Evidence that God is real

[spidergoat]

In short, the main struggle you will have with this subject is that the "evidence" for God is not determined or constrained by the standard "veil of perception" that commonly surrounds our ideas of things in this world. This is because of the ontological position God occupies.

Right. The same ontological position occupied by leprechauns and unicorns. In other word, it's nonsense.

 

[kx000]

kx000:


Do I understand this correctly?

Your evidence for God is subjective. You think that your belief in God affects your personality, so therefore God is real?

And you think that the existence of love tells us that God is real? Is that because love couldn't exist without God?

The evidence is for everyone, but Faith itself is subjective.

 

[kx000]

If if if i would take this as true (I don't) but as a discussion point I can suspend my disbelief



Given my suspended disbelief as per above and taking as a given

Love validates the faith, it's just a matter as to if we truly believe or not... but I do. The bible does say God is LOVE

I am sure kx000 and yourself would agree the corollary would be

Devil is hate

I HATE Hey Presto Abracadabra I conjure up SATAN

Who knew

Hate is a literal anti-christ in my religion. God is to the devil as LOVE is to Hate

 

[Michael 345]

Hate is a literal anti-christ in my religion. God is to the devil as LOVE is to Hate

Which is precisely what I posted

But putting on my pedantic hat here is the problem

Love and hate do not exist ie they have no physicality

They are names given to PROCESSES

Soooo if god is love he is non existent

Twist it round and religion says god is real (with a physical presence)

Please provide a PHYSICAL sample of love, or hate I'm not fussy

 

[Musika]

Right. The same ontological position occupied by leprechauns and unicorns. In other word, it's nonsense.

Not even remotely.

 

[kx000]

Which is precisely what I posted

But putting on my pedantic hat here is the problem

Love and hate do not exist ie they have no physicality

They are names given to PROCESSES

Soooo if god is love he is non existent

Twist it round and religion says god is real (with a physical presence)

Please provide a PHYSICAL sample of love, or hate I'm not fussy

The subjective nature, manifest as a spontaneous thought ("I, believe").

 

[Michael 345]

The subjective nature, manifest as a spontaneous thought ("I, believe").

I believe is not evidence

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I believe is not evidence

///
There may be evidence of something for me which I cannot show others but yes, belief is not even evidence for the self. Evidence or something perceived as evidence precedes belief. Once there is belief, something can be perceived as further evidence but something causes the belief.

<>

 

[Michael 345]

something causes the belief.

At the low end of the spectrum I would put it as - exposure

Middle range - teaching, indoctrination

Upper range - brain washing

Once there is belief, something can be perceived as further evidence

Lower end - bias

Upper end - reinforce feedback

 

[Jan Ardena]

I thought you might be interested in talking about the evidence that your God exists. If that's not the case, you don't have to participate in the thread.

I've already told you what I think is good evidence, things like the cosmological, and teleological argument, or most things by William Craig Lane. I don't base my theism on them, but they are basically good in my opinion. I'm not a scientist, or philosopher, so I'm not going to lay them out. If you want to bring it to the discussion I will see what I can do.

Why? Because there isn't any?

You wish.

To take a scientific example, I believe that gravity exists, even though I can't see it or touch it. I believe it exists because its effects are visible in the world.

I believes the world is an effect of God.

If you think that's important, you can address that question when you provide your evidence.

That seems like adding a version of reality to fit the evidence. Is that what you do?

Presupposing truth strikes me as a more religious way of thinking.

Really?
So you're not bothered about truth?
It figures.

I think you're tying yourself up in knots before it becomes necessary.

I think you're wrong.

I consider it a fact that gravity exists, but I'm willing to change my mind, in principle.

Same here.

The age of the universe is a good example of a figure that has been revised many times, and in fact is still only approximately known.

But there is a truth. There is an age for the universe which is absolutely correct, irrespective of what any scientist thinks or knows.

It's the most we can hope for.

Sounds religious to me.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The value of evidence is that it tends to make us more confident that our hypotheses, theories, educated guesses, speculation are correct - or else it tends to tell us that we were wrong.

It is still presupposes truth. Without truth, there is no knowledge.

I disagree. I think that Truth, with a capital 'T', is unattainable in practice.

I disagree.

You're using your God language to talk about Truth now. God Is, Truth Is.

What is ''God language''?
Don't you understand what is meant by ''Truth Is''?

Both are ideals, but what I'm interested here is evidence.

But you're not interested in truth.
A discussion with you is ultimately pointless.

If the best that evidence can do is point vaguely in the direction of Truth, then we'll just have to be content with that.

I'm not content with that.

Maybe your God is not a person but merely the "cornerstone of reality".

It's your God too. No amount of reject or denial is going to change that.

Thinking scientifically, I'm interesting in making a mental model of the world that most closely matches what is observable and accessible to me.

I don't think you're thinking scientifically.

Theists like yourself tell us that an accurate world-model must include God, in addition.

I've never said that.
Then again you're not interested in truth, and can therefore say anything you like, and believe it to be valid.

What evidence says God, unambiguously?

For a start your ability.

The major religions treat God as a separate entity. Indeed, they speak of God as a person who acts in and on the world.

Nothing wrong with that.

Maybe your God is not a person but merely the "cornerstone of reality".

Are persons part of reality?

It's your God too.

That sounds like a very diffuse and nebulous sort of God to me, and it seems to me that in that picture no evidence would ambiguously point towards God.

You see what you want to see.
You already admit you're not really bothered about truth.

But then God is just a synonym for "everything".

''Everything'' is merely an emanation of God.

The problem with that is that it doesn't match how theists talk about God, typically. God, as far as I'm aware, is supposed to be a supernatural person.

I'm a theist, so it does.
What is a typical theist?
And ''supernatural'' is a perspective. Ours!

No. My question is to theists: what do you consider to be evidence.

Lot's of stuff. But we'll go with WLC, as he lays it out nice.

No. I'm quite happy, for the purposes of this thread, for you to give your account of God, as a theist. Read the opening post again.

The Personality of Godhead[God] is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong.

How about this, for starters.

Is there evidence that God is in every atom? If so, what is the evidence?

Yes. The scriptures.
I accept them as evidence as God, also.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

I've already told you what I think is good evidence, things like the cosmological, and teleological argument, or most things by William Craig Lane. I don't base my theism on them, but they are basically good in my opinion. I'm not a scientist, or philosopher, so I'm not going to lay them out

You don't know what they are, you don't use them yourself, but you think for some reason they are "basically good" and "evidence".
What reason would that be?

In point of fact most of that stuff isn't evidence at all, but invalid and unsound argument. What potential evidence is in there is largely irrelevant even to the unsound arguments presented.

How about this, for starters.

None of that is evidence. Some of that is unfounded assertion - claims made without evidence. Some of it is unsound argument. Some of it is simply gibberish - the Personality of Godhead is perfect?. But the takehome lesson is that overt Abrahamic theists who post this stuff on science forums do not know the differences between evidence, assertions, and arguments.

That is a handicap, when posting on a science forum. It may be explanatory.

 

[Sarkus]

JamesR, sorry if I'm butting in... I've ignored his comments/responses aimed more personally at you, and some of the more trite responses, to focus on what I see as more pertinent to the op...

I've already told you what I think is good evidence, things like the cosmological, and teleological argument, or most things by William Craig Lane. I don't base my theism on them, but they are basically good in my opinion. I'm not a scientist, or philosopher, so I'm not going to lay them out. If you want to bring it to the discussion I will see what I can do.

As pointed out, these are not evidence but arguments that start from certain premises to form conclusions. One can question the validity of those arguments, and indeed the soundness of them, but they are not in and of themselves evidence. Evidence might be that which convinces you that valid arguments are sound, though. I.e. evidence would be in support of accepting the premises as true.

I believes the world is an effect of God.

Okay, so you're saying that the world is evidence of God, right? on what basis do you believe that?

It is still presupposes truth. Without truth, there is no knowledge.

So, how do you know the truth of what you otherwise merely claim to know? How do you know that what you claim as knowledge is actually the truth, and thus actual knowledge rather than just a claim? Faith?

It's your God too. No amount of reject or denial is going to change that.

IF God is then you're absolutely right. But I don't know that God is. You claim to know, but you're unable to explain how you know that your claim is of actual knowledge rather than just belief on your part. And, in keeping with the thread, you're not too good at explaining what you consider evidence to be to support your claim of knowledge in this regard.

''Everything'' is merely an emanation of God.

So do you consider "everything" to be evidence of God?

Lot's of stuff. But we'll go with WLC, as he lays it out nice.
...
How about this, for starters.

Those are claims by him, nothing more. They may even be premises to an argument, or conclusions from another, but they are not evidence. At least not in the category of what could be considered evidence. And no, it's not that I'm simply rejecting it as evidence for God, I am saying that it is not correct to call it evidence at all. It is a category error.
Of course, it might be that you are accepting his overall claim that God exists as evidence... in the "well, he said it so I believe it" approach? Appeal to authority. Certainly not evidence.

Yes. The scriptures.
I accept them as evidence as God, also.

Okay. On what basis do you accept them? I.e. What is it about the scriptures that suggests to you they are evidence of God? Is "Lord of the Rings" evidence of orcs and elves, for example?

 

[Musika]

JamesR, sorry if I'm butting in... I've ignored his comments/responses aimed more personally at you, and some of the more trite responses, to focus on what I see as more pertinent to the op...

One good turn deserves another

So, how do you know the truth of what you otherwise merely claim to know? How do you know that what you claim as knowledge is actually the truth, and thus actual knowledge rather than just a claim? Faith?

How do you know the truth of what you otherwise merely claim to know?
Perhaps you could illumine the epistemological path through the "veil of perception" that surrounds the standard problems of our sensory input vs our estimations of the outside world (extra brownie points for avoiding "faith").

 

[iceaura]

How do you know the truth of what you otherwise merely claim to know?

About the world - we don't. We only know within reason, beyond a reasonable doubt. In math there is truth - but that is arranged by the word "if", and is not part of the world.

 

[Sarkus]

One good turn deserves another

And there was me expecting you to quip that there was then nothing left to respond to.

How do you know the truth of what you otherwise merely claim to know?
Perhaps you could illumine the epistemological path through the "veil of perception" that surrounds the standard problems of our sensory input vs our estimations of the outside world (extra brownie points for avoiding "faith").

I generally don't claim to know anything, at least not absolutely. A few mathematical notions, and matters of definition, or logic, perhaps. But not much else. I have mild confidence in some things, driven by experience, though. But at best these experiences can merely confirm an understanding/model of reality, not necessarily reality itself. There are some subjective notions that I can claim knowledge of but only on the grounds that I am also the sole arbiter of the "truth" of the matter. As soon as the arbiter of "truth" is in part external, knowledge slips from absolute into degrees of confidence. And degrees of confidence allow for being wrong, for it not being as thought.
Or "truth" takes on a more localised application, such as in a shared subjectivity, where "knowledge" is thus similarly confined, as removed from actual knowledge as far as the collective subjective "truth" is from anything objective.

See, no mention of "faith". Doh!

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you're saying that you don't regard religious experience as evidence for God. Okay.

Really? You're taking lesson from Alex now?

A particle physicist would tell you that this is a model.

Bully for them.

They would also quibble technically about your description, but there's no need to get into that here.

I believe that explicitly atheist scientists would bother with such shallowness, but a good scientist (be he/she atheist, or theist) would easily pick up the essence of what I'm saying.

Understood by whom? Theists like yourself?

By people who read scriptures.

Where is the evidence that spiritual masters actually alter physical structures on the minute level, as you claim?

I think cymatics is good evidence of how sound can generate form, and different frequencies can change forms.
Real prayer isn't just about desire, it is about sound vibration, which is why spiritual masters like Jesus teach conditioned souls how to pray.

Are there any controlled studies showing that prayer produces the results you claim?

I don't give a toss about controlled studies.
They are done for the pleasure of people who do not accept or believe in God.

How do you know?

Because I can read.

Without being arrogant, I'm confident that I understand how the laws of physics operate better than the average person -

Fail! You are being arrogant.
You may understand the detail more, but we all have to, by necessity understand the laws of physics, which are necessary for us to understand. Outside of that, I could care less.

I'm quite highly trained in that area. It would seem that I should be able to work a miracle better than most, then. What kinds of miracles are you talking about, exactly?

Arrogance doesn't cut it James. Humility is the only game in town.

What kinds of miracles are you talking about, exactly?

Ask Yazata. He brought it up.

Also, assuming that this miraculous ability to control nature exists, do you regard it as evidence of God? What is the evidence that shows the connection?

Define God, James.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In point of fact most of that stuff isn't evidence at all, but invalid and unsound argument.

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Counter them if you think they are invalid, and or unsound.

You don't know what they are, you don't use them yourself, but you think for some reason they are "basically good" and "evidence".
What reason would that be?

Who says I don't know what they are?
I use them all the time, whenever I define, describe, or talk about God, because that is part of what God is.
If I talk about human beings, I automatically invoke everything incorporates a human being.
It would be pointless for me to define what a human is in order to talk about them.

They are basically good because they are sound and valid.

But if you think otherwise, state it.

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I think cymatics is good evidence of how sound can generate form, and different frequencies can change forms.
Real prayer isn't just about desire, it is about sound vibration, which is why spiritual masters like Jesus teach conditioned souls how to pray.

Can I pray for miracles to happen and if they don't happen it's because I prayed incorrectly?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You claim to know, but you're unable to explain how you know that your claim is of actual knowledge rather than just belief on your part.

Did you not read the article put forward in my thread which James closed down for no good reason?

So do you consider "everything" to be evidence of God?

Can't you read?

. At least not in the category of what could be considered evidence.

So what category would that be?

What is it about the scriptures that suggests to you they are evidence of God?

For me, scriptures corroborates to the natural theism (unnecessarily defunct thread by James) we all hold, if we accept even the possibility of God (lying about accepting the possibility does not count).
Of course from your perspective it is entirely subjective, but I'm okay with that, and as such will use that.

Is "Lord of the Rings" evidence of orcs and elves, for example?

I don't know. Is it?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can I pray for miracles to happen and if they don't happen it's because I prayed incorrectly?

Why do you want miracles to happen?

jan.