone.

That "evidence" doesn't meet my personal 'empirical' (in the lab) standard of "evidence", but that is in fact my "choice". See the problem?

Suppose someone says: "This guy told me that aliens kidnapped him last night" and then hands over a few blurry pictures of a black sky with 2 unidentifiable lights on it.

This is not sufficient evidence.
This is not believable.

Here's where you make a number of subjective choices related to the "quality" of the so called "evidence", just as I did (do) with the space expansion claim. Admittedly the concept sounds far fetched to me too, but I'm pleased that you at least were willing to concede the concept of "evidence" can be used to describe the "claim". Determining the quality of the evidence is where the subjectivity comes in.

I cannot "choose" to find it believable.

Hmm. Can I "choose" to find the concept of "space expansion" believable? I once did believe it. I don't now. Didn't I make a choice in there somewhere? Why can't I choose to change my mind again?

I cannot "choose" to accept the picture as evidence of flying spaceships.
I cannot "choose" to accept the hearsay anecdote at face value.

It is simply unbelievable, unacceptable. By compulsion.

I would argue that you did "choose" to weight the quality of the evidence, and you subjectively found it lacking. If you look at the "consensus" on this topic, you might claim to have "objectively" weighed the evidence, but you'd need to look toward a "consensus" to claim objectivity.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Perfectly... So, your open to the possibility then... What's stopping or preventing you from "knowing" there is...? Since, you seem open to the fact that there "could be"...? Have you ever been willing to "take a chance" with him just based on the fact that there "could be"...?

God Bless!

I'm very open to the possibility, and you could say I've spent much of my life asking for God to be revealed to me, and searched for evidence. Still searching, but a bit more resigned to agnosticism and wondering if I should try other search directions beyond the Abrahamic God.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

The Hebrew's were the first to conceive of "Monotheism", which is what I believe caused the true God to show up and begin to reveal himself and his truth's to and make a covenant with them, A promise or an oath to be loyal to, be with them, be their God, reveal himself and his truth's to them, and to have them be the one's (the real, true ones) to spread this belief about him to the rest of the world, and work through them to make himself known... At that point in their, and humankind's growth...



That's where God, the Father and God, the Son come in, It was all created through and for the Son, and for the Son to be our God... You are right, in that, the Father alone, by himself, has no reason to create, make, interfere or do anything at all really... That's why God, the Son, our God...

God Bless!

Kind of like how the Vulcans waited until they detected a warp signature to visit Earth...assuming we had evolved far enough. ...God waited until we had developed monotheism to make himself known to us? Interesting theory

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Kind of like how the Vulcans waited until they detected a warp signature to visit Earth...assuming we had evolved far enough. ...God waited until we had developed monotheism to make himself known to us? Interesting theory

Mankind, men, don't evolve - never have.

If anything, society/ mankind/ is getting worse rapidly.

YHWH was well known to Adam and Havah.
YHWH was well known to Enoch and Abraham and Moses.
YHWH was well known to KING DAVID, and NATHAN, et al.
YHWH was well known to all the true prophets.
YHWH was even known to some prostitutes in the OT
as well as in the NT.

YHWH did not wait for mankind to develop anything.
YHWH did PERFECTLY. (ALWAYS).
YHWH did as HE PLEASES. (ALWAYS).

Y'SHUA MESSIAH , sent by YHWH, is the ONLY WAY by which anyone can be saved on earth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, for starters, I would expect to see humans writing about their relationship with God if God exists, and I wouldn't necessarily expect to observe that behavior if no such creator existed.

Yes, I'd expect people to write about God if it existed, but if they were writing about something objectively real, about which they had real knowledge, I'd expect a certain amount of consistency between their accounts over time, particularly in the fundamentals, and if the god was supposed to be involved in the writing, I'd hope it would be particularly clear, unambiguous, and informative.

Instead what we find is a huge variety of god beliefs, varying dramatically throughout recorded history, not just in the details but in the fundamentals - one god, or many, or multi-faceted; gendered or genderless; in human form, animal form, a natural form, a mix of forms, or no form; interested in man's affairs or disinterested; intervening or non-intervening; peaceful or warlike; local or universal; personal or impersonal; benevolent, malevolent, or neutral - and so-on. We also find that interpretations of the written accounts vary almost down to a personal level, not least because those accounts are not clear, unambiguous, or particularly informative, and disagreements over interpretations, and between belief systems, that are acrimonious to the point of causing wars. Call me cynical, but this is exactly what I'd expect from god concepts created by the fertile imaginations of humans.

Ditto over the "consensus" on this topic within the human population of the course of the past couple thousand years.

What consensus would that be?

Atheists tend to see what they want to see, and ignore what they wish to ignore. It's a process known as confirmation bias. We're all a bit guilty of such behaviors.

Well, I just asked you what I should expect to see, and the only example you gave looks like strong evidence that god concepts are human inventions.

What else do you think I should see as support for the reality of a god?

I'd suggest that empirical physics is the final arbitrator, but even by such a standard, it's impossible to rule out the possibility of the existence of "God".

It's impossible to rule out many unlikely or improbable things, but that isn't support for their reality.

Exactly what kind of "sign" were you looking for, and have your tried meditation?

As I said, I don't see anything that would require a real deity, i.e. that could not plausibly have a natural explanation. That's why I asked you what you thought indicated the existence of a deity.

And I do meditate in various ways - why? is meditating a way to find signs of god?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it came across as a rant against science, I missed the mark. Sorry.

I'm not blaming the scientific method for it's own failures, I'm simply noting that it has them, and noting the difference between "evidence" that is based upon empirically lab demonstrated cause/effect mechanisms, and "evidence" as the term is used in science today (and always). The term "evidence" has never required a laboratory demonstration of the claim. Often "faith" is the only way even even connect "cause", to "effect" in fact. While any form of matter might cause lensing patterns in space, it requires "faith" (in the unseen) in the lab to believe that an exotic form of "dark matter" is the cause. Likewise photon redshift has many known empirical causes, but "space expansion" remains an "act of faith" on the part of the believer. The concept of space expansion is not an idea that enjoys any empirical laboratory support.

Atheists tend to apply purely empirical standard of evidence as it relates *only* to the topic of God, whereas they allow for a much broader definition of "evidence" as it relates to "science". That was my point. I wasn't meant to be a rant against science. I'm actually a big fan of science, if not every "scientific" hypothesis.

Clearly you are hung up on this...
I really don't see how any of this relates to the post you initially replied to. I mean, this is what I said:

The lack of evidence. To turn mere beliefs into actual knowledge, you need evidence. Independent, verifiable evidence.

Which was in response to:

Perfectly... So, your open to the possibility then... What's stopping or preventing you from "knowing" there is...?

Which was said when Neogaia777 found out that being "atheist" doesn't necessarily mean buying into the positive claim that there is no god.

I responded with what I can only call a fact at this point. I even asked you if you agreed with that, since it was unclear from the first reply. You still haven't answered it. Instead, you go on what I can only call another rant about dark matter and science "empirical laboratory support" and "them' atheists" and such and such...

Do you agree with the statement that to turn mere beliefs about reality into knowledge about reality, you require what-i-can-only-call evidence to support your testable model? Yes or no?

None of your replies addressed that point.

If no, then what is the difference between mere beliefs and knowledge?

 

[Michael]

Yes, I'd expect people to write about God if it existed, but if they were writing about something objectively real, about which they had real knowledge, I'd expect a certain amount of consistency between their accounts over time, particularly in the fundamentals, and if the god was supposed to be involved in the writing, I'd hope it would be particularly clear, unambiguous, and informative.

I wouldn't try to impose a higher standard on the topic of God than I would apply to the topic of astronomy or particle physics. There hasn't really been that much "consistency/time" as it relates to BB theory, certainly not thousands of years of consistency. I'm not sure that a consistency argument really does you any good. Even if we assume "divine inspiration" is involved in any specific writings we have to work with today, it's still written by human beings.

Instead what we find is a huge variety of god beliefs, varying dramatically throughout recorded history, not just in the details but in the fundamentals - one god, or many, or multi-faceted; gendered or genderless; in human form, animal form, a natural form, a mix of forms, or no form; interested in man's affairs or disinterested; intervening or non-intervening; peaceful or warlike; local or universal; personal or impersonal; benevolent, malevolent, or neutral - and so-on.

Um, scientific beliefs change over time too so I'm still not impressed with the argument that you're trying to make about a lack of consistency. How many "dark matter" hypothesis are there to choose from? Inflation models? Your requirement of "consistency" and uniformity over *thousands* of years isn't really a credible argument from my perspective. There is always ambiguity in "science", and yet that ambiguity isn't grounds for outright dismissal of the concept.

We also find that interpretations of the written accounts vary almost down to a personal level, not least because those accounts are not clear, unambiguous, or particularly informative, and disagreements over interpretations, and between belief systems, that are acrimonious to the point of causing wars. Call me cynical, but this is exactly what I'd expect from god concepts created by the fertile imaginations of humans.

Variety of belief isn't limited to the topic of God, and people kill each other over all sorts of goofy stuff. That's really not a valid argument either IMO.

What consensus would that be?

The consensus that God exists, or that Jesus is an "expert" on the topic of God, take your pick.

Well, I just asked you what I should expect to see, and the only example you gave looks like strong evidence that god concepts are human inventions.

The fact that variety of belief is observed in any field of science is not evidence that it's strictly a human concept. I can think of at least three different mathematical definitions of gravity, but those variations in "belief" do not demonstrate that gravity itself is a "human concept". It "might" be a valid criticism as it relates to "dark matter", but then why wouldn't we automatically reject all such "poorly defined/constrained" concepts?

What else do you think I should see as support for the reality of a god?

I might expect that some humans will report meeting 'God", and have life altering experiences during near death experiences. Indeed even atheists report such events. I might expect that humans consider the topic of God to be "sacred", and more important than say political affiliation. I might therefore expect religion to have a higher emotional value than typical beliefs.

It's impossible to rule out many unlikely or improbable things, but that isn't support for their reality.

Who decides probability?

As I said, I don't see anything that would require a real deity, i.e. that could not plausibly have a natural explanation. That's why I asked you what you thought indicated the existence of a deity.

From my (Panetheistic) perspective God is the single most "natural" thing in nature. I don't subscribe to the assumption that God must be "supernatural", in fact quite the opposite. From my perspective, God *is* nature.

And I do meditate in various ways - why? is meditation a way to find signs of god?

It's an excellent way to learn to quiet one's own thoughts and feelings. It's a tool to quiet the mind so that communion with God is distinguishable from individual thought/feeling. Had I not learned to meditate as an atheist, I would not have been prepared to evaluate any of my later "experiences" of God.

 

[Michael]

Which was said when Neogaia777 found out that being "atheist" doesn't necessarily mean buying into the positive claim that there is no god.

I responded with what I can only call a fact at this point. I even asked you if you agreed with that, since it was unclear from the first reply. You still haven't answered it.

For the record I agree with you that there is a significant difference between weak and strong atheism and that most atheists fall into the former category.

Do you agree with the statement that to turn mere beliefs about reality into knowledge about reality, you require what-i-can-only-call evidence to support your testable model? Yes or no?

Yes. The reason I brought up BB theory is to point out that "evidence" is not always limited to empirically (lab) demonstrated cause/effect mechanisms and processes. As with my example(s), "cause" is often "assumed" from the observed effect, as we might "assume" the existence of God based upon the "effect" that God has on human beings on Earth.

The problem is one of defining the term "evidence", and then evaluating the *quality* of the evidence in an "objective" manner.

As with the "expansion of space" claim, some ideas are simply not lab supportable, but that fact doesn't preclude such ideas from scientific consideration, and even the potential for "scientific evidence" to be used to support the idea. Atheists tend to accept that fact as it applies to "science", but they typically do not accept that fact as it applies to the topic of God.

 

[quatona]

So? If you asked 100 people to describe the character of our current (or next) President, you might get 100 different answers too.

Totally different issue.
You don´t get 100 different definitions of "current American president".

Why would you expect the topic of God to be different in that respect?

I don´t expect the "topic of God" to be anything.
I am describing a fundamental problem for the discussion whether a God exists or not (which isn´t a discussion we have about the American president). The term "God" isn´t copyrighted, and everyone can call "God" whatever they see fit. I could easily call something I believe in (e.g. the universe) "God" and then call myself a theist. The term "God" doesn´t lend itself to a meaningful discussion.

If one embraces Panetheism (as I do), the notion of God playing "hide-and-seek" with anyone sounds very silly indeed.

And the interesting thing is: You don´t discuss that with the person who believes in, postulates and describes a God playing "hide-and-seek", but you want to discuss it with me.

 

[ScottA]

2. You are trying to shift the burden of proof and expecting people to prove a negative. If you make the claim a God exists, the burden rests on you to offer evidence to support your position. Should that evidence not be forthcoming, there is no reason to accept the claim.

For the most part...we are not making "claims", but rather living according to what we know or believe. After all, it is you who have come to us...not the other way around.

So, no, we are not shifting the burden of proof - in fact, we are not asking that of you either. You are free to believe or disbelieve whatever you like. Which, either means that you are here to place a burden of proof on us, or simply to mock. None of which is considerate or respectful. So, seeing how we have not come out to you, and you have not been nice in coming out to us, what kind of response do you think is reasonable to expect?