Empirical Evidence of God

[Dywyddyr]

Yes you do keep telling me that but can you prove that you really believe what you say? Perhaps you only want to believe that God doesn't exist but you do not in reality.

1) How many times need you be told that atheism is not (necessarily) the "belief that "god" does not exist"?
2) Can you prove that YOU actually do believe in "god"? Perhaps you only want to believe he/ she/ it does exist but you really don't. (In other words stop being an arse).

 

[akoreamerican]

1) How many times need you be told that atheism is not (necessarily) the "belief that "god" does not exist"?
2) Can you prove that YOU actually do believe in "god"? Perhaps you only want to believe he/ she/ it does exist but you really don't. (In other words stop being an arse).

Forgive my arseness, I try not to be but apparently that's just my nature. I'll go think on the words you all have given me.

 

[Write4U]

Yes you do keep telling me that but can you prove that you really believe what you say? Perhaps you only want to believe that God doesn't exist but you do not in reality.

You keep telling us that you do believe in a god, but secretly know that you really don't. At least you have already indicated (proved) that you do not believe in a biblical god. So what's left to believe in?

Ahhhhhhh, I get it! It's the word "God" you believe in. That's why the expression "God IS".
Yep it IS a word, but I doubt that it WAS the beginning of the universe.

It was clearly the beginning of belief in a mythical being.

 

[spidergoat]

Yes you do keep telling me that but can you prove that you really believe what you say? Perhaps you only want to believe that God doesn't exist but you do not in reality.

I wasn't raised with a religion. You have to get at them young to brainwash a person so thoroughly.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes you do keep telling me that but can you prove that you really believe what you say? Perhaps you only want to believe that God doesn't exist but you do not in reality.

This is mere gas-lighting.

I order to have a meaningful conversation, one must assume one's opponent is sane, and is aware of his/her own beliefs.
It is disingenuous of akoreamerican to imply that his opponents are unaware of their own stances.

Gas-lighting is a form of ad hom. Address what your opponents say, do not try to second-guess their inner machinations.

Don't forget - that line of reasoning is a door that swings both ways. Would you have your opponent successfully argue that you, akoreamerican, only think you believe in God, but "in reality" you don't?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I order to have a meaningful conversation, one must assume one's opponent is sane

Oh, no.
If you start off by assuming everyone (else) is insane then all/ any subsequent surprises are pleasant.
If we did things your way disappointment results.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh, no.
If you start off by assuming everyone (else) is insane then all/ any subsequent surprises are pleasant.
If we did things your way disappointment results.

Well, that's why I specified meaningful conversation.
Maybe I should have said productive.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I must admit that I tend to think about theists that they may say they believe in public but really in their inner world do not believe on the basis that no one could actually buy the God story and that their public expression of belief is motivated by a desire to fit in with what they perhaps perceive as the belief of their community.

It occurred to me that say christians are accepting of the notion of a creator because they are told that the creator God created man in his own image.

I do wonder if that claim makes folk much more accepting of the God notion.

Consider if the claim was "God looks like what we would call a dragon" and ask would the notion of God find any particular appeal.

Human arrogance would see many lose interest.

Theists like Jan seem to find great difficulty in understanding the concept of a objective reality and that their subjective reality has absolutely no foundation without evidence.

And one could think if its all about God we would not need to go back to the bronze age for evidence.

If folk wandered around today claiming to be the son of God or that God had called them in to dictate some rules (starting with the various commands not to worship any other Gods) would they give any of those modern folks claims more than a casual dismissal due to the claimee being crazy.

I bet there are a few folk who today claim they are God who will be dismissed by believers as delussional and yet those folk find no problem in proclaiming JC was the son of God and indeed God when clearly the general story is made up and recorded well after JC existed...if indeed he existed at all...there is no clear evidence that a JC did exist.

I often qualify these ancient superstitious folk as not knowing where the Sun went at night in an effort to draw attention to the fact that they understood so little about the universe ... and one can only wonder why their stories are regarded as plausible.

If we made a list of the superstitious beliefs and practices of humans in the past we would observe they really knew very little about things that now even a child could explain using a fraction of the knowledge now available.

The fear of death I feel causes them to believe and the phony promise of an after life is just too big a carrot for them to think rationally.

Another problem for them, and I generalise, would seem to be they oppose science with no understanding of the scientific method.

Oh if only they would apply scientific method to their claims or at least realise science is able to move forward without making up stuff where it has yet to present a scientific model.

If only they would learn what scientific theory entails...they do not seem to understand you could replace the word "theory" in science with " facts established from observation and able to make testable predictions the failure of which will see the "theory" thrown out".

If God was a theory we would have various repeatable observations and testable predictions and presented in a manner that leaves opportunity to show that the "theory" could be wrong.

Consider General Relativity for example which has been tested for near a century...it could be thrown out if for example gravity wave could be shown to exist.

If we applied a similar approach to say the good book it would get thrown out as page one contains some "facts" that are on any account wrong...one thing wrong means its all wrong if you apply scientific theory.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Human arrogance would see many lose interest.

Yep, unbounded hubris and wishful thinking.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The only real difference is that you could sell your car to somebody else, and then it would be their car, whereas you're stuck with your brain.

It's still your brain, and, your car. Try again.

What is the "I" that owns your arm, for the time being? It's the body that the arm is attached to, and the brain that controls that body. When I look at you, the boundary of what is you and what is not stops at your body. All your body parts are attached to you, so they are "yours", rather than, say, mine or somebody else's. Moreover, recognising your autonomy as a human being, I do not believe that somebody else can own you like they own a car.

It is still ''your body'', ''your car''.
You say all your body parts are attached to ''you''. What is the ''you'' in that scenario?

But the situation you find yourself in is no different from that which my mobile phone finds itself in, vis a vis its central processing unit. We refer to "the phone's CPU" without a problem. We could program the phone to refer to the CPU as "my CPU", and there would be no strain in the language to do so. Everybody would understand what was meant.

Sorry but I don't get your point.

In short, this diversion of yours into language is, as I said, a waste of time. You can't draw any conclusions about the existence of souls from the way we use words.

You don't have to draw conclusions on stuff you already know.

Okay, let me try briefly to answer that. If the assumption is that "self-awareness" means only sentience - the ability to feel sensations - then
there was no time that human beings had no self-awareness.

...

If, on the other hand, "self-awareness" means a conscious awareness of the self as a being in space and time, then again the most likely answer is that there was no time that humans had no self-awareness, for the same reason.

So how exactly did the mind produce the ''I''?​

Human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors, who were already sentient before the designation "Homo sapiens" became relevant.

And so we're back to your belief.
I don't share it.

That's the point. The only thing you have to offer is your subjective belief, whereas what is needed is objective evidence.

What are you offering in terms of objective evidence for your fundamental worldview?

Previously, you said, in effect, that we're all destined to be either atheists or theists. It's in our nature. But seeing as you don't think this is relevant, there's no need to go over that ground again.

Please quote me.
Theism is natural, not atheism. Atheism simply opposes theism for whatever reason. There are really only different degrees of theism.

From an objective perspective. See what I mean? You think it's all about opinions and beliefs. It isn't. I know what your beliefs are. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in what is true.

There are plenty of evidential explanations of God out there, you may not agree with them, but that's not my problem.

I don't know if there is a God or not, but despite your protestations you don't know either.

I accept that as your understanding (let's not forget it is an atheist one .

If I'm wrong, and God exists, I'm sure he will understand why I doubt him.

If you have made the subconscious commitment of ''there is no God'', God will allow your fantasy.

He's done a lousy job of making himself known. I haven't locked myself out of anything. It's irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

Keep telling yourself that, and you won't have to accept.
''The fool has said in his heart, there is no God''.

Is Mickey Mouse a real, live mouse, as opposed to just a cartoon character in movies?

The better question is ''Is Mickey Mouse a real cartoon character in movies''.
To which the answer is, yes.

Would it be too much to ask that Mickey be available for a photo opportunity (or equivalent) before I accept that he is real, especially given that all indications to this point are that he is a fantasy figure?

Yes. A real fantasy figure,

Maybe I should accept that Mickey is real on the terms that Mickey just Is, rather than "locking myself out" of the perques of Mickey belief, whatever they might be.

Whatever floats your boat.
I'm good with my own understanding of it.

It's a strange argument you're trying to make. Essentially, you're saying "If you were like me, instead of like yourself, then you'd believe in my God like I do."

No I'm not.
I'm saying that for you, there is no God. So you view the world from that perspective.
What other perspective could you view it from?

Well, yes, obviously. If I shared your perspective, then I would believe as you do. So what?

You wouldn't have to ''share my perspective'' if you were a theist. You would have your own perspective.
As for your question. If you were a theist, you would have a theist perspective, as you are an atheist, you have an atheist one.

You've done nothing to convince me that your perspective is intrinsically superior to mine.

I don't care. Why do you think that is my goal?

You've given me no reason why I should change my opinion.

I don't give a monkeys about changing your opinion. Again. Why do you think that is my goal?

Nor have you refuted any of the points I've made in support of my view. I don't even think you understand why it is that you believe what you believe.

,

You haven't made a point that is in line with your worldview. You only seem bent on refuting mine, which of course you can't.
So you end with an ad-hom, the atheist default.
I didn't see that one coming!

Is it your assertion that what I believe does influence whether or not there is objective evidence for God?

There either is objective evidence, or there isn't. I believe there is. You believe there isn't.
Regardless of your philosophical mumbo jumbo, there is no God, as far as you're aware (or you wouldn't be atheist).

On what basis do come to the conclusion there is no God?
Let's say you reply with, no evidence.

On what basis do you conclude that there is no evidence for God?

Do you even understand what they would mean, if it were true? I am not kidding when I say that you actually can't distinguish your personal belief from reality. Everything you posts only further highlights that deficiency.

What you don't seem to want to comprehend is that there is, from my perspective objective evidence for God, and from your perspective, there is no objective evidence for God.
This means we have a difference in comprehension of what God is. That is the disconnect.

...​

 

[Jan Ardena]

...

Your turned-around version doesn't apply to me. I agree with you that my non-belief does not eliminate God. I understand that God either exists or does not exist, regardless of what I believe or do not believe. I said that, just above.

You're free to spin it how you like James. But either you accept God Is, or not. From discussing this topic with you for many years, I conclude that you don't. Therefore God, regardless of whether you think it is possible, or you're not aware of all the facts or evidence, does not exist, as far as you're aware. Now you can prove me wrong, by admitting God Is. But you can't, because there is no God, as far as you're aware.

You're saying more that merely that people have different ideas and opinions. You're saying that there's essentially a separate reality for each individual, and that there's no such thing as a common, shared reality, other than what might, by chance, result from opinions that happen to be in agreement between individuals.

That is secondary. Either God Is. Or there is no God.
We start from there. You start from, there is no God.

You might like to read one of the quotes in my signature: reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away. Your own belief, as far as I can tell from your posts, is very different: reality is whatever you believe in, and if your belief changes, so does reality. Given this, does it really surprise you that our respective positions are at odds with one another?

Judging how you chop, and misquote, and falsely summarise my posts, and make your own version of what I write, it is no surprise you can't comprehend them.

You assert that God is the "basis of reality". But at the same time, you say "There is no God, for you". So I take it you would agree that the basis of your reality is not the same as the basis of my reality, and that we literally do not share the same reality.

What does it matter what I think? All that is secondary.
God Is, or there is no God. That is the basis of our worldview.

The problem is that, having no real insight into your own philosophical foundations, you tend to flip-flop between expressing that kind of view and working on the implicit assumption that your reality is the only real one after all, which means that atheists are in denial of that reality.

That's your problem. Not mine.
I have made myself crystal clear.
Either you accept God, or you don't accept God.
You don't accept God. ​

Be my guest in showing that you perception is the correct one.
I bet you won't even attempt that. Why? Because you can't.​

It's not my job to convince you of theism.
You can stay atheist for all I care. It is best you learn for yourself, to stop denying, and rejecting God.

Your lack of consistency makes interactions with you frustrating.

I am always very consistent.
You are simply frustrated because you cannot justify your worldview, through the demolition of my own.
Your worldview is like a paper house. It has no foundation by itself. The worldview itself, is only visible through the light of my worldview.
If you cannot demolish my worldview, you must accept it. That frightens you.

jan.





​

 

[DaveC426913]

There are plenty of evidential explanations of God out there, you may not agree with them, but that's not my problem.

It is when you are asserting it here.

Your problem becomes that of making an assertion without being willing/able to defend it. That's on you, as long as you continue to participate here.

You don't have to draw conclusions on stuff you already know.

And we acknowledge that, in your mind, you are certain there are souls.

That's fine, but you're come here and are making assertions. You cannot simply state it as a given that the things you believe on your mind are objectively real.

But you know this already. I'm simply drawing attention, for the sake of the readers, to how blithely you ignore any premise of backing up your personal beliefs.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I am always very consistent.

You are Jan. You are.
In fact to the point where you are somewhat predictable.

Its all good Jan.

I say if you want your invisable friend thats ok and like all invisable friends one day he will not be there but you wont notice because your world will have become filled with real things and your fear of death and hell will go away with the realisation that your God expeirence was no more than a dream.
Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

I say if you want your invisable friend thats ok

Agree. No one is denying Jan his personal God; he has every right.

Where he runs afoul is trying to assert it's part of an objective reality without providing any sound argument.

As he says: that's our problem to find. But Conspiracy theories about Lizardmen and Nazis on the Moon abound out there too. I wonder if Jan realizes that not all "things out there to find" are to be taken at face-value?

But again, he knows this. He is beyond the reach of good-faith discussion.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

That frightens you.

Well it certainly frightens me.
Before I started reading your stuff I had a view about theists that they were simply folk who talked in tongues, fell on the floor when "hands were laid upon them" and generally were somewhat stupid.
You seem less than stupid and clearly have some sort of decent education and yet appear on certain matters to be devoid of the ability to think clearly and to see someone like you so badly damaged by the God trip certainly frightens me.
You have caused me to notice you are not alone and it becomes clear that the God problem can attack anyone.
Once I felt I was priveledged to be born in an age of reason and science but being confronted with folk like you makes me wonder if I have arruved a thousand years too early.
Religion is such a problem for the growth of humanity and I see it as a greater threat than climate change...in fact I do wonder if we would have such a problem if so many humans were educated to accept responsibilty for their actions and not leave the future in the hands of a non existent entity.
Smart folk like you should lead the way to enlightenment not promote ancient unsupported superstitious made up God stories.
You do yourself wrong Jan to waste a wonderful mind on nonsence.
IT frightens me that the fear of death and hell causes an intelligent person like you to become dellusional.
Please Jan try to gain reason, try to realise you are on the wrong path...it is not hell or death you should fear it is the fact this nonsence has destroyed your reason.
Honestly stand back read the good book and look at the evidence that the words therein can not come from a God and perhaps in that moment comprehend that even if there was a creator it shows absolutely no interest in humans and indeed if it set the wheels in motion wiuld not even realise humans may be a consequence of the rules for the universe it put in place.
Try to work with what you can know is reasonable fact and if you find something with no explanation abandone your pride and simple say ti yourself that you dont know...certainly do not insert a God to explain matters that you have no answer.
The idea of a soul has no foundation and drawing upon our method of expression certainly offers no evidence and it surprises me that you hang on such a notion and ckaim it as evidence.
It should cause you concern that you are happy to proceed with no support to the idea.
You seem like a decent person and I hope you can find a way out of the terrible situation you find yourself in.
You should not confuse your ability to engage clever folk here as support for your world view as doing so perhaps leaves you less able to actually think about the fairey tales you now believe are reality.
They are not.
It takes a strong individual to realise they are wrong and admit that they have been wrong and I hope that you are that strong individual ...
It would be so good to have you on the right side and help clean this world of the ancient superstitions that threaten to take us back to the dark ages.
I wish you all the best Ja.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

He is beyond the reach of good-faith discussion.

Well that is perhaps the case but I really do hold out hope for Jan.

He is probably so busy defending he has little time to think about anything we put to him.

I just wont believe that someone who is clearly intelligent can not work it out.
It all turns on being able to admit that one has been wrong.

I know if I wish real hard Jan will save himself. It is up to him to move past indictrination and actually think for himself.

If he thinks for himself he will save himself.

All I present to him is the truth and sooner or later the truth will prevail.

Alex

 

[Write4U]

What does it matter what I think? All that is secondary.
God Is, or there is no God. That is the basis of our worldview.

Right, it makes no difference whatever. So stop with this BS about what belongs to whom and all your other "you just don't understand" crap.

It makes no difference what we believe. Can't you grasp that simple fact.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I must admit that I tend to think about theists that they may say they believe in public but really in their inner world do not believe on the basis that no one could actually buy the God story and that their public expression of belief is motivated by a desire to fit in with what they perhaps perceive as the belief of their community.

It occurred to me that say christians are accepting of the notion of a creator because they are told that the creator God created man in his own image.

I do wonder if that claim makes folk much more accepting of the God notion.

Consider if the claim was "God looks like what we would call a dragon" and ask would the notion of God find any particular appeal.

Human arrogance would see many lose interest.

Theists like Jan seem to find great difficulty in understanding the concept of a objective reality and that their subjective reality has absolutely no foundation without evidence.

And one could think if its all about God we would not need to go back to the bronze age for evidence.

If folk wandered around today claiming to be the son of God or that God had called them in to dictate some rules (starting with the various commands not to worship any other Gods) would they give any of those modern folks claims more than a casual dismissal due to the claimee being crazy.

I bet there are a few folk who today claim they are God who will be dismissed by believers as delussional and yet those folk find no problem in proclaiming JC was the son of God and indeed God when clearly the general story is made up and recorded well after JC existed...if indeed he existed at all...there is no clear evidence that a JC did exist.

I often qualify these ancient superstitious folk as not knowing where the Sun went at night in an effort to draw attention to the fact that they understood so little about the universe ... and one can only wonder why their stories are regarded as plausible.

If we made a list of the superstitious beliefs and practices of humans in the past we would observe they really knew very little about things that now even a child could explain using a fraction of the knowledge now available.

The fear of death I feel causes them to believe and the phony promise of an after life is just too big a carrot for them to think rationally.

Another problem for them, and I generalise, would seem to be they oppose science with no understanding of the scientific method.

Oh if only they would apply scientific method to their claims or at least realise science is able to move forward without making up stuff where it has yet to present a scientific model.

If only they would learn what scientific theory entails...they do not seem to understand you could replace the word "theory" in science with " facts established from observation and able to make testable predictions the failure of which will see the "theory" thrown out".

If God was a theory we would have various repeatable observations and testable predictions and presented in a manner that leaves opportunity to show that the "theory" could be wrong.

Consider General Relativity for example which has been tested for near a century...it could be thrown out if for example gravity wave could be shown to exist.

If we applied a similar approach to say the good book it would get thrown out as page one contains some "facts" that are on any account wrong...one thing wrong means its all wrong if you apply scientific theory.
Alex

///
Specially if it is an extremely ugly dragon. People could not accept an ugly looking god.

I think it is many fears including fear of life.

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I don't care. Why do you think that is my goal?

I don't give a monkeys about changing your opinion. Again Why do you think that is my goal?

What you don't seem to want to comprehend is that there is, from my perspective objective evidence for God, and from your perspective, there is no objective evidence for God.
This means we have a difference in comprehension of what God is. That is the disconnect.

...​

///
You will not state your goal so some make their best guess. If you have a problem with it, state your goal.

What you do not comprehend is that your delusional perspective does not mean anything outside your dreamworld.
There is no difference in comprehension of what god is until some god gets up the courage to come out of hiding & show itself.
There is no difference in comprehension of your supposed belief in god until you explain your belief & what you think that comprehension is.
YOU are the disconnect. Evidently intentionally.

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Well that is perhaps the case but I really do hold out hope for Jan.

He is probably so busy defending he has little time to think about anything we put to him.

I just wont believe that someone who is clearly intelligent can not work it out.
It all turns on being able to admit that one has been wrong.

I know if I wish real hard Jan will save himself. It is up to him to move past indictrination and actually think for himself.

If he thinks for himself he will save himself.

All I present to him is the truth and sooner or later the truth will prevail.

Alex

///
He is so busy defending what???

<>