Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Define “bad evidence”

Sure…
Can you answer the question?
You’ve been exemplary thus far with answering questions

I did answer it. You read it. You missed it. Not my fault.

 

[billvon]

What does this have to do with the post you responded to!

OK see if you can follow this:

You posted a claim about cymatics, the theory that god uses sound to cause things to happen.

I posted an example of cymatics, where a god in human form transforms into the god Isis by using sound.

Let me know if you are still confused as to how those to relate to each other.

 

[Trek]

OK see if you can follow this:

You posted a claim about cymatics, the theory that god uses sound to cause things to happen.

I posted an example of cymatics, where a god in human form transforms into the god Isis by using sound.

Let me know if you are still confused as to how those to relate to each other.

I’m still confused.
My post was relating to the accusation of me being Jan Ardenda because we both speak about the use of sound vibration in the bible.
It was never really a talking point addition to the thread

 

[Sarkus]

I do not think that is a great analogy. Black holes were theorized using the physics and mathematics of the day. Those theories developed over time before indirect empirical evidence presented itself then finally more direct evidence in 2019.
Similar stories with particles, planets and other science phenomena.

Explaining thunder with a god or disease, birth, death, sunrise, earthquakes and eclipses had no basis in scientific enquiry other than a phenomena happened, "It must be *insert god here.*"

It's a reasonable analogy, because my point is about the basis on which you infer, not the fact that it is an inference in and of itself. Black holes were theorised based on observations. As is, for some, God. I note that you qualify with "no basis in scientific enquiry", but that is moving the goalposts, away from mere inference and to scientific inference. God is not a scientific concept.
As said, the issue is not the fact that it's an inference but with the basis of reaching the conclusion.
The analogy serves its purpos in this regard.

 

[Sarkus]

My more detailed rejection is in the thread, "losing my religion."

Sure, but I'm not going to read it. My point was with regard your comment that seemingly dismissed God for being made up by Man - in this case an inference of a concept for which there is/was no direct observation before it was theorised. I am sure you have reasonable reasons for actually rejecting, or at least not believing God to exist, but being an inference is itself not one, for reasons stated.

 

[Sarkus]

You’re right but it also means not enough of.

Okay, but we're talking about lack of belief. Belief is a binary concept - you either have belief X, or you do not. Thus lack thereof is similarly binary.

Obviously I can’t.
Just as a guess I would say animals are neither atheist or theists. Those designations appear to be unique to humans.

When saying that you would have to ask them, I was more thinking about people who are ignorant of God, if you could find one.
Animals, I would agree, are neither, as they are not able to even consider the proposition.

i think all the designations are simply all the different variations ranging from knowing God exists to the opposite end of knowing God does not exist, and unique individual positions in between.

Well, it's true they all try to describe one's epistemological and/or ontological position with regard God.
However, note that you have now mentioned that there are positions from "knowing God exists" to "knowing God does not exist". These are mutually exclusive propositions. One is not true. Which rather suggests that neither actually know, but just believe they know.

Interesting…
How is possible to know you have no knowledge of God?
On what basis to you filter out the information of God which helped you to understand that you lack a belief based on not knowing anything about God?

If God is a meaningless concept to someone then that person can, by dint of it being meaningless, have no knowledge of it.

Do you reject all information about God in order to maintain your agnosticism?
Or do you decide that the information that you receive is not knowledge of God?

Knowledge is a justified true belief (with caveats that philosophers continue to discuss). While many can justify their belief, it's the "true" aspect that everyone singularly struggles with. At best one can believe it is true, and maybe can even justify that belief to themselves. But how do they then know that that belief is true? And so it goes.
At best I think one can take things on faith. I have no such faith, as I'm content with simply accepting that I don't know. And since I don't know, I do not have the belief one way or the other.

I personally agree that if God does not exist, then there is NO knowledge. Period.
I’ll add further that if God doesn’t exist, there is no such thing as existence.

No, that's begging the question - and defining "God" into existence.
If God does not exist then clearly God was not needed for existence, and thus your definition / understanding of God (as being necessary for, or part of, or the cause of existence) is incorrect.
See, both sides can play the same game, and noone is any the closer as a result.

Sure!
Until they open their mouths and start talking about God. Then it is easy to tell if they actually believed in God or not.
It becomes more obvious when they start dodging questions, talk about God and theists disparigingly, get triggerered, start calling you names and so on.

Not sure I agree. I think one can believe and then fall out of belief, as one's information processing capabilities change.
Just as I think one can not believe, and then find one day that they do.

Aside from the extreme strong atheist, no, they haven’t. I’m not convinced that “there’s no evidence” is a sufficient reason compared to their damning rhetoric of God and theists.

"There's no evidence" speaks volumes for why they don't believe. It speaks to the epistemological philosophy that they adhere to (or closely to).

To date bar one, not one has been capable of having an intelligent discussion regarding their position on God outside of the “no evidence” rhetoric. Furthermore no one seems able to have a decent conversation about God without descending into the usual atheist rhetoric I mentioned.

Which raises the question of why you bother with them?

That is the region of the world I am referring to.
Most atheist (if not all) on here are from the the western societal hemisphere. They were not forced to believe in God. I’m from the UK. I don’t ever remember a time when theism was forced down our throats, yet people act as though there was such a time.

Europe is different to the US, though. And the US is going through a period where religion is encroaching upon their lives. While they claim there is a division between church and state it is gradually eroding. Just look at the question of abortion, where the right wing Supreme Court have asserted their Christian beliefs and pushed the issue back to the individual states to decide. And some of these are more deeply religious than others, and as such ban abortion, some with no excpetion for rape, incest, mother's life in jeopardy etc. This is religious belief being thrust upon people who hold different views.
True, it's not wholly a religious matter, but it is an example of taking away individual's freedom to choose and asserting a position based on, for the most part, religion.

We, in the UK, are far luckier in that regard. The UK is more secular than it has ever been, and other European countries are even more so.

How can it be wrong?

If there is no God. If your understanding of God, that God is required for existence, is just a case of question-begging, and your definition is wrong.

That is due to the purpose of science which is to know what there is to know about the natural world. But compared to every single phenomena be it natural, physical, meta-physical, mental, individuality, spirituality, inspiration, intuitiveness, emotion, intelligence, ego, and whole host of phenomena that make this world and our understanding of it what it is, far outweighs the tiny slice of knowledge we attain from scientific observation.

Sure, I am not of the opinion that science can tell us everything. But I am also of the opinion that one will struggle to achieve knowledge in any other branch. You can claim knowledge, you can believe it, but as argued above, it's just a chain of believing, and not actually knowledge.

So do I. Unless I can understand what is coming across, then I can better discriminate.
But that is based on my inner understanding.
So what is your inner understanding? The part of you that discriminates between good and bad information about God

It starts with the definition, and whether it makes sense to me. If it doesn't, end of discussion, usually, at least as it pertains to my own belief/lack thereof.
I'm happy to work with other people's definition and explore, discuss etc. But not so often these days, as there's little new.

Based on….?

Based on my beliefs being about things I am aware of.

 

[Pinball1970]

Based on what?

Based on zero evidence, that's what made up means. It is not real.

 

[Sarkus]

Or lack belief in their understanding of the word.
Isn’t that what we all do, in every accept of inquiry?

Forgive me: "every accept of inquiry"? Not sure I know what you mean? Typo/spell-check issue?
Yes, everything we either believe or don't believe about X is based on our understanding of X.

Well if the Big Bang is fact, there must have been an unnatural state to cause a natural state, hence nature created itself. Now talk about meaningless. So whether we like it or not, based on big bang evidence we have to accept it. No?

No. The Big Bang can only go as far back as the start of time. I.e. to t=0.
It says nothing about when time did not exist.

I get the paradox.
But it doesn’t take from the point I’m making.
In order to solve these paradoxes we have to at least understand the nature of such a being.

That's assuming that they can be solved. Actual paradoxes can not be, only "apparent paradoxes" - i.e. ones that initially look as though they are but aren't - have solutions. Making stuff up to solve actual paradoxes is just speculation, unless you have proof, of course? If you want to believe the answer you come up with is true, sure, go for it. Then all you have to do is convince others. Or keep it to yourself.

Do you agree?

To stop at them and claim the God concept illogical and faulty, is to be dismissive of God imo.

Feel free to explain a concept of God that you don't think is meaningless, or paradox-inducing.

And they discount any evidence or explanation of evidence they come across while all the time saying there could be a God, but to date no one or no evidence as convinced me. It seems they have adopted an atheist attitude to maintain their agnostic tendencies

No, they are simply adhering to the epistemological philosophy they follow, and are content to say "I don't know".
Look, if someone says "the only evidence I accept is scientific", for example, then there's no point in even trying to provide them with non-scientific evidence, as it just doesn't fit with their philosophy. You can't really complain that they won't accept your evidence. Just accept that there's a fundamental difference in what you accept, and move on.

 

[Sarkus]

Arguments based on evidence. The Big Bang theory being an obvious example

But they're not themselves evidence, so you shouldn't provide them as being such. If they're based on evidence, then provide that evidence, and then explain why it is evidence for your theory (God) and not evidence for the competing theory (not-God). If it supports both theories then it is not useful.

I can’t prove God’s existence. There’s no trying.

We agree.

Furthermore nobody can prove anything, and we see that explanations of scientific evidence is just as subjective as as explanations for God without reverting to scientific evidence.

We only have these discussions about evidence and proof because there are people who argue that there is no God, and that science is the only way to obtain knowledge/truth.

Sure, and if you disagree with that, move on, as you should know that you won't be able to convince them otherwise while adhering to what they consider as the means of establishing knowledge/truth. If you want to convince them you have to be able to do so while playing by their rules.
Changing their rules is far harder. And either way, your best bet would just to move on.

I agree.

I understand what is meant by “God is everything” but it requires more than that phrase to bring it to a point where we can all understand what meant by that.
But as a stand alone statement, I see your point.

It is due to this thread why I ask the questions I do. If people cannot answer those simple questions I posed, in this thread, then I doubt they will in another thread.

You're trying to do so in a thread where you're aware of the bias, of the agenda, and where you know from the outset that you're onto a loser with regard discussion. So why bother?

 

[DaveC426913]

Just as a guess I would say animals are neither atheist or theists. Those designations appear to be unique to humans.

Interesting that you would suggest this.

Your definition of atheist was pretty binary. You said atheists are "without God". Animals are pretty without God. That would make them atheists. It would make any person who doesn't know about God (such as an infant or remote primitive tribal member) atheist as well.

 

[DaveC426913]

Answer the the question please

Let's remember, you are in the answering position, not the asking position - see thread title. I answer your question in the hopes that you will eventually get around to addressing the core thread ask: which is providing evidence that God is real. Otherwise, you are dragging this off-topic. Can you explain how us answering your questions will do that?



As for answering the question: I did. What didn't you get?

I'll reiterate: yes, there is conceivably evidence that can cause me to accept the existence of God. Any person who says otherwise - any person who won't accept evidence no matter how compelling - is as irrational as any believer.

At the very least, if a mile tall dude with a staff that had a giant 'G' on it appeared above all humanity simultaneously, and snapped his fingers, turning day into night and the world inside out, I would very seriously consider God's existence.

But - as I said - not just any evidence. Abiogenesis? The birds and bees? Nope.

 

[DaveC426913]

God is, by most accounts, a pretty big deal.

Can you elaborate on that?

God is, by some claims, responsible for the creation of the universe. That's a pretty big deal. If there is going to be evidence for it, the evidence will have to rule in God and rule out the natural events of the Big Bang. That'd be pretty extraordinary

What is extraordinary about God?

See above.

And why is abiogenesis not classed as extraordinary?

I didn't say it wasn't extraordinary. But it's not evidence of God. Abiogenesis does not rule out natural organic chemistry and does not rule in God.

 

[billvon]

My post was relating to the accusation of me being Jan Ardenda because we both speak about the use of sound vibration in the bible.

Right. And I replied to your 'speaking' about the use of sound vibration in the Bible. Whether or not you are Jan.

 

[Trek]

Right. And I replied to your 'speaking' about the use of sound vibration in the Bible. Whether or not you are Jan.

No you didn’t.

 

[Trek]

God is, by some claims, responsible for the creation of the universe.

Only by some claims?
Where are the claims that he is not responsible for the creation of the universe?

That's a pretty big deal.

Not really.
He used sound to mobilise chaotic nature into order. You’ve seen how sound vibration on a simple level organises random particles into geometric shapes instantly.
Think what a being like God could do with sound.

If there is going to be evidence for it, the evidence will have to rule in God and rule out the natural events of the Big Bang. That'd be pretty extraordinary

Why?
The Big Bang was the start of chaotic components coming together and forming an orderly procession of events leading to the creation of the universe.
What is so extraordinary about that?

I didn't say it wasn't extraordinary. But it's not evidence of God.

Agreed.
God is way simpler, cleaner, and effective.
And that’s me being favourable to the crazy idea of abiogenesis

Abiogenesis does not rule out natural organic chemistry and does not rule in God.

It rules out God, that’s for sure.
What is your definition of God why you would make such an out of touch statement.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh yeah, I'm remembering another tactic of Jan's: answering every question with a question. Every single post was an attempt to dodge answering questions put to him by simply reforming or repeating a question.

Does anyone remember the Eliza program from the early days of computers?

"How long have you wondered if anyone remembers the Eliza program from the early days of computers?"

 

[DaveC426913]

You have messed up the quote feature in post 815. you still have time to repair it. I have managed to extract what you were trying to say, here:

God is, by some claims, responsible for the creation of the universe.

Only by some claims?
Where are the claims that he is not responsible for the creation of the universe?

Yes. Some claims are that he doesn't exist, and therefore did not create the universe. Where is this going?

That's a pretty big deal.

Not really.

OK, so you're not asking me about my opinion; you're simply asking as a segue into voicing your own opinion.

He used sound to mobilise chaotic nature into order.

So you believe. I would bet money that this is an unfounded belief. That, whatever evidence you feel you have that God exists, it does not extend to his use of sound - unless you count taknig it on faith from the Bible.

Since you know we don't accept the Bible as sufficient evidence of anything, this is the wrong tree you are barking up.

You’ve seen how sound vibration on a simple level organises random particles into geometric shapes instantly.
Think what a being like God could do with sound.

This is a discussion about evidence, not wishful thinking.

If there is going to be evidence for it, the evidence will have to rule in God and rule out the natural events of the Big Bang. That'd be pretty extraordinary.

Why?
The Big Bang was the start of chaotic components coming together and forming an orderly procession of events leading to the creation of the universe.
What is so extraordinary about that?

Look up the definition of ordinary, then scroll down to antonyms.

I think you are waffling. Get to the point, or this is a diversion tactic.

 

[Trek]

Oh yeah, I'm remembering another tactic of Jan's: answering every question with a question.

Lol!!
Here it goes again.
You can’t handle my questions so you revert to calling me a sock puppet.
That is very typical of your mindset

 

[DaveC426913]

Lol!!
Here it goes again.
You can’t handle my questions so you revert to calling me a sock puppet.
That is very typical of your mindset

I am, in fact, handling your questions.

Maybe take more than seven minutes before responding, so you don't misspeak.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here is a question for you, Trek:

Are you Jan Ardena?