Evidence that God is real

[James R]

river:

but god is in every leaf and rock .

How is this established?

 

[James R]

Moderator note: An interesting spin-off argument has developed but it threatens to distract from the main focus of this thread. See here for the new thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/prove-that-i-am-not-god.161251/

 

[river]

river said: ↑
but god is in every leaf and rock .

river:


How is this established?

it is established by the potential of all things to produce life .

and to have intelligence of a form . meaning that all forms of life push towards their intelligent , ultimate form of intelligence .

 

[Baldeee]

Okay, my bad. I thought you were agreeing with Jan and Musika that God is in every leaf and rock, but apparently not.

Actually I think what he's saying is that just because you might conclude what someone considers God to be is nothing but nature, for example, doesn't mean that what they conclude God to be doesn't exist.
I.e. if you do conclude that someone believes in God, and that their understanding of God is "nature", then if you accept that nature exists then you are accepting that God exists (at least the God that the other person believes in).

There is a tendency for people to say "I don't believe your God exists" when actually all they might disagree with is calling the focus of worship "God", and in focussing any worship upon it, not that it actually exists or not.

 

[James R]

river:

it is established by the potential of all things to produce life.

But there's no evidence God is required to produce life, as far as I am aware.

You might complain that scientists haven't managed to do it in the lab yet. But that doesn't mean it can't be done, or that they won't do it. You can't simply assume that because human beings haven't done something yet, or because people haven't worked something out yet, or because we don't know something, therefore God is the only possible explanation. That's God of the Gaps.

... and to have intelligence of a form . meaning that all forms of life push towards their intelligent , ultimate form of intelligence .

But they don't, as far as I can tell. Intelligence is only one life solution that evolution has thrown up. There are lots of animals (not to mention plants) that have low intelligence but thrive just the same. There's not really a general trend towards intelligence, as far as I can tell.

 

[James R]

Baldeee:

Actually I think what he's saying is that just because you might conclude what someone considers God to be is nothing but nature, for example, doesn't mean that what they conclude God to be doesn't exist.

I've already addressed this point. If somebody believes that God is nothing but nature, then they are just creating a new synonym for nature. Some people might do that. Some people have a worshipful reverence for the natural world. "Mother Nature" is a well-known personification of nature (which, incidentally, points to the human tendency to anthropomorphise).

I'm not sure if this kind of belief is really theism, though. Maybe it is, if you allow a loose definition of God. But this is not Jan Ardena's theism, or Musika's, and it is not the theism of Christianity or Hinduism. The reported actions of the Christian God include supernatural actions, for example, so the god is obviously not "just" a natural one.

I.e. if you do conclude that someone believes in God, and that their understanding of God is "nature", then if you accept that nature exists then you are accepting that God exists (at least the God that the other person believes in).

Sure, but in that case we understand that when they say "God", they really mean what we call "nature", and nothing more.

There is, of course, abundant evidence for this God (nature). I agree with you that the issue there is not one about whether the God (nature) is real, but whether it is an appropriate focus of religious devotion or worship and, if so, under what constraints or understandings.

 

[river]

river:


But there's no evidence God is required to produce life, as far as I am aware.

You might complain that scientists haven't managed to do it in the lab yet. But that doesn't mean it can't be done, or that they won't do it. You can't simply assume that because human beings haven't done something yet, or because people haven't worked something out yet, or because we don't know something, therefore God is the only possible explanation. That's God of the Gaps.


But they don't, as far as I can tell. Intelligence is only one life solution that evolution has thrown up. There are lots of animals (not to mention plants) that have low intelligence but thrive just the same. There's not really a general trend towards intelligence, as far as I can tell.

true

but every form of life reaches its for intelligence but is limited by its form . its cell awarness

 

[James R]

but every form of life reaches its for intelligence but is limited by its form . its cell awarness

That's a very vague statement, and I don't know what you mean by it, so I can't really respond.

 

[river]

then read the book by Bruce Lipton , PhD , The biology of Belief .

in this book the evolution of any cell is based upon its ability to form communities which then become more aware of their environment and then specialises into organs etc

 

[James R]

then read the book by Bruce Lipton , PhD , The biology of Belief .

in this book the evolution of any cell is based upon its ability to form communities which then become more aware of their environment and then specialises into organs etc

How does this connect to evidence for God?

 

[Baldeee]

I've already addressed this point. If somebody believes that God is nothing but nature, then they are just creating a new synonym for nature. Some people might do that. Some people have a worshipful reverence for the natural world. "Mother Nature" is a well-known personification of nature (which, incidentally, points to the human tendency to anthropomorphise).

I'm not sure if this kind of belief is really theism, though. Maybe it is, if you allow a loose definition of God. But this is not Jan Ardena's theism, or Musika's, and it is not the theism of Christianity or Hinduism. The reported actions of the Christian God include supernatural actions, for example, so the god is obviously not "just" a natural one.


Sure, but in that case we understand that when they say "God", they really mean what we call "nature", and nothing more.

There is, of course, abundant evidence for this God (nature). I agree with you that the issue there is not one about whether the God (nature) is real, but whether it is an appropriate focus of religious devotion or worship and, if so, under what constraints or understandings.

Understood fully.
Just wanted you to be aware/clear that not everyone is of Jan's/Musika's view - and not want you to misunderstand other's views by assuming they were.
Plus give you an opportunity to (re)address what you have done.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have not failed to notice that you only responded to half of what I wrote to you and that you've left out my entire second post.

They're too long. I don't have the time.

I don't. But I do note that we're now 600 posts into this thread and you've presenting nothing.

Which means you do assume.

I have to ask: is this really the best you theists can do? And, if so, doesn't that worry you at all? And, if it doesn't, why doesn't it?

Is what the best theists can do?
What do you think theists are supposed to do?

After you post some, perhaps.

But you deny and reject God. So how can you recognise evidence.
Remember the text - ''The fool has said IN HIS HEART, there is no God.
That means the person does not perceive God, at all.
So how are you going to recognise evidence of God, if for you there is no God.

There are plenty of people who are in denial about many things, which means they cannot accept that which they deny. Until they come to terms with it.
Up until that point, the person cannot reasoned with, on that or relative matters.

There will always be people who don't. There's no getting through to some people about some things. Don't worry about me, I'll be okay.

Would that mean that the people who now have evidence, are wrong?
Or the people that reject the evidence based pn science, logic, and reason, are wrong?

How do you know they didn't make it up?

Like I said, you can trace everything back to scripture, in written form, or spoken, which preceded literature.
Supermen/women with extraordinary powers has its basis in scriptures.
Nobody has gone outside of that, because nobody can (in media),

Rolling with your premise, there are two reasons. First reason: lots of people say there is evidence of God, and I'm interested to find out what it is that they think is good evidence for God. Second reason: I could be wrong.

But if gods are imaginary, as you clearly believe, then how are you going to accept evidence of God?
How will you decide, this is evidence of God?
While you're at it, explain how you have come to the decision there is currently no evidence for God?
I think maybe your delusion is slipping, so you need to deny and reject God constantly, hence the desperate need for discussion,

How is that evidence of God?

You're an atheist, and as such, you will not accept anything that is related to God and theism.
Your atheism needs to be addressed first, before we discuss God. Because this has nothing to do with God.

Do you have any evidence that knowledge of God comes built-in to babies?

For you, there is no God, James. It is pointless having a discussion about something that for one party there is no perception of the subject matter.
Hence the subject matter does not register with that person. But if you're sincerely interested, then you'll go along with the examination of your atheism.
You will see that it is based on not much, the basis of which is denial, and rejection.

I think you're worried that you have no good evidence for God, so you're making excuses.

Hence you worldview is temporarily safe. Yippee.
Here's a good example of denial. You stick with your worldview, and you're not even curious enough to step off, and try and comprehend where I'm coming from. Can you see how your asking for evidence of God, a nonsense? If you were sincere you would gladly shake off your denial to see if it is true that your atheism is the veil that prevents acceptance of God.

Seriously, aren't you at all concerned that you have nothing to offer in this thread?

I'm offering you the opportunity to break free from your delusion of being an atheist. But you're not sincere.

I mean, it's all well and good to see if you can outwit the evil atheists and avoid answering questions, but when you're away from the forum quietly contemplating, don't you think that you really ought to have something substantial to offer in this discussion?

Like God, we have a different understanding of what substantial is.
It must be hard to keep blocking God out, with your idea of God.

This is God-given knowledge, is it? Built into every baby. And you know this is there ... how?

How do you see God, in this picture (seeing as you brought it up)?

How has this been established, and by whom?

Why do you assume it needs to be established by other people?

I think your approach is: "Bill Craig is a theist like me, so he must be an okay guy. He manages to stick it to the atheists, so I guess I'll have whatever he's having. I don't need to read his stuff or think about it. I'll just be lazy and rely on him as an authority. I'll wave my hands and the atheists won't be able to tell the difference."

This is how you conclude about God, isn't it?
You simply make stuff up that suits your position, then accept it, and eventually believe it.
You're so obvious, it's funny.

I'm surprised that, with all Bill's evidences at your fingertips, you have yet to post any of it. Well, okay, I'm not really surprised.

I'm not interested in posting it, because it makes to you. Like I said, the thread is a sham, and you're only interested in justifying your delusion.
This thread isn't even about God, it is about your idea of God. The one you make up to counteract the real God.
When you're ready, I'll be happy to discuss God with you.

I don't, necessarily. But even if I did, for myself or as general principle, it's irrelevant to this thread.

It means you don't understand what you're talking about, and your cocky with it.
Why should any theist waste his or her time talking about God, on your terms. A person for whom there is not God, and actively trying to fortify that idea.

Your line that "It doesn't matter if I present evidence or not. You won't change your mind about God." is irrelevant.

It is as far as you're concerned.

Why is what I know or do not know at all relevant here?

Because you're asking me, or any theist, a question, and how we choose to go about responding to it, is our business.
If I choose to examine your delusion, to help you realise the answer, then so be it. Or do you want to control both sides, as usual, James.

Obviously not. You've decided for yourself who or what is God, to your own satisfaction, regardless of anything I might say or think.

Show me where I have done this?

If the current discussion is of no interest to you, why are you here?

To show you that your atheism is the reason you cannot, and more importantly, will not (currently) accept God.

Start another thread about atheism if you like. Stop trying to send this one off on a tangent, to draw attention away from the fact that you've come up empty on the evidence question.

It's not about atheism. It is about how atheism prevents you from accepting God.
It's about the barriers you put up, automatically, without question.

jan,

 

[DaveC426913]

...all forms of life push towards their intelligent , ultimate form of intelligence .

Without wishing to create yet another diversion, the above is not true (and so, fails as a counter argument to the thread topic, before it even gets off the ground).

Bacteria have been around for longer than any other kind of life (3 billion years), and they are still getting along quite fabulously - and extremely successfully - without need for even the slightest bit of intelligence.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

They're too long. I don't have the time.

I think readers can see through that weak excuse, Jan. They see you answering questions with questions, time and again. They see your continual attempts to deflect and distract. They see you consistently avoid answering the hard questions, time and again. But most of all, they see your continuous failure to address the topic of the thread.

You choose to spend your ever-so-precious time here attacking my character, rather than trying honestly to respond to the thread topic. But that's just deflection, isn't it? You hope you'll be able to troll me to forget the topic and engage with your personal attacks. Sorry, Jan, it's not going to happen. What will happen, as long as you're posting here, is that I will continue to highlight your inability to present any evidence at all, and your tactics in trying to hide that inability.

Which means you do assume.

Rather than arguing this silly point about my assumptions, I simply ask again: what does it matter what I assume? The fact of the matter is that you have been, and you remain, unable to present any evidence at all for your God in this thread. That speaks for itself.

Is what the best theists can do?

This deflect, avoid, distract game that you play in order to avoid facing an uncomfortable truth. Of course, I'm not being fair by lumping all theists into the same basket with you. Really, my question is: is this the best you can do?

What do you think theists are supposed to do?

If they are choosing to participate in this thread? They could answer the question in the opening post, honestly and in good faith. Why can't you do that?

But you deny and reject God. So how can you recognise evidence.
Remember the text - ''The fool has said IN HIS HEART, there is no God.
That means the person does not perceive God, at all.
So how are you going to recognise evidence of God, if for you there is no God.

What does it matter what I recognise or accept? This thread isn't about me. Look, here's the question from the opening post, again:

"I invite our resident theists to put forward what you regard as the best evidence for the existence of the God or gods that you believe in."

See that? I ask you to put forward what you regard as evidence for the God you believe in. I haven't asked you to put up something that you think will satisfy me.

Why don't you forget about me and just answer the question?

Would that mean that the people who now have evidence, are wrong?

Which people are they? Where is this evidence you allude to? Can you present any of it? You keep saying there is evidence, but you keep coming up with a blank.

Like I said, you can trace everything back to scripture, in written form, or spoken, which preceded literature.
Supermen/women with extraordinary powers has its basis in scriptures.
Nobody has gone outside of that, because nobody can (in media),

Well, that's an interesting idea, Jan, that all fiction is scripturally based. Maybe we can discuss your idea in a separate thread. I don't think I agree with you that Stan Lee was drawing on the bible (or whatever) as his primary source material when he created Spiderman, but you might be able to make an argument.

But if gods are imaginary, as you clearly believe, then how are you going to accept evidence of God?
How will you decide, this is evidence of God?
While you're at it, explain how you have come to the decision there is currently no evidence for God?
I think maybe your delusion is slipping, so you need to deny and reject God constantly, hence the desperate need for discussion,

Look! More about me, and still no evidence of God.

Briefly: we can worry about how I will cope with accepting evidence of God if the issue ever arises in this thread. That would require that some evidence be presented, for starters.

I don't know why you assume I have already decided there is currently no evidence for God. I've put the question to you: is there any evidence? You've drawn a blank so far, but it's still possible that you or somebody else might present something.

As for discussion of my atheist psychology, you're still in the wrong thread for that.

You're an atheist, and as such, you will not accept anything that is related to God and theism.

That's a very wide net you're casting, Jan. How do you know I won't accept anything? But wait, I'm starting to get sucked in by your distraction tactics, in spite of myself. What I will or won't accept is neither here nor there. That's not what this thread is about.

Your atheism needs to be addressed first, before we discuss God. Because this has nothing to do with God.

Nice try, Jan. "I refuse to present any evidence unless prerequisites A, B and C are met first. First, we will discuss the history of atheism. Next, we will discuss the definition of God. Then we will discuss the Bhagavad Gita." blah blah blah. And in this way, we indefinitely postpone discussion of the evidence for God, which is the thread topic.

Try again, Jan.

For you, there is no God, James. It is pointless having a discussion about something that for one party there is no perception of the subject matter.

No need to discuss. Go on. I dare you to post some evidence. If you've got any, that is.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Hence the subject matter does not register with that person. But if you're sincerely interested, then you'll go along with the examination of your atheism.

You're making yourself look desperate, Jan. Anything to avoid addressing the topic.

Hence you worldview is temporarily safe. Yippee.
Here's a good example of denial. You stick with your worldview, and you're not even curious enough to step off, and try and comprehend where I'm coming from.

More about me?

Can you see how your asking for evidence of God, a nonsense?

No, I can't see that. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence of God. This is particularly the case since you've said you have some.

But if you want to tie yourself in a new knot by attempting to explain why it is is a nonsense for me to ask you to present the evidence you claim you have, I'll be happy to watch you do it.

If you were sincere you would gladly shake off your denial to see if it is true that your atheism is the veil that prevents acceptance of God.

Now you sound like you're proselytising. Try presenting some evidence instead.

I'm offering you the opportunity to break free from your delusion of being an atheist. But you're not sincere.

Can we discuss your generous offer in another thread? This one is about evidence for God.

Like God, we have a different understanding of what substantial is.

When it comes to presenting evidence, it is very clear that we have different understandings.

It must be hard to keep blocking God out, with your idea of God.

Can we discuss my idea of God in another thread?

How do you see God, in this picture (seeing as you brought it up)?

I see God as the supernatural being that inserts magical knowledge of himself into babies, in that picture. From your previous descriptions of your God, I assume you would say that the babies are part of God, or God is part of the babies, or whatever, so God's knowledge is innate in the babies. As for the details, and how it all works, you'd be better off explaining your own belief system rather than having me guess at it.

Why do you assume it needs to be established by other people?

It's your claim, so it must have been established to your satisfaction. I asked you how it was established to your satisfaction. I assumed that you learned of this innate baby knowledge from somebody else, but maybe I was wrong there? Maybe your own knowledge that babies have innate God knowledge is, itself, innate in you? If so, then we can just add this magical knowledge to all the other magically-acquired knowledge you claim to have about God, I guess.

This is how you conclude about God, isn't it?
You simply make stuff up that suits your position, then accept it, and eventually believe it.
You're so obvious, it's funny.

Was I a bit too close to the mark there, Jan?

I'm not interested in posting it, because it makes to you.

???

You always seem to have an excuse as to why you can't or won't post any evidence. What we are left with, after the excuses are done, is the fact that you have posted no evidence.

Like I said, the thread is a sham, and you're only interested in justifying your delusion.

More about me and my interests?

The fact remains: you have posted no evidence, sham or no sham on my part.

This thread isn't even about God, it is about your idea of God. The one you make up to counteract the real God.
When you're ready, I'll be happy to discuss God with you.

As you are well aware, I have given you free reign in this thread to define your own God and to discuss the evidence for it. We can discuss my idea of God elsewhere, perhaps. I kind of thought we'd already covered that topic previously, though.

Why should any theist waste his or her time talking about God, on your terms.

I have invited you to talk about the evidence for God on your terms. However, you must talk about the evidence. That's the thread topic, remember. You say you have evidence, remember. All you need to do is present some of it. Is it too much to ask?

Because you're asking me, or any theist, a question, and how we choose to go about responding to it, is our business.

You're choosing to respond to it by avoiding, distracting, making personal attacks - basically anything that you think will allow you to wriggle out of answering the question. That is your business, it seems.

I think you could conduct your business with more integrity than you're showing here.

 

[sculptor]

evidence........................
imho
It seems that one thing that deism and science have in common
is that
people who reject one or the other must do so out of ignorance

.........................................................
and then we have people who would claim one or the other
also out of ignorance coupled with arrogance

 

[DaveC426913]

... you would gladly shake off your denial to see if it is true that your atheism is the veil that prevents acceptance of God.

Maybe this isn't a bad approach.

What is behind that veil, Jan?
What manifestations specifically are you asking us to accept that are God's doing?
Maybe show us something that we apparently see yet deny.
Show us a thing that contradicts our view of a world that runs without God.

Not vague things like "God's love" or "our existence".

Can you show us something that is a differential of the two theories (i.e. conclusively supports one and refutes the other)?

Can you explain in what way(s) your view is not a tautology? In order for it not to be tautological, it would have to have an external referent. Something objective that can be used to show it's not simply a personal belief. Otherwise, how could we know, without simply taking you on faith?

If we can't experience it, how can you find fault in us for not believing in something we can't - in your view - even experience?
Wouldn't that mean to you that God is forever beyond the reach of any atheist? One is either born with knowledge of God or one is born without it - and will never get it?

If that's the case, would that not mean that all your words would have to be wasted on us.

Yet here you are. Are you here simply to gloat? Or maybe you can throw us a branch to grab.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Again this is too long, and repetitive.
I will simplify my response. Hope you do the same.

Sometimes when you answer a question with a question, your opponent can realise where they are going wrong. But it requires them to answer the question.

As you keep assuming God has to be presented for God to exist, and that evidence should exist separate to ourselves to show that God exists. You need to answer a few questions to realise you are not talking about God. Otherwise we’re just not in communication.

Which people are they? Where is this evidence you allude to? Can you present any of it? You keep saying there is evidence, but you keep coming up with a blank.

You’re playing that game are you?
Don’t worry I know you cannot answer those questions honestly.

Well, that's an interesting idea, Jan, that all fiction is scripturally based. Maybe we can discuss your idea in a separate thread. I don't think I agree with you that Stan Lee was drawing on the bible (or whatever) as his primary source material when he created Spiderman, but you might be able to make an argument.

Why don’t you think Stan Lee drew from the Bible, or any othe scripture for that matter.
Is this yet another baseless assumption?

I’m not interested in making an argument. Only the point that man is not capable of inventing God, and scripture.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Maybe this isn't a bad approach.

What is behind that veil, Jan?

Denial and rejection of God.

What manifestations specifically are you asking us to accept that are God's doing?

Did you actually read what you quoted?

Maybe show us something that we apparently see yet deny.
Show us a thing that contradicts our view of a world that runs without God.

Try give up your delusion and see for yourself.

Not vague things like "God's love" or "our existence".

???

This is why we are not communicating. You have some nonsensical notions about God and theism.

Can you show us something that is a differential of the two theories (i.e. conclusively supports one and refutes the other)?

Once you give up your foolishness, who knows.

Can you explain in what way(s) your view is not a tautology?

I don’t know?
Please explain what you mean by “my view”?

In order for it not to be tautological, it would have to have an external referent. Something objective that can be used to show it's not simply a personal belief. Otherwise, how could we know, without simply taking you on faith?

A fair point.
Give up your delusion, then realise it for yourself. Nobody believes in God because somebody proved God to them.
This is something that has to be realised. Such is the nature of the subject matter.

If we can't experience it, how can you find fault in us for not believing in something we can't - in your view - even experience?

You can experience it, but you deny and reject God, so it is currently outside of your reach.

Wouldn't that mean to you that God is forever beyond the reach of any atheist? One is either born with knowledge of God or one is born without it - and will never get it?

Can a sad person ever be happy by remaining sad? The answer is, the person can believe they are happy. But really they are sad.

You assume you can deny and reject God, while at the same time perceive God.

God isn’t beyond the reach of anything. If you had some idea of God you wouldn’t need to ask that question. If you you don’t have any idea of God, why are you arguing with me as though you have?

Atheists have placed themselves in a situation where for them there is no God.
The fool says in his heart, there is no God.
Do you think you could decipher the reality of that text, objectively?

If that's the case, would that not mean that all your words would have to be wasted on us.

Why would they be wasted, if I choose to say them?

Yet here you are. Are you here simply to gloat? Or maybe you can throw us a branch to grab.

You seemed to be obsessed with the need to have God showed, or presented to you, rather than find out for yourself.
Why?

That is how theists come to the conclusion of acceptance of God.
Why do you feel you are exempt from finding out for yourself?

Jan

 

[DaveC426913]

Don’t worry I know you cannot answer those questions honestly.

JamesR has asked the question. The question is what evidence can theists present for the existence of God.

In a thread 600 posts long, you have been unable to answer that question - even for your own case.

It would hardly be fair to expect you to explicitly say "I have none".
But your silence speaks for you.