Does God Exist?

[lixluke]

Which has to be substantiated

Substantiation is justification is proof is evidence is verification. "Justification or whatever term you want to use is material/criteria that allows a person to conclude something is true. What compels you to conclude X is true may or may not compel somebody else. What compels somebody else to conclude X is true may or may not compel you. You are presuming some sort of thing, and claiming that this thing applies to everybody.

Consider any matter that you conluded to be true. If N is what compelled you to consider that matter true, then N is your justification. You conducted an experiment, and arrived at a conclusion. N is anything that compelled you to that conclusion. A conclusion that something is true = Belief that something is true.

You cannot just say "it has to be substantiated/justified" period. The only thing can say is: "in order for me personally to conclude something is true, I require a form of justification that I consider strong enough to compel me to arrive at that conclusion." If a dream is strong enough to compel you to a conclusion that X is true, fine. You have concluded that X is true. If highly accurate scientific scrutinization compelled you to arrive at a conclusion that X is true, fine.

Regardless of method, if somebody concludes something to be true, in every case, does that person not have some form of justification to compel him to arrive at that conclusion? If you disagree with that person's form of justification, does that mean that the person did not conclude that X is true.

-If somebody, using no form of experimentation has a dream that the Earth is round.
-And If the person's justification for concluding that the Earth is round is nothing more than his dream. (Nobody told him. Nobody showed him any proof. He did not go outside, and observe the horizon. All he has was a dream. He is using his dream as the basis for his conclusion.) "I dreamed that the Earth is round. Therefore the earth is round."
-And If you personally disagree with his reasoning for arriving at the conclusion.
-Then, does that mean that the person does not consider it true that the Earth is round? Does that mean that the Earth is not round?

 

[swarm]

How about...

E. Due to a complete lack of evidence, there is no reason to seriously consider any question of supposed gods.

 

[swivel]

How about...

E. Due to a complete lack of evidence, there is no reason to seriously consider any question of supposed gods.

Excellent.

 

[lixluke]

How about...

E. Due to a complete lack of evidence, there is no reason to seriously consider any question of supposed gods.

Sceptecism consiers all matters inconclusive. Agnosticism considers the matter of God's existence inconclusive.

Either somebody has concluded that God exists, concluded that God does not exist, or not arrived at a conclusion. Those are the only possibilities in all matters

1. Conclude X is true.
2. Conclude X is false
3. Not arrive at a conclusion on the matter.

No matter who it is, and no matter what the matter, those are the only 3 possibilities.

 

[lightgigantic]

jpappl

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
don't overlook that extraordinary proof/evidence/justification requires extraordinary qualifications .....
”
Sure, so what's your point other than the evidence has to be real evidence.

My point is that real evidence is determined to be exactly that by persons who are qualified in the field.

A discussion of "where is the evidence" that doesn't approach the question of "what are the qualifications for approaching the evidence" stands outside the standard narrative of a scientific/logical analysis.

 

[jpappl]

jpappl

“
My point is that real evidence is determined to be exactly that by persons who are qualified in the field.

A discussion of "where is the evidence" that doesn't approach the question of "what are the qualifications for approaching the evidence" stands outside the standard narrative of a scientific/logical analysis.

What I believe you are saying is there is nobody who is qualified to determine what is evidence for God.

However true that nobody can at this point prove or disprove the existence of God, the burden is on the person claiming there is a god.

If I said there was a troll in the forest then I need to either prove it with evidence or don't expect anyone to take my claim seriously. And nobody should.

What would be the evidence of a troll ? If there was a troll in the forest, then there would be evidence.

 

[lightgigantic]

What I believe you are saying is there is nobody who is qualified to determine what is evidence for God.

what makes you say that?

However true that nobody can at this point prove or disprove the existence of God, the burden is on the person claiming there is a god.

again, what makes you say that?

If I said there was a troll in the forest then I need to either prove it with evidence or don't expect anyone to take my claim seriously. And nobody should.

if the qualification was that I was required to come to forest, and I refused or was unable to meet this demand, what then?

What would be the evidence of a troll ? If there was a troll in the forest, then there would be evidence.

and the evidence would also probably require that one go to the forest

 

[jpappl]

again, what makes you say that?

Because those who are making the claim, like the troll example of something that has never been proven before need to provide proof.

Otherwise, do you believe everthing you are told ? Do you believe there are trolls in the forest if I told you I saw them ?

if the qualification was that I was required to come to forest, and I refused or was unable to meet this demand, what then?

Why would I require you to come to the forest. I should be able to provide evidence without it. For thousands of years people brought all sorts of creatures out of the forests and jungles and provided proof of the animals existence without them ever stepping one foot in the forest or jungle from where they came. Ever hear of a zoo ?

 

[lixluke]

Some might believe there is a troll in the forest, and some might not. You cannot just say "I should be able to provide evidence". Evidence is ANYTHING that compels an individual to conclude something is true. Somebody might conclude it is true based on you telling them. Somebody else might require you actually show them. Others still might require being eaten by one before they conclude there is indeed a troll in the forest. You consistently throw around the term "evidence/proof" or any similar terms as if what you consider evidence is the same as what others consider evidence.

This goes for any matter. Some might conclude that the Earth goes around the sun based on a dream. Some might conclude that the Earth goes around the sun based on scientific experiment. Others might require more scrutinizing information before arriving to that conclusion.

No matter what method you use, the result is still the same. Either the person arrived at the conclusion or did not. Either you concluded there is/isnt a troll in the forest or you did not. Either you concluded that the Earth is/isnt round or you did not. Either you concluded that there is/isnt an apple in your hand or you did not. Either you concluded that there is/isnt a God or you did not. That is all there is.

1. Why try to impose any relevance upon how the person arrived at the conclusion?
2. If a person arrived at a conclusion based on "evidence" you disagree with (something you personally would not consider factual evidence), does that mean that the person did not arrive at the conclusion? If a person concluded that the Earth was round based on nothing more than a dream, you're saying that the person did not conclude that the Earth was round?

 

[lightgigantic]

jpappl
“

again, what makes you say that?
”
Because those who are making the claim, like the troll example of something that has never been proven before need to provide proof.

I understand that.
What I don't understand is why you assert that no one is qualified to assert what constitutes evidence of god

Otherwise, do you believe everthing you are told ? Do you believe there are trolls in the forest if I told you I saw them ?

Evidence is ascertained by implementing theory (and a theory is simply something you are told).
If I balk at the call for implementation (or alternatively apply the theory incorrectly)), I effectively go nowhere

“
if the qualification was that I was required to come to forest, and I refused or was unable to meet this demand, what then?
”
Why would I require you to come to the forest. I should be able to provide evidence without it. For thousands of years people brought all sorts of creatures out of the forests and jungles and provided proof of the animals existence without them ever stepping one foot in the forest or jungle from where they came. Ever hear of a zoo ?

:bugeye:
ok
so what if I refused or was unable to go to the zoo?

IOW what ever you offer as a means for implementing your theory, what happens if I mess up that theory (ie fail to display the correct qualifications)?
well?

 

[jpappl]

What I don't understand is why you assert that no one is qualified to assert what constitutes evidence of god

You are qualified if you can provide the proof of a subject like God, just like if I could provide proof of a troll in the forest I would and make some money off it. So go ahead and provide it to the world if you can.

Evidence is ascertained by implementing theory (and a theory is simply something you are told).

Nonsense.

ok
so what if I refused or was unable to go to the zoo?

IOW what ever you offer as a means for implementing your theory, what happens if I mess up that theory (ie fail to display the correct qualifications)?
well?

Then you would remain in the dark on the subject of trolls. I am sure there would be many other people who would come and see the evidence, quite sure.

 

[lightgigantic]

jpappl

“

What I don't understand is why you assert that no one is qualified to assert what constitutes evidence of god
”
You are qualified if you can provide the proof of a subject like God, just like if I could provide proof of a troll in the forest I would and make some money off it. So go ahead and provide it to the world if you can.

you could only make money off it if people agreed to go to the forest or zoo or whatever

“
Evidence is ascertained by implementing theory (and a theory is simply something you are told).
”
Nonsense.

common sense actually .... but anyway

“
ok
so what if I refused or was unable to go to the zoo?

IOW what ever you offer as a means for implementing your theory, what happens if I mess up that theory (ie fail to display the correct qualifications)?
well?
”
Then you would remain in the dark on the subject of trolls. I am sure there would be many other people who would come and see the evidence, quite sure.

which introduces another aspect of discerning evidence - the lower the threshold requirements for qualification, the greater the number ..... mind you, everyone else remains (more or less) in the dark on the subject

 

[jpappl]

you could only make money off it if people agreed to go to the forest or zoo or whatever

Yes and since they go to see snakes and alligators I am sure they would come to see a troll.

everyone else remains (more or less) in the dark on the subject

There are many people who choose to remain in the dark on many subjects simply because they are too lazy to use any of their brain cells and would rather just remain ignorant.

 

[lightgigantic]

“

you could only make money off it if people agreed to go to the forest or zoo or whatever
”
Yes and since they go to see snakes and alligators I am sure they would come to see a troll.

but if, for what ever reason, they don't, you don't make money

“
everyone else remains (more or less) in the dark on the subject
”
There are many people who choose to remain in the dark on many subjects simply because they are too lazy to use any of their brain cells and would rather just remain ignorant.

and you think this is a suitable excuse for not applying what is required for evidencing god?

 

[jpappl]

but if, for what ever reason, they don't, you don't make money

Maybe. Could be that I sold them to the zoo and already made the money.

and you think this is a suitable excuse for not applying what is required for evidencing god?

What would you consider is required as evidence of God ?

 

[Bricoleur]

Maybe. Could be that I sold them to the zoo and already made the money.



What would you consider is required as evidence of God ?

Haven't you worked that one out jpappl? If you believe in God, he or she exists! The evidence is in the faith, which then gets called knowledge.

 

[lixluke]

1. There is truth in actuality.
2. There is observer's conclusion of what is true.

Anything anybody considers to be evidence allows the observer to arrive at a conclusion of what is true. Any scientific claim or whatever you want to call it is a conclusion by an observer of what is true/false. Regardless of justification towards a conclusion, ANYTHING that the observer concludes as true does not mean it is necessarily true in actuality. This goes for every matter whether existence of God, existence of trolls, an apple in the hand, or shape of the Earth.

 

[jpappl]

Haven't you worked that one out jpappl? If you believe in God, he or she exists! The evidence is in the faith, which then gets called knowledge.

LOL

I just wanted to see what they come up with. It should be good.

 

[lightgigantic]

jpappl

“
but if, for what ever reason, they don't, you don't make money
”
Maybe. Could be that I sold them to the zoo and already made the money.

but if for what ever reason you can't, you don't make money (.... and so it goes on )
“

and you think this is a suitable excuse for not applying what is required for evidencing god?
”
What would you consider is required as evidence of God ?

the same as what is required for evidencing any claim of knowledge - namely to be in possession of the relevant qualifications. Certainly explains why they call upon forensic scientists instead of janitors in certain situations, even though their hourly wage might be 4 fold.

 

[lightgigantic]

Haven't you worked that one out jpappl? If you believe in God, he or she exists! The evidence is in the faith, which then gets called knowledge.

Yes, its not at all uncommon for atheists to believe this is a suitable excuse for not applying what is required for evidencing god.

However if you believe in god, you stand a greater chance of applying yourself appropriately .... much like if you believe in electrons you might chance the opportunity of getting suitably qualified to verify the nature of it.