akoreamerican
Registered Senior Member
This was the goal ---> does God exist?
If you believe in cause and effect God must exist because the creation exists. GOOOAAALL!
Stopping looking elsewhere guys and gals, the goalpost was up there already.
Empirical Evidence of God
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
This was the goal ---> does God exist?
If you believe in cause and effect God must exist because the creation exists. GOOOAAALL!
Stopping looking elsewhere guys and gals, the goalpost was up there already.
Home goal.
''If you believe in cause and effect ,'' then the next question is... What caused your god?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is a tautology.This was the goal ---> does God exist?
If you believe in cause and effect God must exist because the creation exists. GOOOAAALL!
Stopping looking elsewhere guys and gals, the goalpost was up there already.
God exists because God's got to exist.
If you start with the assumption that God exists then you're not even bothering to ask the question 'does God exist?' - nevermind bothering to answer it.
It's perfect for people who want to believe. Not so much for the rest of us.
Slartibartfast
Registered Member
What was the cause if god was the effect?This was the goal ---> does God exist?
If you believe in cause and effect God must exist because the creation exists. GOOOAAALL!
Stopping looking elsewhere guys and gals, the goalpost was up there already.
akoreamerican
Registered Senior Member
That is a different question, and a question that I'm not interested in, perhaps you would like to tackle it.
Slartibartfast
Registered Member
No! I'm happy to see you run away in fear
akoreamerican
Registered Senior Member
If I'm running away in fear then so are you. RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
Slartibartfast
Registered Member
13th prize in a two horse race is yours, huzzah.
akoreamerican
Registered Senior Member
I hope that made you feel better about yourself, but whatever.
You should re-read the topic title. The goal is to present empirical evidence for the existence of God.
There are 2 problems there:
1. "If you believe in cause and effect..." Believers tend to say that God is the "uncaused cause" so, in fact, they are the ones who do not believe in cause and effect. To put it another way, if the creator can be uncaused, then maybe the creation can be too.
2. The existence of creation is empirical evidence that the creation exists. It is not valid to infer a creator from that evidence. A smoking gun is only evidence of a smoking gun. You'd need further evidence to show that the smoking gun was the cause of death.
Incidentally, even if there was evidence that a god existed, you'd still need further evidence to show that it was the cause of the creation.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
This was the goal ---> does God exist?
If you believe in cause and effect God must exist because the creation exists. GOOOAAALL!
Stop looking elsewhere guys and gals, the goalpost was up there already.
And you believe that no force other than a God could be causal?
If you call it a creation, it needs a creator, but that's just a grammatical convention.
What was the cause of god?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Even that is a narrow viewpoint. The term Creator implies sentience. But creation can easily occur from a non sentient creative process.
Hydrogen and oxygen combine to form (create) water. Is God neccessary in the creation of this product?
Erm, no it's not.
It asks, "... what would serve as empirical evidence for those who don't believe in God. What is itthat you need to prove God's existence?Would it be something physical, solid--something you can hold in your hand?Or is there something else that wouldprove his existence?"
Personally I think it is a wasted question. Subconsciously you all know there is God, but you reject, and deny, to the point that you have forgotten.
How can something that is created be uncaused.
This is what I mean about rejecting, and denying. You'll say any old crap to maintain your delusion.
Why not?
Wait!
Don't bother it's just rejection and denial.
One step at a time mate., one step at a time.
Jan.
That's exactly what I said. The topic isn't about whether or not God exists. It's about whether or not empirical evidence of God exists. There could hypothetically be a God that has no empirical evidence.
What do you think empirical means?
I agree that it's a wasted question but for a different reason. You know there is no empirical evidence for your God. Some of you even openly admit that God can not be seen, etc. There's a whole elaborate screen of bullshit built around the idea that He deliberately hides because He wants you to have faith.
The same way that God can be uncaused. And even if there was evidence that a god existed, you'd still need further evidence to show that it was the cause of the creation.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It's a logical fallacy, informally "begging the question", more formally some kind of circular reasoning.
Slartibartfast
Registered Member
This is funny. No more need to be said.
Jan Ardena:
When the little gods have conflicting agendas, is that because big God is inconsistent? Or does big God like to sow confusion in his Creation?
Can you explain to me how you reconcile Zeus, Vishnu and Yahweh? Would you say all of these are "real fantasy figures" like Santa Claus, or are they all aspects of the One God? Is Zeus as real as Yahweh? Or perhaps Zeus is a fantasy figure and Yahweh is in some way closer to Big God?
Or is it perhaps that Yahweh and Zeus are just symptoms of the human struggle to picture Big God?
Is a person who believes in Yahweh in any sense more "right" than one who believes in Zeus, or are both equally misguided? Or does it not matter which little god you believe in, and you might as well follow Zeus as Yahweh, since you're really, secretly, following Big God without knowing it?
A person who is aware of the objective evidence that supports the scientist's opinion, and the evidence that supports the biblical genealogist's opinion, is equipped to judge objectively that the scientist's understanding about the age of the Earth is superior to the biblical genealogist's.
A constant theme that runs through your posts is that one person's subjective belief is as good as another's - about just about anything - and the weight of evidence doesn't matter very much. You appear to think that "real for you" means the same as "real". Until you address this blind spot of yours, you'll never really be equipped to decide if God is real. You'll only ever be able to adopt a belief one way or the other, arbitrarily.
It looks like we need a separate thread to attempt to discuss your many misconceptions about evolution.
Out of interest, how does that work, Jan? Are the little gods like avatars of big God, appearing independent but actually just aspects of the one True God?
When the little gods have conflicting agendas, is that because big God is inconsistent? Or does big God like to sow confusion in his Creation?
Can you explain to me how you reconcile Zeus, Vishnu and Yahweh? Would you say all of these are "real fantasy figures" like Santa Claus, or are they all aspects of the One God? Is Zeus as real as Yahweh? Or perhaps Zeus is a fantasy figure and Yahweh is in some way closer to Big God?
Or is it perhaps that Yahweh and Zeus are just symptoms of the human struggle to picture Big God?
Is a person who believes in Yahweh in any sense more "right" than one who believes in Zeus, or are both equally misguided? Or does it not matter which little god you believe in, and you might as well follow Zeus as Yahweh, since you're really, secretly, following Big God without knowing it?
It is important to appreciate that "own understandings" are not created equal, however. One person's understanding can be demonstrably in better accordance with objective fact that another person's. The scientist's belief that Earth is over 4 billion years old is demonstrable in better accordance with objective fact than the biblical genealogist's belief that Earth is only 6000 years old.
A person who is aware of the objective evidence that supports the scientist's opinion, and the evidence that supports the biblical genealogist's opinion, is equipped to judge objectively that the scientist's understanding about the age of the Earth is superior to the biblical genealogist's.
A constant theme that runs through your posts is that one person's subjective belief is as good as another's - about just about anything - and the weight of evidence doesn't matter very much. You appear to think that "real for you" means the same as "real". Until you address this blind spot of yours, you'll never really be equipped to decide if God is real. You'll only ever be able to adopt a belief one way or the other, arbitrarily.