Is that level of crudity really necessary?
Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).
- Thread starter Gawdzilla Sama
- Start date
Which people?
That's a crude way to put it. But, probably, I think Darwinism is true. Is there something wrong with that?
What are you referring to? Are you thinking Stalin, Lenin, etc.? Or Xi Jinping? Which communist atheist?
And which revered scientists are you thinking of?
The theory of evolution is rather remarkable. Don't you think? The Galapagos is a unique set of islands. Very interesting, don't you think?
What are some of the ways?
I agree. Religions, in general, are a bad idea in lots of ways. Not all bad, mind you, but on a balance...
Trek
Registered Senior Member
That is a question for you and other atheists who always claims there is no evidence for God.
It’s time to come clean.
Let’s deal with one explanation at a time.
Nevertheless can you answer the question.
Yes, but what does that have to do with my question?
Do you have no ideas of your own? You imply based on one’s individual religion?
I’m not the one who is claiming a lack of evidence for God, so my view isn’t important at this time
Thats what I’m trying to ascertain from yoos.
For me, obviously God is an entirely different category which is why I want to know from atheists what is their definition of God, and what they are prepared to accept as evidence that God is real.
No
Explain how would and why “tomato” would be in our minds and vocabulary.
Cosmological argument
Fine tuning argument
The exquisite complex arrangement in the cell
I wouldn’t regard these as “top evidences” but as far as discussing God with atheists, those are the point I would more than likely raise.
Explain what you mean by God. Independently of what I believe.
So why do you say there is no evidence for God?
I’m interested in knowing what you mean by God, and what evidence you are prepared to accept, seeing as you pretend to know there is no evidence for God.
This thread asks for proof of whether God is not a fictional character. Nobody including you pulled him up on that. Yet you have banned me, and warned me over stuff I’ve said that is relevant to the discussion, but you didn’t like it.
Do something about this thread, or or get the author to explain what he means by the title and prepared to be questioned on his understanding.
Trek:
This post of yours was reported.
It is off-topic for the current thread. If you want to pit your Creationism against the theory of evolution, that's fine, but please take it to a different thread. You might also like to read some of the prior debates we have had about that particular topic on sciforums, so you don't repeat the same mistakes that (many) other Creationists have made.
quant:
If you want to question whether quantum mechanics is the ultimate truth, that's fine, but please start a new thread for that.
For what it's worth, I'm not sure if anybody has actually claimed what you want to dispute, but that can also be discussed in a thread where it is relevant.
This post was also reported. It is off-topic for the current thread.
If you want to question whether quantum mechanics is the ultimate truth, that's fine, but please start a new thread for that.
For what it's worth, I'm not sure if anybody has actually claimed what you want to dispute, but that can also be discussed in a thread where it is relevant.
Trek:
For instance, there's lot of anecdotal evidence from believers who report "experiencing" God directly in various ways.
That kind of evidence doesn't convince me that God is real, because there are lots of plausible alternative explanations for those reported experiences that require less multiplication of entities (literally!) than the God hypothesis.
So, there's some evidence that points towards the slim possibility that there is a God, but it strikes me as very weak.
There's also a lot of alleged evidence that some believers like to refer to. But such evidence tends not to point persuasively towards the conclusion that there must be a God behind it.
Forget God for a moment, if you like. What possible "standards of evidence" are there that would be suitable to conclude that, say, unicorns are real, or that the Pacific Ocean is real? Just list a few of the different standards for me that you have in mind. Then I'll try to answer your question about my "standard" for God and, as a bonus, for unicorns and the Pacific Ocean. After all, we want to be consistent about these things, don't we?
The short answer is: I don't think that God exists. So any answer I give to this question will necessarily have to be based on some assumptions about a hypothetical God.
I thought you might like to talk about your version of God, rather than just have me make some assumptions at random about a hypothetical. Can we do that?
I asked you some questions. To you, God is not hypothetical, so you should have some solid answers. Right?
Look, would you like me to guess at an answer? Would that make it easier for you?
Okay. I think that a God such as the Christian God is not "entirely separate" from his creation. The bible, for example, describes that God as taking an active role in world events and in the lives of individual people. That rules out "entire" separateness. In comparison, a deistic God would be "entirely separate", at least after his only act - the act of Creation. After that, he separates himself and let's his Creation run its own course without interfering.
Different Gods, different separateness. All hypothetical, so far.
But your God is different. Yours is the real God, the correct God. So, tell me about your God. That will be far more useful to us in this conversation than these hypotheticals.
At this point, we've dealt with the "entirely" part. We now have to consider the "separate" part. Do I think that the Christian God (to use that hypothetical again) is separate from his Creation? Yes, I do, for reasons I explained previously (see the part of my post you quoted). And the deist God? Certainly.
Your turn.
Why is "unicorn" in our minds and vocabulary, do you think?
Regarding the cosmological argument: if everything must have a cause, why doesn't God need a cause? Isn't that a special pleading that brings down the whole argument?
I wouldn't say that the cosmological argument is an evidence-based argument, though. It doesn't provide evidence for a God, as far as I can tell. It's a philosophical argument, not empirical. (Technically, it's an argument from "natural theology".)
Similarly, the fine-tuning argument is not evidence. The clue is right there in the name; it's an argument. The evidence that would be required to establish its truth would be evidence that there actually is fine tuning in nature, and that natural processes alone could not possibly have resulted in the fine tuning that is observed. Nothing I am aware of fits the criteria, so I think this one also fails as evidence for God. But perhaps you know something I don't. (?)
Your appeal to complexity in the cell looks like another fine tuning argument, or perhaps an argument for "intelligent design". Even if it is true (and I don't see any good reason to suppose that intelligent design is necessary for cells to exist), it doesn't seem to point to a God. So, I'm a little puzzled about why you regard that as evidence for God.
In response, I would say that I don't see anything in the natural world that demands that we resort to supernatural explanations, so far. While something like a cell might seem magical, my educated guess is that it probably isn't.
Of course, guesses don't get us to God any more than they get us to No God. We need more than hunches and gut feelings and wishful thinking, as I'm sure you'll agree.
Does this meet with your approval?
If the three items above are the best you have to offer, I'm sorry to have to inform you that you still haven't convinced me that your God is real. I find your evidences wanting.
Perhaps you do too.
You don't believe in your God based on evidence, do you? You say you don't need any evidence at all.
What interests me, then, is: what is the basis of your belief in a God?
Are you interested in discussing that, at all? I imagine you have your reasons. You seem to like playing your cards very close to your chest. Are they secret reasons? Or too personal to disclose? Or what?
I don't think there's no evidence for God.
For instance, there's lot of anecdotal evidence from believers who report "experiencing" God directly in various ways.
That kind of evidence doesn't convince me that God is real, because there are lots of plausible alternative explanations for those reported experiences that require less multiplication of entities (literally!) than the God hypothesis.
So, there's some evidence that points towards the slim possibility that there is a God, but it strikes me as very weak.
There's also a lot of alleged evidence that some believers like to refer to. But such evidence tends not to point persuasively towards the conclusion that there must be a God behind it.
I'm at a loss. I honestly don't know what you mean when you talk about a "standard of evidence". Give me some examples of what you mean. You haven't explained.
Forget God for a moment, if you like. What possible "standards of evidence" are there that would be suitable to conclude that, say, unicorns are real, or that the Pacific Ocean is real? Just list a few of the different standards for me that you have in mind. Then I'll try to answer your question about my "standard" for God and, as a bonus, for unicorns and the Pacific Ocean. After all, we want to be consistent about these things, don't we?
Not yet. Can you explain what you mean by a "standard of evidence"?
I explained, in post #578. Go back and read what you omitted from the part of that post that you quoted.
Your question was "Do you think God is entirely separate from his creation?"
The short answer is: I don't think that God exists. So any answer I give to this question will necessarily have to be based on some assumptions about a hypothetical God.
I thought you might like to talk about your version of God, rather than just have me make some assumptions at random about a hypothetical. Can we do that?
I asked you some questions. To you, God is not hypothetical, so you should have some solid answers. Right?
What else could I do? Different religions make different assumptions about their respective gods.
Look, would you like me to guess at an answer? Would that make it easier for you?
Okay. I think that a God such as the Christian God is not "entirely separate" from his creation. The bible, for example, describes that God as taking an active role in world events and in the lives of individual people. That rules out "entire" separateness. In comparison, a deistic God would be "entirely separate", at least after his only act - the act of Creation. After that, he separates himself and let's his Creation run its own course without interfering.
Different Gods, different separateness. All hypothetical, so far.
But your God is different. Yours is the real God, the correct God. So, tell me about your God. That will be far more useful to us in this conversation than these hypotheticals.
At this point, we've dealt with the "entirely" part. We now have to consider the "separate" part. Do I think that the Christian God (to use that hypothetical again) is separate from his Creation? Yes, I do, for reasons I explained previously (see the part of my post you quoted). And the deist God? Certainly.
Your turn.
Unimportant as it might be, I'm still interested in it. Please tell me your view. Don't be embarrassed.
In what way?
Okay. My mistake.
It could be a fictional vegetable, for instance.
Why is "unicorn" in our minds and vocabulary, do you think?
Thanks.
Regarding the cosmological argument: if everything must have a cause, why doesn't God need a cause? Isn't that a special pleading that brings down the whole argument?
I wouldn't say that the cosmological argument is an evidence-based argument, though. It doesn't provide evidence for a God, as far as I can tell. It's a philosophical argument, not empirical. (Technically, it's an argument from "natural theology".)
Similarly, the fine-tuning argument is not evidence. The clue is right there in the name; it's an argument. The evidence that would be required to establish its truth would be evidence that there actually is fine tuning in nature, and that natural processes alone could not possibly have resulted in the fine tuning that is observed. Nothing I am aware of fits the criteria, so I think this one also fails as evidence for God. But perhaps you know something I don't. (?)
Your appeal to complexity in the cell looks like another fine tuning argument, or perhaps an argument for "intelligent design". Even if it is true (and I don't see any good reason to suppose that intelligent design is necessary for cells to exist), it doesn't seem to point to a God. So, I'm a little puzzled about why you regard that as evidence for God.
Fair enough.
In response, I would say that I don't see anything in the natural world that demands that we resort to supernatural explanations, so far. While something like a cell might seem magical, my educated guess is that it probably isn't.
Of course, guesses don't get us to God any more than they get us to No God. We need more than hunches and gut feelings and wishful thinking, as I'm sure you'll agree.
Let's go with the omni God. That seems popular. i.e. God is a conscious, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and purposeful supernatural being who chose to create the universe.
Does this meet with your approval?
It's easier to say than "There's some evidence that some people say points to God, but I don't accept that it does since there seem to be many more plausible explanations, and besides there doesn't seem to be any good evidence of anything supernatural. God appears to be an unnecessary hypothesis for explaining the natural world (or anything else)."
I asked you to provide your best evidence.
If the three items above are the best you have to offer, I'm sorry to have to inform you that you still haven't convinced me that your God is real. I find your evidences wanting.
Perhaps you do too.
You don't believe in your God based on evidence, do you? You say you don't need any evidence at all.
What interests me, then, is: what is the basis of your belief in a God?
Are you interested in discussing that, at all? I imagine you have your reasons. You seem to like playing your cards very close to your chest. Are they secret reasons? Or too personal to disclose? Or what?
As far as I can tell, God might well be a fictional character. You have offered nothing that convinces me that he is not. And there are lots and lots of very good reasons to conclude that it is very likely that your God is as fictional as all the other gods that you, personally, don't believe in.
Last edited:
Your bans are your own business. I assume you must have failed to abide by certain site rules that you agreed to abide by implicitly when you signed up as a member of this forum. You're an adult. It's your responsibility to follow the rules when you post here.
Unfortunately, your recent actions in falsely accusing two other posters here of lying have led to another temporary ban for you. That's entirely a coincidence of timing and it has nothing to do with any of my recent interactions with you. It just happens that I have just worked through a backlog of reported posts, dating back several weeks in some cases. A couple of your posts were reported and I actioned those reports.
Our bans are automatic, except in the case of obviously malicious posting and spammers. If you have been temporarily banned, you will have received numerous prior warnings and advice on how to avoid future similar warnings. Many of our members manage to go for years on sciforums without ever gaining enough warning points to incur an automatic temporary ban. I don't think we ask too much of our members.
If you are accusing me of abuse of moderator powers, that is a matter you ought to take to the Site Feedback or Open Government forum (if you want to make a public spectacle of the matter). Alternatively, if you're confused about why you were moderated by me, or another moderator, you could try asking us in a private message. I'll be happy to clarify.
What action would you like to see?
I can't force anybody to explain what they mean by a title, or to answer questions they don't want to answer.
Why don't you ask him yourself?
In the meantime, you and I are having a cordial discussion. Who knows? We might even end up dispelling some of your unfortunate misconceptions about atheists. Or we might end up with me signing up to join your congregation.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is a good summary of the stance of many rational atheists.
Some atheists try to assert the hypothesis there is no God, but run into trouble when trying to promote it, as there is no way to prove a negative of this magnitude. That's an irrational stance.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I don't know. Is burning witches necessary? (If you look at my avatar you'll realize how silly your question was.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Nobody in this forum has burned any witches, as far as I'm aware.
There's a difference between 'I see no sufficent evidence of God' and ' I think following this God is a bad idea'.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Then you need to get some history under your belt. Start with the
Malleus Maleficarum
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm not sure what your point is. No one on SciFo is 500 years old, as far as we are aware. The question was: why so crude here?
And more to the point: how does this inform the thread topic?
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I'm just tired of being nice to idiots.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Well I can't really fault that.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
It was easy in the Navy, I usually outranked them. My biggest problem was suppressing the urge to float test them in the middle of the Pacific.
What if one of em stood up an started walkin around on the water... would you take that as proof of Jesus.???
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Why? It could be a trick of Satan, or the Tralfamadorians, or my cousin Ernest, who invented "float boots" made from styrofoam beer coolers. I assume you've heard of Occam's Razor?
Yes... an if all the simpler possibilities had been thoroughly researched an ruled out... an the only thang left was Jesus... would you then bow down an praize you'r Lord an Savior.???
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Of course not. That simply won't happen, so it's not worth considering.