Empirical Evidence of God

[Jan Ardena]

Rational people don't say 'there is no God'; rational people know you can't prove a negative.
Rational people say 'I believe there is no God, but I can't know it.'
They also say 'It is very unlikely that there is a God - and no reason to suppose it, since it raises more questions than it answers.'

How do rational people know they are rational without begging the question?

jan.

 

[akoreamerican]

///
what is the reason for this conclusion? Because it seems to me that since we exist, since the god exists there must be someone, something that created what exists. You would have to believe that if you believe in cause and effect

<>

thank you for admitting that God exists, have a nice day

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

thank you for admitting that God exists, have a nice day

///
Oh, grow up.

I did not admit anything other than the point which you missed or ignored or leaped over.

<>

 

[Jan Ardena]

To logically conclude that things are the result of preexisting conditions, one would then have to ask what were the conditions that preceeded a proposed god? And why such conditions could not have excluded a god and resulted in our present universe?

You can ask that if you want to, but you don't have to ask it.
God isn't pressuposed. God just Is. God isn't under the control of time. Time is under the control of God.
That is part and parcel of the definition of God. If you try to comprehend God via the material world, you will eventually run out of time.
So obviously, comprehension of God, is not based on anything material. We can understand that God is behind the workings of the material world, through science, philosophy, religion, art, and common sense. Of course you can retort with ''that's not satisfactory''. ''We demand more evidence''. But this back and forth is only a pale reflection of our position. We keep believing in God, and you keep trying to drive God out of the human psyche.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

what is the reason for this conclusion? Because it seems to me that since we exist, since the universe exist there must be someone, something that created what exists. You would have to believe that if you believe in cause and effect

I have found that there are conclusions atheists have to maintain, and it doesn't matter that it has shown to be inconclusive. If they don't, their worldview becomes unsupported. A good example is the idea of unicorns, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. They have to maintain that even though they know it has nothing to do with theism.

jan.

 

[Goldtop]

How do rational people know they are rational without begging the question?

jan.

Usually, trial and error, make a decision and see what happens. If the results are consistent, it's probably rational.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I have found that there are conclusions atheists have to maintain, and it doesn't matter that it has shown to be inconclusive. If they don't, their worldview becomes unsupported. A good example is the idea of unicorns, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. They have to maintain that even though they know it has nothing to do with theism.

jan.

///
You found that in your dreamworld.

<>

 

[sideshowbob]

To my knowledge no one has satisfactorily answered what created us.

Satisfactory to whom? Some people won't be satisfied with any answer that doesn't include "God".

Personally, I am satisfied with the answer that we are an emergent property of matter. I am satisfied with the explanation that water flows downhill because of gravity; I don't need to postulate a spooky guy pushing it downhill with a paddle. I would like to know more about how gravity works - and if somebody postulates a God, I would like to know more about how that God works. And when I say "how it works" I will not be satisfied with "in mysterious ways" for an answer; I want an answer framed in real laboratory-bench terms.

 

[akoreamerican]

if somebody postulates a God, I would like to know more about how that God works. And when I say "how it works" I will not be satisfied with "in mysterious ways" for an answer; I want an answer framed in real laboratory-bench terms.

This seems to be an agreement to my statement. Everyone is so agreeable today

To my knowledge no one has satisfactorily answered what created us. The individual partials that make up our bodies. If you can't answer that don't you dare say there is no God

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

 

[sideshowbob]

This seems to be an agreement to my statement.

It wasn't meant to be. When you say, " If you can't answer that don't you dare say there is no God," my response is, "The answer is always that there is no X until there is evidence of X."

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

It wasn't meant to be. When you say, " If you can't answer that don't you dare say there is no God," my response is, "The answer is always that there is no X until there is evidence of X."

///
They are playing childish games.

<>

 

[akoreamerican]

///
They are playing childish games.

<>

No need for confusion, God must have compelled you to admit he existed. Lol

 

[Jan Ardena]

"The answer is always that there is no X until there is evidence of X."

So things that exist, but we have no evidence, or knowledge of their existence, do not exist?

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

So things that exist, but we have no evidence, or knowledge of their existence, do not exist?

How would we know about them without evidence?

In your mind, is there anything that doesn't exist? Pixies? If there's anything you don't believe in, why don't you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Usually, trial and error, make a decision and see what happens. If the results are consistent, it's probably rational.

By what criteria do you make the decision? How do you decide if the decision you made is rationally valid?

If the results are consistent at the time you observe them, how do you decide they have always been consistent in that way?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

How would we know about them without evidence?

In your mind, is there anything that doesn't exist? Pixies? If there's anything you don't believe in, why don't you?

Are you saying only the things you believe exists, is all that exists?

Jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

No need for confusion, God must have compelled you to admit he existed. Lol

///
How many points does that nonsense get you?

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Are you saying only the things you believe exists, is all that exists?

Jan.

///
If there is anything you do not believe exists, why do you not believe it exists?

<>

 

[akoreamerican]

It wasn't meant to be. When you say, " If you can't answer that don't you dare say there is no God," my response is, "The answer is always that there is no X until there is evidence of X."

our existence is evidence enough