Empirical Evidence of God
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Didn't you read my post? I said it is - but without hard evidence there's no excuse for believing something exists.
That is one option.
I'm not talking about belief, just the possibility of things existing, without your knowledge of it's existence.
You're in no position to dictate what is required for belief in something that exists outside of your knowledge of its existence.
The original meaning of your designation is ''without God''. If you're without God you
cannot dictate to others how they should believe in God.
Because it will always be the case that there is no God, especially as you reject and deny God.
You've forgotten God, which is why you are without God.
You have forgotten God, because you have rejected God.
''The fool says in his heart, there is no God''.
As long as you are atheist, you will never accept God.
If you want to comprehend God, like a theist, you have to give up your atheism.
jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Consider the set of all natural things in the universe (i.e. except for God). That is a very long list requiring explanation how each one of them came about.
Now add God to the set. We now have a larger set - an even longer list that needs to explain - not just how all the natural things came about - but now also, how something came about that is more advanced and more complex than anything in the smaller set. Our set has just grown considerably.
No matter how hard it is to explain the universe, it is, by simple logic, even harder to explain a universe created by God.
Unfortunately, we know cause and effect breaks down. God doesn't change that, it just moves the goalpost further back, raising the obvious question: what caused God?
The present state of our universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, how long or in what state the constituents of our universe existed prior to its present formation is unknown. Regardless of its present age or time of origin, none of this precludes the universe from being an aspect of some preexisting god or extrauniversal environment.
I see Potential as a subjective analysis of how present reality may become future reality, but as a determinist I don’t view ultimate reality as subjective, or MAY as an option in the actual course of reality.
Yes I am. It's science. It's objectivity. It's the best the human mind can do. That's a collective endeavour, by the way, not one that I have to rely on my own limitations for.
The last person who is qualified to decide on whether or not pixies are real is the one who already insists they are real.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I literally just explained it.
The number of events and phenomena required to explain a set is, by definition, smaller than the number of events and phenomena required to explain a larger set that encompasses the smaller set.
No you're not.
What's science?
It's the best your mind can do. That's all you can evaluate.
It's an individual endeavour, and the limitation are put there by ourselves, or not.
Find someone who believes they are real, then maybe you have a point.
jan.
What does that have to do with explaining God created the universe, more difficult than explaining the universe?
Since when do we have to know every facet of every object and intent, of an object, or interaction, to be able to explain it?
jan.
An objective, self-correcting method for solving problems.
Nope. No such thing as individual science. You work is always subject to scrutiny by any bozo who happens to notice your mistakes.
You believe in pixies, don't you? Or is it gods? There's no real difference. You have never been able to point to one anyway.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That must have been very humbling to admit.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is called begging the question - assuming your conclusion in your premise.
It is a fallacy.
Note, by the way, that I could easily use the same argument for Cosmic Unicorns. The Cosmic Unicorn created us, and we need no more evidence of that than our own existence.
You don’t asked it if you don’t want to deal with its implications. Ignorance is bliss to those of such a mindset.
For something that you claim isn’t presupposed, you do a lot of presupposing about the nature of it.
I have no problem with the notion of gods occupying the collective human psyche, I would just prefer that such notions, like any other be kept in proper perspective. If you insist on defending a particular notion of god, then do so in manner consistent with standards of reason used in your everyday existence.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Since no one - including you - has "explained" God - that doesn't apply here.
Heck, you're still stuck on defining God, never mind explaining it.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Or much simpler put, the pre-existing condition is NOT sentient, but an implacable potential.
And God is not a subjective assumption?
Potential is a function of probabilistic determinism. Hence the qualifier; MAY.
Where God is an a priori metaphysical but inherently sentient and motivated ordered condition, Potential is an a priori metaphysical but inherently pseudo-intelligent (mathematical) latency contained in a chaotic condition.
Note the important distinction. Which is more likely, an a priori ordered condition, or an a priori chaotic condition from which an hierarchy of orderings become expressed?
Last edited:
There's the problem with rejection and denial of God. You simply reject and deny.
Are you saying because you reject, and deny, explanations of God, given by theists, or scripture, it proves there is no God?
I'm not stuck on anything.
You're stuck in the denial, and rejection loop.
jan.