Evidence For a God

[VitalOne]

Wrong
All we have are models, and they are indeed, everything.
An empirical evidence means nothing as well. All that matters is falsifiability.
The Easter Bunny is in an entirely different boat because (like god) it can never (even theoretically) be falsified.

What are you talking about? Empirical evidence means everything and models mean nothing. If empirical evidence disagrees with a model, then the model is wrong.

God can certainly be falsified, to falsify something all you have to do is provide an exception to a hypothesis...

Not at all.
Regardless, it was a metaphor.
One invisible entity to another.

But the Easter Bunny is not invisible, and they are still separate entities...therefore your logic is still flawed "if the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, then God must not exist, despite God and Easter Bunny being two completely different things with very different characteristics, despite the fact that one can exist and another at the sametime not exist"

Interesting, most theistic religions argue that god is indeed material, and even if not, certainly without limitations.

Well it depends which religion....and which sect....

I teach it.

And understand spelling and grammar.


That's called a straw-man.
You're assuming the very thing in question.

Regardless, for the most part, you're right.
However, note that all of this is entirely contingent upon a definition of 'supernatural'.

I don't think its straw man...simply because I'm not misrepresenting any position...

There is no atheistic belief.
That is a contradiction.

Yes there is, atheists believe that God or gods do not exist.

 

[NDS]

The reason almost "NO ONE" has these abilities is simple, not that many people have reached that level of attainment, there are some though, of which most would never display the powers. There are also lots of reports of these things going on all the time....especially with people being miraculous healed, I see that all the time, people being healed of blindness, cancer, incurable diseases, paralysis, etc....

I don't have these abilities, I only have the subtle ability to sense energy, like emotions, feelings, thoughts, etc...and thats basically the only real ability I have right now...ofcourse if I kept trying to free myself from this bondage I would naturally gain more abilities until I achieved unlimited power, freedom, and happiness (the highest perfection)...

Okay, so I think it's safe to say that performing supernatural miracles is NOT simple. In fact, it is extremely difficult which is why it is extremely rare (if it even exists).

But since you see reports of these supernatural occurances "all the time" I'm sure you can post at least one link to an article or other source which reports someone being born blind who was physically touched by an enlightened person and who then could see for the time immediately upon being touched.

Well atheists will come up with great explanations for how these happened, maybe there's some natural occurence where people come back alive, maybe there's some natural weather disturbance that makes the sea appear parted, and so on....

It seems that everyone has a certain level of openness to evidence. A person could be 100% closed-minded and could literally rationalize any physical occurance. A 100% closed-minded person could witness someone being shot in the forehead and heart 40 times with a rifle, only for the wounds to miraculously and instantly heal coupled with a bright light over the shot person.

However, I don't believe there are many 100% closed-minded people. A 90% closed-minded person may view the miracle above as solid enough evidence to convert due to its extreme nature. A 60% closed-minded person would probably be easily converted by a miracle as described above.

So there are distinct levels of openness to belief.

 

[glaucon]

What are you talking about? Empirical evidence means everything and models mean nothing. If empirical evidence disagrees with a model, then the model is wrong.

Wrong.
Empirical evidence is nothing but a confirmation of the theory. The theory however, is contingent upon an architecture: the model.

I'll refer you to Thomas Kuhn here..

God can certainly be falsified, to falsify something all you have to do is provide an exception to a hypothesis...

Not at all.
Falsification requires contradictory evidence.

But the Easter Bunny is not invisible, and they are still separate entities...therefore your logic is still flawed "if the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, then God must not exist, despite God and Easter Bunny being two completely different things with very different characteristics, despite the fact that one can exist and another at the sametime not exist"

???

You cannot even understand a metaphor??
At no time did I manufacture the syllogism you've written here..

Well it depends which religion....and which sect....

Exactly my point.

I don't think its straw man...simply because I'm not misrepresenting any position...

You are: you're assuming 'supernatural' can logically apply to something.

Yes there is, atheists believe that God or gods do not exist.

Not at all.

And that was equivocation...

 

[NDS]

glaucon, just because humans don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You keep saying a "supernatural" realm, and thus a God, cannot exist simply because humans can't "imagine" or understand this "realm."

We can't understand the 11th dimension either. Does this mean that it doesn't exist? If you believe in the M-Theory, then you must believe in things which you can't understand (any dimension other than the third).

You can't prove to me that there is an 11th dimension, just as no human can prove to you that there is a "spiritual" dimension or realm. Yet your M-Theory relies on the assumption that these other dimensions exist.

 

[VitalOne]

Okay, so I think it's safe to say that performing supernatural miracles is NOT simple. In fact, it is extremely difficult, which is why it is extremely rare (if it even exists).

But since you see reports of these supernatural occurances "all the time" I'm sure you can post at least one link to an article or other source which reports someone being born blind who was physically touched by an enlightened person and who then could see for the time immediately upon being touched.

Well anyone can gain these powers, they don't have to be enlightened...they can be a simple holy man or ascetic or something else....

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/4324711/detail.html

It seems that everyone has a certain level of openness to evidence. A person could be 100% closed-minded and could literally rationalize any physical occurance. A 100% closed-minded person could witness someone being shot in the forehead and heart 40 times with a rifle, only for the wounds to miraculously and instantly heal coupled with a bright light over the shot person.

However, I don't believe there are many 100% closed-minded people. A 90% closed-minded person may view the miracle above as solid enough evidence to convert due to its extreme nature. A 60% closed-minded person would probably be easily converted by a miracle as described above.

So there are distinct levels of openness to belief.

Yes I agree, there are distinct levels of openness to a belief.

 

[glaucon]

glaucon, just because humans don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

According to who?
According to many theories, this is indeed the case...

You keep saying a "supernatural" realm, and thus a God, cannot exist simply because humans can't "imagine" or understand this "realm."

I never once said that. Nor have I denied the existence of god. I'm simply saying that, contingent upon definition, I cannot conceive of what I would consider to be conclusive evidence.

We can't understand the 11th dimension either. Does this mean that it doesn't exist? If you believe in the M-Theory, then you must believe in things which you can't understand (any dimesion other than the third).

Not to wax into semantics, but I would argue that if we can formulate a thing, we do understand it. So, M-theory is fine, regardless of how 'fuzzy' our understanding of it may be. Similar to 'god' perhaps?

 

[VitalOne]

Wrong.
Empirical evidence is nothing but a confirmation of the theory. The theory however, is contingent upon an architecture: the model.

I'll refer you to Thomas Kuhn here..

But empirical evidence is the real evidence...the reality of things...if you conduct an experiment and the result doesn't agree with some theoritical model then the theory is wrong....wrong wrong wrong

If you have a model and it does not agree with the empirical evidence....the empirical evidence is not thrown out but the model is changed...

Not at all.
Falsification requires contradictory evidence.

No falsification requires an exception...

"Example (Physics): To show that a physical law is falsifiable, one is not required to show that it is physically possible to violate it — that would defeat its status as a physical law — one need only show that an exception to the law is logically possible"

???

You cannot even understand a metaphor??
At no time did I manufacture the syllogism you've written here..

Yes you did manufacture the syllogism I suggested when you said "one invisible entity to another"

You are: you're assuming 'supernatural' can logically apply to something.

Supernatural simply means outside of our current knowlege, outside of nature, etc....so it can logically apply to something...

 

[NDS]

According to who?
According to many theories, this is indeed the case...



I never once said that. Nor have I denied the existence of god. I'm simply saying that, contingent upon definition, I cannot conceive of what I would consider to be conclusive evidence.




Not to wax into semantics, but I would argue that if we can formulate a thing, we do understand it. So, M-theory is fine, regardless of how 'fuzzy' our understanding of it may be. Similar to 'god' perhaps?

Agreed.

What would a theist accept as confirmation of the denial of the existence of god?

The answer is most likely to be: 'nothing'.

Good point. So I guess you could say that some believers are very closed-minded as well. That is very true, especially in terms of specific sects of different religions.

 

[glaucon]

But empirical evidence is the real evidence...the reality of things...if you conduct an experiment and the result doesn't agree with some theoritical model then the theory is wrong....wrong wrong wrong

Incorrect.
You're now mysteriously switching to a strict materialism position, and as we all know, there's more to our reality than the merely physical.

If you have a model and it does not agree with the empirical evidence....the empirical evidence is not thrown out but the model is changed...

Correct.
Including non-physical evidence....

No falsification requires an exception...

Incorrect.
An exception does not make a rule.
See material implication.

"Example (Physics): To show that a physical law is falsifiable, one is not required to show that it is physically possible to violate it — that would defeat its status as a physical law — one need only show that an exception to the law is logically possible"

Exactly what I said.
Note: logically possible.

Yes you did manufacture the syllogism I suggested when you said "one invisible entity to another"

Incorrect.
A syllogism requires a conjunction; a comparison is not a conjunction.

Supernatural simply means outside of our current knowlege, outside of nature, etc....so it can logically apply to something...

Interesting 'definition'...
So... life on Venus is supernatural?

 

[glaucon]

Good point. So I guess you could say that some believers are very closed-minded as well. That is very true, especially in terms of specific sects of different religions.

I would tend to say, that when it comes to questions of belief, there can be no wrong party.

Thus, we should be free to believe what we will.....

But... then we'd be talking ethics...

 

[NDS]

Well anyone can gain these powers, they don't have to be enlightened...they can be a simple holy man or ascetic or something else....

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/4324711/detail.html

Good link. Interesting story. I would consider this strong evidence for the case of a supernatural being which endowed the doctor with the ability to do what he did. After reading some of the testimonies on his site, it seems hard to rationalize his abilities.

 

[lightgigantic]

Is there any type of physical evidence that could occur which would convince those of you who are atheists to suddenly believe in a God?

Possible evidence includes a person or people:

1) Raising someone else from the dead
2) Walking on water
3) Turning 7 loaves of bread into hundreds of pounds of bread
4) Turning water into wine
5) Making a person born blind see again
6) Making a person paralyzed from the neck down for years suddenly walk again
7) Walking around healing masses of people by simply touching them
8) Healing people with diseases which clearly have no cure
9) Turn a staff of wood into a snake by throwing it on the ground
10) Parting an entire sea
etc.

Evidence also includes:

1) Giant formed pillar of cloud or fire
2) A burning bush which never is consumed and which speaks in an audible voice
etc.

its not clear how these things are evidence of god, since quite a few of them come close to being within the grasp of material science - in other words the nature of these 'miracles' is simply manipulating the material energy and says nothing about the nature of the source of such material energy

there are examples of such persons, found in both historical scriptural reference and even current times, who could be classified as both atheist or theist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_de_Deus_(medium))

- in other words possessing mystic power is no sure evidence of god, since even an atheist can possess it