Empirical Evidence of God

[James R]

What Bowser, Jan and Musika are not saying is that the reason they believe the answers point toward God - and not to some other entity - is because they have faith.

Jan, at least, appears to be allergic to the word "faith". His argument for God is that he just knows that God Is. Not so much faith, but direct, divine inspiration. Jan has a special gift in this regard.

I don't recall Bowser or Musika using the word "faith" to refer to their own beliefs.

In fact, it would be good to clarify whether they infer God by looking at the "evidence" (like Bowser's pile of bricks), or whether it's more a case of choosing to believe. Or maybe they have direct contact, like Jan says he has.

 

[Musika]

That would be a silly way to do things.

Silly Lawyer: "Your Honour, we wish to start the proceedings by asking Your Honour what evidence he would accept that would make my client innocent."
Logical Judge: "Innocent of what, exactly? Why don't we wait for the prosecution to actually make an accusation, and to make their case with some evidence?"

Are we talking about evidence of existence or evidence of innocence?

The onus remains on the claimant to first produce evidence they deem as compelling. Then skeptics decide whether it qualifies.

For the umpteenth time, yes, that is exactly how things progressed in Bowser's previous thread, which seemed to receive the unanimous chorus of "No, that physical/empirical thing is not evidence of God".
This moved things along to where we are now ... "ok, so what would a physical/empirical thing that evidences God look like"?"

Obviously you have some idea of God and some idea of physical things (otherwise you couldn't deliver the initial critique).

So what qualities would a physical thing have to evidence God?
Or to put it in a legal context, what physical things would evidence a person was at the scene of a crime?

You're dodging. Just like Jan. You're hoping to tie the discussion up in meta-discussions about who gets to discuss and who shouldn't be here.

Do you have any evidence or not? Present it.

As I said, you are in the 25% (?) who are not up to speed. Its not a "theist thread conspiracy". Plenty of avowed atheists have already made the grade

 

[iceaura]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about theism being natural to human beings.

No, you were attempting to describe it as inevitable and unavoidable for human beings.

Many behaviors and beliefs are natural to human beings, but only found in some people - running long distances for pleasure, believing in lucky numbers, expressing gratitude for a hunted animal's gift of their life, many things.

So what qualities would a physical thing have to evidence God?

Depends on the God. Jan's God leaves no physical trace.

 

[Musika]

Jan, at least, appears to be allergic to the word "faith". His argument for God is that he just knows that God Is. Not so much faith, but direct, divine inspiration. Jan has a special gift in this regard.

I don't recall Bowser or Musika using the word "faith" to refer to their own beliefs.

In fact, it would be good to clarify whether they infer God by looking at the "evidence" (like Bowser's pile of bricks), or whether it's more a case of choosing to believe. Or maybe they have direct contact, like Jan says he has.

I talked about the implications of faith being far broader than a mere dialectic between science and religion or reality being far more unwieldy than something you have in your back pocket for a nifty comparison with "the facts". Whatever we perceive through the 5 blunt senses is filltered through the mind and intelligence (value and discrimination) which inevitably bring a host of things, including knowledge and faith. Existence is not passive. We are so advanced in sentience and culture that its simply not possible to be some valueless seer of events. IOW even the best investigation results in open ended findings, but the necessity of our existence requires that we fill in the gaps according to our resources, values, etc.

Far from opting in or out of a position of faith, we are composed of it. Rejecting one proposition means we must accept another. Even an earnest agnostic "really believes" that nothing can be positively determined from whatever issue is the given

As example, despite the reductionist observations ending well short of encapsulating the phenomena of life, some people still take it as sufficient grounds to put forth that it is.
Despite empiricism delivering a necessarily incomplete picture of reality, some people declare it to be synonymous with reality. Some are even so consumed by this idea that can't even begin to unpack empiricism and discuss it in epistemological terms.

All these issues are resolved (at least within the individual) according to standards of un/reasonable faith and un/reasonable doubt.

 

[Musika]

Depends on the God. Jan's God leaves no physical trace.

What would a physical trace of God look like?

 

[iceaura]

What would a physical trace of God look like?

Depends on the God.
Jan's God doesn't leave any.

 

[Musika]

Depends on the God.
Jan's God doesn't leave any.

So you said already.
I'm guessing you have some idea of a God that would and what thst evidence would look like.

 

[sideshowbob]

I take it you're still atheist.

I take it you're still an a-unicornist and an a-leprechaunist. Welcome aboard.

Then go read your scripture.

I have. Have you? I've invited you before to discuss scripture but you've never taken me up on it.

"The fool says in his heart, there is no God".

There's also a talking snake. You should learn to separate reality from fiction.

 

[DaveC426913]

For the umpteenth time, yes, that is exactly how things progressed in Bowser's previous thread, which seemed to receive the unanimous chorus of "No, that physical/empirical thing is not evidence of God".
This moved things along to where we are now ... "ok, so what would a physical/empirical thing that evidences God look like"?"


So what qualities would a physical thing have to evidence God?

All right.

Evidence of God would need to be differential. It would need to exclude or falsify the next leading theory - the natural theory of the creation of the universe - i.e. the Big Bang.

If a given piece of evidence can be explained as simply by the things we do see (cosmological deep time, and a hot, dense history) as it does by the things we don't see, then there is no reason to invoke a thing we don't see.

So, a pile of bricks makes perfect sense as an emergent byproduct of the Big Bang, as we understand it.

 

[Musika]

All right.

Evidence of God would need to be differential. It would need to exclude or falsify the next leading theory - the natural theory of the creation of the universe - i.e. the Big Bang.

If a given piece of evidence can be explained as simply by the things we do see (cosmological deep time, and a hot, dense history) as it does by the things we don't see, then there is no reason to invoke a thing we don't see.

So, a pile of bricks makes perfect sense as an emergent byproduct of the Big Bang, as we understand it.

So how is this different from the progressive path of empiricism?

For instance Einstein work suggested there was some issue with Newtonian ideas of gravity, and later these issues were shown to be true, which in turn, provided a radically different way to look at the problem.

In the interim period, before the details of Einsteins work were properly established, are you suggesting this worked as evidence of God?

Of course I don't think you would, but I bring it to your attention because you are talking about challenging notions that are highly speculative and supple (eg the Big Bang). If all you are talking about to prove Gods existence is the rising of findings that upset the applecart of whatever is avante garde in empiricism, that is the history of empiricism. If you want to talk about how we take these new findings to tentatively propose new models of reality that are not God related, your proposal about "evidencing God" just takes the form of begging the question, since whatever comes to the fore as "differential" gets contextualuzed by the addage, "well, thats just because we haven't worked out how it is not differential yet".

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It would be a waste of time.

Crabwalk.
Alex

 

[Musika]

Crabwalk.
Alex

Discussing in depth elements of applied spiritual/religious practices with atheists is less productive than gifting venetian blinds to homeless people.

Generally we begin something from the point of thinking it is a good idea.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I mean in all those time travel etc threads, I'm pretty sure not much of it is spent on the point of ".... but wait up guys, we don't actually know how to travel backwards in time.

I have not read the time travel thread so I can only guess at the point you make.

So even if there were opportunities to present evidence I guess as atheists dont believe any evidence you wont produce anything as it will not be of any use to them?


I think a God in a human form (should not be hard as the story says God created man in his image) appearing on a daily basis floating around above ground level and glowing and giving light where ever it floats would be a start.

You know a active daily presence. .. a few miracles and a weekly address to the world.

My beef is if this god loves us etc one could expect a lot more interaction.


I mean anything in the way of evidence must be a huge step forward past the current nothing available situation.

The whole story is hard to swallow. .we have a god who creates everything and the reason why we exist but said god chose to only show his presence to a small section of humans ignoring 99% of the world population and the nothing now 2000 years and counting.

Its all made up and you are powerless to show otherwise...if you could you would but you can not and well written posts, which are most pleasurable to read as I enjoy your style, adds no support to a non existent god.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Discussing in depth elements of applied spiritual/religious practices with atheists is less productive than gifting venetian blinds to homeless people.

Good attempt but you still crab walk.
And what else can you do as you dont have anything to work with.
I understand that and no doubt so do you.
So lets address why gifts of blinds to the homeless is important...or anything really that allows you to waffle.

Generally we begin something from the point of thinking it is a good idea.

But you do not.
If you thought about the made up god story you would have no need to crab walk.
Tell the truth..you have nothing because there is nothing.
Alex

 

[Musika]

I have not read the time travel thread so I can only guess at the point you make.

Neither have I really.
Judging from the page count they are either making wondrous inroads in discovering how to do it or intentionally neglecting this requirement.

So even if there were opportunities to present evidence I guess as atheists dont believe any evidence you wont produce anything as it will not be of any use to them?

It is the atheists that are demanding such evidence, and cite the lack of it to embolden their cause. This thread is for them to be specific about what they have in mind.

I think a God in a human form (should not be hard as the story says God created man in his image) appearing on a daily basis floating around above ground level and glowing and giving light where ever it floats would be a start.

Sounds more like a UFO than God.

You know a active daily presence. .. a few miracles and a weekly address to the world.

So a UFO with good oratory skills?

My beef is if this god loves us etc one could expect a lot more interaction.

What sort of interaction would you be looking for?

I mean anything in the he way of evidence must be a huge step forward past the current nothing available situation.

Which brings us to this thread. Bowser seems to think a pile of bricks is sufficient. You think there is nothing. If you can't even theoretically say what "something" would look like, it's difficult to understand why you would expect anything more than nothing.

The whole story is hard to swallow. .we have a god who creates everything and the reason why we exist but said god chose to only show his presence to a small section of humans ignoring 99% of the world population and them nothing 2000 years and counting.

Seems there is a broad spectrum of religions available.

Its all made up and you are powerless to show otherwise...if you could you would but you can not and well written posts, which are most pleasurable to read as I enjoy your style, adds no support to a non existent god.

Alex

If you can't even "make up" what you would accept as valid, its not clear there is even a path available to take you away from "non-existant"

The position of God is more about reciprocation than "show me your power by kicking the atheism out of my mouth if you really exist". We are free to choose whatever we want, and God will not interfere with that. We are not so free, however, to avoid the consequences of our decisions.

 

[Musika]

Good attempt but you still crab walk.
And what else can you do as you dont have anything to work with.
I understand that and no doubt so do you.
So lets address why gifts of blinds to the homeless is important...or anything really that allows you to waffle.

But you do not.
If you thought about the made up god story you would have no need to crab walk.
Tell the truth..you have nothing because there is nothing.
Alex

If you don't think God, religion or religious practice is a good idea, you have nothing for "practical application" to latch on to ... much like a homeless person doesn't have anything for venetian blinds to latch on to (although conceivable they may be able to rig up something ad hoc, so it is not completely on par in terms of uselessness).

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If you can't even theoretically say what "something" would look like, it's difficult to understand why you would expect anything more than nothing.

It boils down to this...
Any claim should be made with reasonable support.
You make a claim god is whatever it is up to you to explain whatever.
I dont care.
Your claims go unsupported which says it all really.
Have a good day.
Alex

 

[Musika]

It boils down to this...
Any claim should be made with reasonable support.
You make a claim god is whatever it is up to you to explain whatever.
I dont care.
Your claims go unsupported which says it all really.
Have a good day.
Alex

But you are making the claim that in order for it to be valid, it must leave some physical evidence. You are not satisfied by either the physical evidence offered as substantial or the proposal that the very notion of God defies the necessity of physical evidence.
If you claim that it is like a crime scene where evidence can link it to a person, one would think such a claimant would have a specific idea of what such evidence would be or look like.

That is what this thread is about.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

But you are making the claim that in order for it to be valid, it must leave some physical evidence. You are not satisfied by either the physical evidence offered as substantial or the proposal that the very notion of God defies the necessity of physical evidence.

Perhaps it may help if I state my position.

I dont believe there is a god.

I feel confident I will not have to ever change that belief but if you have something please present it and I will give it most careful consideration before I reject it.

You have nothing... the challenge for you is to reject my observation that it is all made up as unfounded...it is clear that its made up and there is no way to reject that supported claim.

I dont feel inclinded to treat made up stuff as a reasonable foundation for any world view...

If it were not for my trips here I would not ever think about a god..why would I?

You believe what you wish it is not a concern to me but if you want folk to address anything you say as if it were dealing with anything other than made up stories you need to present some snipet that moves your story from fantasy to a subject worthy of more than casual consideration.

You write so well which to me indicates you should be able to see thru the made up stories but apparently you can not... thats ok but if you want anyone to take the subject somewhat seriously you really need more than a pleasant writting style.

Anyways I must go as I have important things to do ...always a pleasure have a great day.
alex

 

[Musika]

Perhaps it may help if I state my position.

I dont believe there is a God.

I would never have guessed.

I feel confident I will not have to ever change that belief but if you have something please present it and I will give it most careful consideration before I reject it.

The funny thing about values is that they tend to work on the principle of rejection, apriori ... its kind of an efficiency mechanism so one doesn't waste time with things that are, by our standards, "unimportant".

You have nothing...

Nothing that would perk your interest.

the challenge for you is to reject my observation that it is all made up as unfounded...it is clear that its made up and there is no way to reject that supported claim.

You say this all the time, but it seems the only evidence you offer is bringing in an example of something that is obviously made up and saying, "Ahha! I just proved it."

I dont feel inclinded to treat made up stuff as a reasonable foundation for any world view...

On the contrary, the ability to refrain from treating made up stuff as true is a position reserved for persons advanced in spiritual life. Perpetually ascribing eternal values to temporary things (characterized by the perennial pursuit of name, fame, adoration and distinction ... or to put it plainly, sex, money and power) is the core problem of material existence. I hope to attain a state one day of not ascribing made up stuff as substantial contributors to my world view, but given my current state of affairs, I don't think I could honestly say I am there.

If it were not for my trips here I would not ever think about a god..why would I?

This experience is not uncommon.

You believe what you wish it is not a concern to me but if you want folk to address anything you say as if it were dealing with anything other than made up stories you need to present some snipet that moves your story from fantasy to a subject worthy of more than casual consideration.

This thread arose to meet one aspect of that need. It gets repeated ad nauseum that there is no evidence for God, but it appears many such detractors have not seriously considered what their demand implies.

You write so well which to me indicates you should be able to see thru the made up stories but apparently you can not... thats ok but if you want anyone to take the subject somewhat seriously you really need more than a pleasant writting style.

Anyways I must go as I have important things to do ...always a pleasure have a great day.
alex

Ok
Take care.
I am also off.