Evidence that God is real

[DaveC426913]

This thread is proving one thing:

No theist here has the courage of their conviction to defend their beliefs.

Musika takes no stance at all. He argues against - but never for - anything. He cannot actually state what it is he is ostensibly defending.

 

[DaveC426913]

So would events, states, etc pre-big bang be natural, iyho?

Science is silent on anything pre-Big Bang. There are no events to speak to. No evidence.

We can speculate, and we can even form our beliefs - but they are beliefs.

And that's OK. Atheists have beliefs, just like anyone else.

The difference is that atheists don't mistake beliefs for objective, analyzable reality.

And therein lies the core difference between atheism and theism.

 

[Musika]

This thread is proving one thing:

No theist here has the courage of their conviction to defend their beliefs.

Musika takes no stance at all. He argues against - but never for - anything. He cannot actually state what it is he is ostensibly defending.

I thought it was obvious.
I am arguing against eccentric definitions with the view of reestablishing standard ones.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am arguing against eccentric definitions with the view of reestablishing standard ones.

You would have to actually present one.

But you won't.

 

[Musika]

Science is silent on anything pre-Big Bang. There are no events to speak to. No evidence.

We can speculate, and we can even form our beliefs - but they are beliefs.

And that's OK. Atheists have beliefs, just like anyone else.

The difference is that atheists don't mistake beliefs for objective, analyzable reality.

And therein lies the core difference between atheism and theism.

My point is that there are whole vast tracts of "the natural" that are simply out of bounds for even the most delightful and optimistic renditions of empiricism. Relegating such tracts to "the supernatural" says more about a particular bias and less about anything serious in the name of philosophy.

 

[Musika]

You would have to actually present one.

But you won't.

I've already been clear that one could perhaps try consulting the dictionary .... the poor man's version of history and philosophy.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Science is silent on anything pre-Big Bang. There are no events to speak to. No evidence.

This is interesting generally speaking... Why would science propose a theory that forces a requirement that logic and reason be thrown out the window?
There can be no before the start of time....so why even theorize such a proposition?

It is like saying: "this is our theory it is supported by certain evidence but it IS logically impossible."

 

[Jan Ardena]

I see Jan is still lost in catatonia, repeating the same mantra over and over.
That's what cult followers do, BTW. Just sayin'

What makes you think you aren't without God?
That God does not appear to exist to you, because at some point you made the decision to not believe in God (for whatever reason)?

Why are you so confident that if God exists, there should be evidence of God for everyone?
What do you know about God, that makes you think there should be evidence outside of your very existence?

jan.

 

[Michael 345]

And (because apparently you didn't know this either) pre-Big Bang is NOT part of Cosmology. Because we have no evidence to analyze or support it.

Because we have no evidence to analyze or support it

And I there we have it. The realm of god

Pre Big Bang. The realm where everything is unknown and unknowable

A realm just ripe for Dorothy and her red shoes or con artist who concoct a Sky Daddy and sell you entry tickets to meet your maker

If you buy a ticket it will be activated after you die and you will be spared the indignity of rotting in the ground

 

[DaveC426913]

I've already been clear that one could perhaps try consulting the dictionary .... the poor man's version of history and philosophy.

Perfect.

So your entire stance here when it comes to God can be boiled down to "let's look in the dictionary".

Got it.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is interesting generally speaking... Why would science propose a theory that forces a requirement that logic and reason be thrown out the window?

It does not do that. No idea where you got that from.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. "Our theory of biology doesn't explain where carbon came from, so I guess we should throw it away and be left with no biology science."

Science works on evidence and observations.
The evidence and the observations lead us to a model that holds back to 10^-43s.
That is where the science of Cosmology currently ends.

There can be no before the start of time....so why even theorize such a proposition?

No one said that. Where do you get that fro?

It is like saying: "this is our theory it is supported by certain evidence but it IS logically impossible."

It is nothing like that. Who said anything is logically impossible?

Are you carrying on two separate conversations?

 

[iceaura]

If that was the case, they wouldn't have their own eccentric terminology.

It is the case.
And in addition to shanking the subjunctive (you always do that, while pretending familiarity with history and philosophy) , you misuse "eccentric" and "terminology".
You keep referring others to dictionaries - that would be a decent joke, if it were intentional.

If there was nothing else to go by, it would be meaningless to describe the usage as eccentric.

Yep. Hold that thought.
And learn to use the subjunctive tense in English - so when you pretentiously refer others to serious philosophy and history, you don't get laughed at.

It's more a case of refusing to have God relegated to the current limits of empiricism.

You misuse "relegate" and "empiricism", in the course of denying observable fact.
It's a case of theists insisting that their deity is supernatural, not bound by natural law or material fact, as they all do. Right here.

Only in the minds of persons who are of the opinions we are sailing in the upper statosphere of complete empirical analysis of reality.

In the mind of anyone who can read with comprehension a dictionary, a work of history, or a philosophical treatise.
Which someone who doesn't recognize "upper stratosphere" as a redundancy, and "complete empirical analysis of reality" as gibberish, perhaps cannot.

I guess at the end of the day, one has to ask whether one would prefer to be a big fish in a small pond or something of more humble proportions in an immensely larger body of water.

That's not why you and your kind post on science forums. Your agenda is injury, your means are dishonesty and bad faith.

And that's what happens to all these threads on all these forums: overt Abrahamic theists use them as pretexts to attack science, reason, and all purveyors or defenders of science and reason.

 

[James R]

So, since I last posted to Musika to ask him about his substantive argument, it's been another couple of weeks and we've added another 100 posts to the thread, but there has still been precious little in the way of evidence for God being presented by the theists. So, once again, I need to try to bring the focus back to the thread topic.

Musika: I suggest you might like to start by responding to my post here, which you have apparently overlooked or ignored for 2 weeks.

In the following posts, I want to address a few points that have come up in the conversation. Let's start with this:

Bowser:

Existence, the fact that we all witness life. I don't see an image of God as you might, but looking at you I might see him. (excuse the gendered pronoun, we are working with the limitations of language)

You haven't connected our witnessing of life with God in this post. Why do you believe that witnessing life amounts to evidence that God is real?

As for "existence", this sounds similar to the idea put forward by Musika and others that God is a necessary enabler of existence. Or, to put it more simply, that nothing could exist if God wasn't real. To me, this in itself sounds like an unevidenced assertion rather than an argument for God. Either that, or it's an implicit equating of the universe with God.

It seems to me that if you want to assert that God is needed for a physical object to exist, then you need to point to something demonstrably God-like in the object, separate from the other properties we would expect the object would have without the God. If it is impossible to consider the God as something separate from the object, then it seems to me that there's no need to add God as an additional hypothesis for explaining the object. The object is complete in itself, as far as we can tell. What does this notion of God add to the description of the object, other than an insubstantial aura of supernatural mystery?

 

[James R]

Quantum Quack:

"The evidence of God's sentience can be found in the sentience of Man" ~anon
...or any where sentience is demonstrated... would be my take..

The assumption here seems to be that God is required for sentience. How is this established?

 

[James R]

river:

god is a slippery grasp nowadays .

But to the ancient peoples all over the world , it was a fact .

Perhaps some of us modern people have a better idea about what does and doesn't constitute evidence than some ancient peoples did, so we're a bit more demanding when it comes to proof of "facts".

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Who needs to present evidence?

In a thread titled "evidence that God is real"? You do, Jan. If you don't have any evidence, then you have nothing to discuss here. You can stay out of the thread if you like.

If evidence needed to be presented, there would be no theists.

You appear to be saying that one can't come to your brand of God belief through evidence. Some other mechanism must be deployed. Faith?

Do you think it's because there is such a paucity of evidence that theists like yourself are forced to hold the belief for other reasons?

It is the fool that tries to convince him/herself there is no God.

Is it foolish to ask whether there is some evidence that God is real, in your opinion?

Other than God, tell me what real things do you believe in, for which there is no evidence? Are there any other things, apart from God?

To do that with any measure of delusional success, one has to create and maintain barriers, like pretending (to the point of belief) that for God to “exist”, God has to be a separate, natural, entity.

On the one hand, we have Musika insisting that God is a natural entity. Yet here you are, apparently telling us that God is not natural. But then, in the past you have talked a lot of about what is supposedly "natural" when it comes to God, or more specifically your belief that God is real.

So maybe you're not saying that God isn't natural. Maybe you're taking issue with "separate", or maybe "entity". I think on the supernatural/natural question, you and Musika both want to have your cake and eat it too. Both of you seem to take the position that God is embedded in every leaf and rock, but at the same time you think that your God is not just the substance of leaves and rocks, but something "above" that. Which kind of eliminates your objection to "separate" as a possibility, too. Again, on separateness, you appear to want a bet each way - God is coincident with everything, but at the same time it is identifiably separate from "things".

Which leaves us with "entity". And here, too, you want a bet each way. Your God is embedded in the leaves and rocks, which are entities. But at the same time God is insubstantial, incorporeal, and nebulous. There's no way to separate study of the God from study of the rock, except where the God is considered more as a concept or idea. But, on the other hand, the God is a person in many essential ways, and persons are entities.

Where does this leave us, then? You complain here that atheists (and probably errant theists, as well) are wrong to think of God as a "separate, natural, entity". But at other times you're at pains to paint God as all of those things - separate, natural and as an entity.

I don't think you have a very clear concept of what your God is. Your God is whatever is convenient to you in any given discussion, it seems. God is natural and supernatural. God is both separate and omnipresent. God is a person, but not an "entity", somehow. It doesn't make much logical sense, does it?

 

[Musika]

Perfect.

So your entire stance here when it comes to God can be boiled down to "let's look in the dictionary".

Got it.

Sure.
Its a fine place to start.

 

[billvon]

As already mentioned, the only persons who define God as supernatural appear to be atheists.

And dictionaries, of course.

Huh?

What don't you understand?

 

[DaveC426913]

Sure.
Its a fine place to start.

Thanks. You're confirming that you have nothing further to contribute to the thread topic.
It would be good form then, to step back and let others discuss it.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

What people do not know of God?

Knowing implies a justified belief. How is the belief in God justified without evidence?

No one is equipped with the intelligence to create God, or gods. It is silly to even think that to be possible.

Are you familiar with mythology? It often involves Gods. There's even a whole genre of fiction devoted to fanstastical creations of, among other things, Gods. Human beings are very creative, Jan. I think you give people far too little credit. The imagination is a wonderful thing.

The concept of a God is not very difficult to create. We are all familiar with people, and Gods are really just imaginatively suped-up versions of people. It's no harder to create a god than to create Spiderman.

Atheists know God Is.

How do they know this? How do I, as an atheist, know this? And, as a subsidiary question, why do you think it is that I fail to recognise that I know it?

You cannot be a live human being and not know God. Even babies and children know.

How do they know?

And, in particular: how do you know that a baby knows about God? Are you talking about newborns without the power of speech, for example? How do you ascertain their state of knowledge of God, exactly?

This sounds like massive over-reach on your part, to me. I think you're just making unjustified assumptions that fit your own faith position.

Atheists deny and reject, by creating a version of God that sits well with their world view.

Perhaps so. That is why I have created this thread as an opportunity for you to explain the evidence that sits well with your world view.

You seem strangely reluctant to provide any evidence at all, even using your own preferred definition of your God. Why is that? It's looking a lot like you have nothing to offer on the question of evidence. Is that a fair assessment?

They like to hear theists talk about God, so they can construct arguments, diversions, condescending insults, mockery etc, to boost their delusion.

There's a separate thread about the psychology of atheists and theists, if you're interested in discussing what atheists like to hear from theists, and the psychological reasons behind that preference.

Can you please stay on topic in this thread? This one is about evidence for God.