Evidence that God is real

[iceaura]

I’ve a better idea.
Why not just google WLC evidence for God.

That doesn't work. Your essays and thinking don't show up.

I wasn’t aware “science types” had a specific worldview.

That's a lie.
You have disparaged what you are "aware" of as that worldview repeatedly and routinely on this forum.
- - -

So if this thread is ever going to budge off its posturing, ego battles and incessant moral condemnations, maybe natural theology is where more of the board's attention should go.

No. This thread is specifically not for that.
The OP:

The topic here is simple. 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.

 

[Write4U]

James R said:
The topic here is simple. 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.

So far no evidence of any kind except natural physical values and functions.

Let me propose evidence that god exists. We know the world functions via mathematical processes, without any sign of intentional non-mathematical interference. Thus if we assume God is a sentient object, it must be of a mathematical nature or intentionally use mathematics to make things happen. A logical reasoning?

Of course this begs the question that if everything is naturally mathematical, is an intentional God necessary at all?....

 

[iceaura]

So given that atheists tend to display a wholesale bias in using the word "supernatural", what specific advantage do you think they could also secure in lumping God in to a category that has lots of other ideas that have nothing to do with theism?

They don't - and you have seen the proof, multiple links etc.

Having recourse to special words that help you demarcate the stuff you believe is real from the stuff you believe is not real is certainly helpful .... but only insofar as assisting your world view. Establishing your world view as superior or philosophically cogent is a far more arduous task than merely saying, "Look, I just called that supernatural!"

No evidence of the reality of God - just endless whinging and personal attack.

There are theistic traditions that entertain the notion of ghosts and God. Your speculations about how this automatically grant them a similar or identical relationship with the world because they "appear similar" in your mind are simply speculations (probably fueled more by the influence of hollywood than any legitimate cultural or philosophical reference).

You have repeatedly refused to provide evidence or argument separating your God from those others. You can hardly expect others to guess what you refuse to provide about your God - it's your God: if it's not like all the others you are one who can explain why.

How do you figure it as vague since you have just mentioned earlier how "supernatural" encompasses a category of things that has nothing to do with God, or the role God is alluded (IYHO) to have within this world?

The words you claim to prefer - "imminent", "transcendent", etc - do exactly the same thing, and if you were to willfully take their direction of implication backwards as you do "supernatural" you would create exactly the same screwed up muddle.

Since all we have in the way of a natural universe is post-big bang, it stands to reason that anything pre-big bang must have more than a handful of "supernatural" elements.

It does not.
There is no evidence or argument that anything hypothetically existing prior to the Bang operated independently of physical laws of some kind - or even that "existence" would be a meaningful term in such a situation.

What is not reasonable is to dress up empiricism as the means to assess the problem

You have to admit the weirdly characteristic linguistic incompetence of the oA theists on these forums is kind of interesting. It's like they all took classes in bullshitting from the same rhetoric teacher. Even the short sentences are bollixed - "empiricism as the means to assess the problem"?

But as the pivot away from any thread topic into bargled disparagement of science and scientific types is literally all these guys ever post,
and as that interesting topic has been thoroughly and repeatedly ignored throughout this forum,
threads focused on their concerns are never going to be anything but platforms for that.

.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A feature of the human mind that will keep psychics and astrologers in business forever.

Plus the known benefits of the virtues often accompanying prayer - diligence, humility, an acceptance of circumstances not in one's control without depression or induced apathy, an amelioration of tension and diminution of fear, and (especially) an adoption of gratitude as a basic frame of one's relationship with the world as well as other people.

And even if this was the only evidence of God's reality even if imaginary (psycho-somatics), is this effect such a bad thing?
Surely billions of persons praying every day is evidence of such an effect?

 

[Write4U]

I submit this question for consideration.

Given the Law of Necessity and Sufficiency, is God a scientific necessity and scientific sufficiency requirement for the universe as we know it to be, objectively?

 

[spidergoat]

And even if this was the only evidence of God's reality even if imaginary (psycho-somatics), is this effect such a bad thing?
Surely billions of persons praying every day is evidence of such an effect?

If this was the only effect of religion, no one would care.

 

[Musika]

I submit this question for consideration.

Given the Law of Necessity and Sufficiency, is God a scientific necessity and scientific sufficiency requirement for the universe as we know it to be, objectively?

If the scientific model of whatever we are holding up for investigation isn't evidenced as closed, all susequent discussions of the what are necessarily outside of it are just speculations.

 

[Write4U]

If the scientific model of whatever we are holding up for investigation isn't evidenced as closed, all susequent discussions of the what are necessarily outside of it are just speculations.

The question is if it was necessary for God to be a motivated entity for the universe to have come into existence.

 

[Musika]

The question is if it was necessary for God to be a motivated entity for the universe to have come into existence.

That q sounds teleological, not scientific (ie not based on a systematic observation of empirical things of this world).

 

[iceaura]

The only comedy here is your beat-up session with non-existant abrahamic theists.

And a bulb lights.
Dunno how I missed the obvious, but I actually hadn't twigged to that reason for not offering evidence for the reality of your God: it would identify your God, and you would then lose what you are pretending is plausible deniability.

That would threaten to pin you down. And accountability is not part of the agenda of the oA theists on these forums.

 

[DaveC426913]

And a bulb lights.
... you would then lose what you are pretending is plausible deniability.

That would threaten to pin you down. ...

Yes. That is a common theme.

No one who believes in God will come out and actually say what it is specifically that they believe.
They do not have the courage of their convictions.

 

[billvon]

The only comedy here is . . . .

. . . the refusal of any theists to post any evidence, followed by posts saying "but I DID! I DID!"

 

[Musika]

. . . the refusal of any theists to post any evidence, followed by posts saying "but I DID! I DID!"

You have to bring the atheist attempt to dumb down evidence to a dysfunctional form to get the complete import behind the humour.

 

[Musika]

Yes. That is a common theme.

No one who believes in God will come out and actually say what it is specifically that they believe.
They do not have the courage of their convictions.

The funny thing here is that when you are specifically directed to history or philosophy (or even a dictionary definition) related to God, you lose all courage.

 

[billvon]

You have to bring the atheist attempt to dumb down evidence . . . .

You have to present evidence before you can claim that anyone is "dumbing it down."

 

[Jan Ardena]

To have sensible discussion. That is something you have shown yourself to be pretty much incapable of, and seemingly actively seek to avoid. So I ask: why are you here?

Point out where you think my discussionis not sensible, and I will gladly simplify it for you.

So might say the little boy who, when asked what he had for lunch, simply defecates on the floor. "I've done what has been asked, That you don't like how I've done it, is irrelevant".

Not the same thing.
I’ve given what I think is good evidence. Yazata has brought it all up, so obviously it’s not that difficult to get hold of. What more do you want?

So Bill Craig himself is evidence that God is real?

Based on the evidence he put forward, yes.

Which arguments? The ones he has with his colleagues? With his wife? Arguments on which wine region is the best? Whether the Hulk could defeat Thor in an arm wrestle?

Ask Yazata.
Or better still, look through his posts.

So put one forth for discussion,

Who with?

Do not just drop a turd on the floor and expect others to sift through it for your answer.

They don’t have to sift through it. That’s the point. Yazata didn’t have to sift through it, and neither does anyone else.

Jan.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Just a thought,
evidence of an idea being real
Idea : E=MC^2


Idea: God

 

[Jan Ardena]

@ Quantum Quack...

???

jan.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Quantum Quack...

???

jan.

Ideas are manifested as "real" by many means.
Is the nuclear explosion any more real as the manifestation of an idea than any other idea?
You witness the manifestation of ideas all the time...all real and evidenced due to their manifestation.
If one considers God to be an idea then his reality is evidenced by his manifestation in the evidenced human behavior and how collective consensus as to the idea's effects the person individually. ( some profound and some not so)

yet it was/is just an idea.
the act of worship is universal to the human being, whether that be the worship of science, God or the tree you planted in the back yard. Worshiping wealth, money, possessions or something more altruistic. Ultimately though it is the worship of self.
So....it could be extended to... evidence of God's reality is evidence of self reality.

Do you exist?
Ergo Sum...
Are you just an idea or the manifestation of that idea?
If you agree that you are the manifestation of an idea then what say you of the universe entirely?

The universe is the manifestation of an idea...
The big bang theory is just an idea after all...

 

[Quantum Quack]

idea: can opener

Idea: Universe