Evidence that God is real

[sideshowbob]

Specifically, that is how science delivers its "product".
If you equate a process that is hoped to deliver a product with the actual delivery of a product....

It isn't about "hope". There is no specific goal to hope for. If science discovers one or more pathways to abiogenesis, that will be satisfying but it is not a goal. Science will keep going. Take evolution for example: It has been tested and confirmed six ways from Sunday but we still keep studying it.

Or gravity is indefensible?
Or boiling water with heat is indefensible?
Whereabouts on this slippery slope would you like to make your stand?

Gravity is defensible. Boiling water with heat is defensible. Evolution is defensible. Abiogenesis is defensible.

No slope, no slip. Do you have a point?

Or alternatively, wait until you have gathered the evidence.

I said, "Give us a chance to collect the evidence before you proclaim things impossible." How is "wait until you have gathered the evidence" an alternative?

If you do it prematurely, you assign it to a category it does not belong and bastardize the scientific process.

That is the scientific process: Try one approach and if it doesn't work, try another. There is no escape hatch that allows you to quit when you have "the answer". The only way to "bastardize" science is to decide a priori that a path like abiogenesis is impossible and therefore need not be explored.

 

[Michael 345]

SetiAlpha6 said

My Dad was healed, from a debilitating condition and never had to have surgery. There is the first one you will throw out the window. Right? No I am not going to prove it to you.

I note from the above the statement "never had to have surgery"

I take from this your dad was under medical care

You then go on to state he was healed from his debilitating condition

Apart from the cancelled surgery can I presume various other treatments were I progress?

Were all other treatments ceased? Recovery occurred with NO continuing medical care?

If some medical treatment continued what percentage would you assign to the medical treatment and what percentage would you put down to devine intervention?

 

[Dinosaur]

I have not read all the replies to this Threead & apologize if the following is similar to a previous Post.

It seems to me that belief in some god or gods is due to being uncomfortable with the view that death is oblivion & almost all religious beliefs involve some belief in a here-after existence.

Such a belief is (sad to me) and unacceptable to many.

The fact remains that the essence of who I am is due to the memories & thought processes provided by my brain.

When I (or anyone else) dies the brain ceases to function. Rather than accept the implied oblivion, most folks have some belief in a here-after existence,

Such a belief is a pleasant myth, but not a reality.

 

[Write4U]

My Dad was healed, from a debilitating condition and never had to have surgery. There is the first one you will throw out the window. Right? No I am not going to prove it to you.

I believe you. But it is not evidence, because there is prior medical history of self-healing. The human survival machine possesses an extraordinary ability to regulate and repair the body from all sorts of injury or disease.

Another would be the existence of real Love, and real objective Evil. Naturalism teaches that neither of these exist.[/QUOTE] You are speaking of Tulpas, which are mental emanations, created by the individual or by religious congregations. Then the Tulpa is given the name God .

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's great! But many humans (evil and good) have recovered from debilitating conditions. We now know how this can happen, through our immune systems and our ability to heal our own bodies. So it's great that your dad got better - but it's not really evidence that God exists.

Why not?

?? Animals exhibit real love, and animals exhibit an ability to tell good from evil. (And animals express both.) This ability increases and decreases depending on sophistication of the neural network they have, and on the socialization provided by their environment and genome (i.e. dogs have a different sense of good and evil than cats because they are pack animals.)

So how do you know that some animals experience love?
If you have never experienced love before, do you think it is possible to observe it, and actually and see what love is (as experienced by others)? Do you think you would be able to try it out, and see, if you like it, or what all the fuss is about?
Last question; Do you think that love is caused purely by a neural activity?

If theists could point to a miracle that could have no possible natural explanation (i.e. let's say the Sun disappeared from the Solar System for a day) AND that was somehow predicted by a prophet from a certain religion, that would be an excellent argument. But most miracles are along the lines of "well, he was sick and he got better" and those happen all the time because people heal.

Nothing can convince you while you are actively atheist.
The reason being, one does not need to be convinced of God, in the first place.
People who need to be constantly convinced that there is a God, aren't theists, and they're not atheist.
I would guess that they are truly agnostic. They are currently unaware of how to comprehend God, via their own intelligence.
That is not to say they are not intelligent people. But it is how they use their intelligence, that prevents them from comprehension of God.

You though, are atheist. You deny and reject God, or even the possibility of God, at every turn. So even if the sun disappeared for a day, and you lived to tell the tale. You would not God the credit, because you will still be bleating on about there being no evidence for God.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, evidence has to have a basis in logic or fact. That doesn't mean that logic can produce evidence. Logic produces invalid conclusions, even false conclusions, if the premises are not based on fact. Ya gotta have real facts to have real evidence.

It is logical evidence. The evidence for God's existence is based on the logic of causality.
So as an atheist, what evidence would convince you that God is real?
You seem pretty comfortable knocking everything back, but not stating what evidence of God should be.

People who are colour blind can still see colours in other ways - e.g. with a spectrometer. We can all see "invisible" colours like infrared and ultraviolet with a spectrometer. Real evidence can be confirmed by different methods, so that everybody can see it.

So as you know what is not evidence of God, what would evidence of God have to entail, for it to be evidence, from your perspective?

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

We now know how this can happen, through our immune systems and our ability to heal our own bodies. So it's great that your dad got better - but it's not really evidence that God exists.

Why not?

He literally just said why.
Since there is a reasonable explanation for healing (our immune system) that doesn't require God, then the phenomena of healing doesn't point to God as the answer - any more than it points to our immune system as the answer. It doesn't rule either one out. Or in. It is not differential.

It is not evidence that favours God as the better explanation.

 

[sideshowbob]

So as an atheist, what evidence would convince you that God is real?

I've told you that before: The same kind of evidence that would convince me that Bigfoot is real or alien life-forms are real or rhinoceri are real.

You seem pretty comfortable knocking everything back, but not stating what evidence of God should be.

See above.

So as you know what is not evidence of God, what would evidence of God have to entail, for it to be evidence, from your perspective?

See above.

 

[DaveC426913]

... what evidence would convince you that God is real?

Again with this.

Why don't you put some evidence forward? Any evidence forward, and then let us debate about what we might accept? That is actually the thread topic, after all.

Whether we might accept X is entirely moot - if X does not exist in the first place.

Nothing can convince you while you are actively atheist.

You have no way to know this.
Because nothing has been presented that might or might not convince him, or anyone else.
It is simply a hypothetical that has not occurred.

Also, ad hom. Address the argument, not the arguer.

You though, are atheist. You deny and reject God, or even the possibility of God, at every turn.

Ad hom. Address the argument, not the arguer.


Present some evidence.

 

[Jan Ardena]

He literally just said why.
Since there is a reasonable explanation for healing (our immune system) that doesn't require God, then the phenomena of healing doesn't point to God as the answer - any more than it points to our immune system as the answer. It doesn't rule either one out. Or in. It is not differential.

It is not evidence that favours God as the better explanation.

No he didn't. He said that our immune system, and ability to heal ourselves, effectively rules out God.

If we can heal ourselves, then why can't God heal us, if it is God's Will.
We don't heal ourselves every time, and medical treat doesn't heal us, every time.

It is not evidence that favours God as the better explanation.

That's easy to say. But how do you know?

Again with this.

Yes, again with this.
You appear to know what isn't evidence.
Meaning you know what would be evidence.
So spill it.

You have no way to know this.

How do you know?

Because nothing has been presented that might or might not convince him, or anyone else.
It is simply a hypothetical that has not occurred.

Why does he have to be convinced?
Or more importantly, why do you think he has to be convinced?

If he is not convinced, does it mean there is no God?

Also, ad hom. Address the argument, not the arguer.

You seriously believe addressing his designation, is an ad hom?
Why?

Ad hom. Address the argument, not the arguer.


Present some evidence.

Are you saying atheists do not deny and reject God, constantly?

Already done in previous threads.

You're not interested in evidence.
You only ask for it because the idea of God you're prepared to work with, can be constantly denied and rejected.
Thereby justifying your atheism (in your mind).

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I've told you that before: The same kind of evidence that would convince me that Bigfoot is real or alien life-forms are real or rhinoceri are real.

What is that?

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

What is that?

jan.

Anything. Footprints, fingerprints, height, weight, photographs, spectrographs, etc. That's what evidence is.

 

[Write4U]

So how do you know that some animals experience love?

Have you ever had a dog?

If you have never experienced love before, do you think it is possible to observe it, and actually and see what love is (as experienced by others)? Do you think you would be able to try it out, and see, if you like it, or what all the fuss is about?

Oh, I see, you want everyone to practice love before it can be truly appreciated and experienced? Pray for love? I can get into that. Almost like Sutra. (weaving together).

Did you know there are several species of animals that actually breed for life (unlike humans, in spite of their promises). When their mate dies, they never mate again. Apparently, once imprinted with (chemical) love for their mate, their body chemistry becomes unresponsive to other suitors.

Last question; Do you think that love is caused purely by a neural activity?

Absolutely. The feeling of love is a chemically induced mental state of a kind of euphoria.

A pheromone (from Ancient Greekφέρωphero "to bear" and hormone, from Ancient Greek ὁρμή "impetus") is a secreted or excreted chemical factor that triggers a social response in members of the same species. Pheromones are chemicals capable of acting like hormones outside the body of the secreting individual, to impact the behavior of the receiving individuals.[1] There are alarm pheromones, food trail pheromones, sex pheromones, and many others that affect behavior or physiology. Pheromones are used from basic unicellular prokaryotes to complex multicellular eukaryotes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheromone

According to Helen Fisher, a researcher at Rutgers University, chemistry and love are inextricable. She's not speaking, though, of the "chemistry" that makes two people compatible. Instead, she's speaking of the chemicals that are released into our bodies as we experience lust, attraction, and attachment. We may think that we're using our heads to govern our hearts, but in fact (at least to a degree) we're simply responding to the chemicals that help us experience pleasure, excitement, and arousal.

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-chemistry-of-love-609354

Want to see love in practice? Watch this

You know what love is? Travelling 6000 to find your mate an procreate, that's love!!!

Humpback whales are one of the largest animals in the world and can grow longer than 50 feet in length. Humpback whales were nearly driven to extinction by whaling, but a 1966 moratorium on hunting the species has helped their numbers recover. They are solitary animals and spend their summers eating in cold polar waters. In the winter, they migrate towards the equator to find a mate and breed. In all, your typical humpback whale can put in more than 6,000 miles of travel in a year.

p.s. This is one of the problems with divine love, you may experience the chemical high of love, but if God is not physical how could he produce the love chemicals to make him love us? More magic?

 

[billvon]

Why not?

Because if lifesaving recoveries are evidence that God exists, then tragic, unnecessary deaths are evidence he does not. And there are far more of the latter than the former.

So how do you know that some animals experience love?

By watching how they treat each other. By asking them.

If you have never experienced love before, do you think it is possible to observe it, and actually and see what love is (as experienced by others)?

Yes. You can see how they treat each other. You can ask them.

Last question; Do you think that love is caused purely by a neural activity?

And chemical activity, yes. All our thoughts and feelings have their genesis in our brains, which run on chemical reactions; these are expressed as neural activity.

Nothing can convince you while you are actively atheist.

I'm not.

The reason being, one does not need to be convinced of God, in the first place.

Of course they do - if they wish to believe in a certain God or Gods (or god, or gods.) If they are not convinced, they'd be fools to believe that which they are not convinced of.

People who need to be constantly convinced that there is a God, aren't theists, and they're not atheist.

I don't need constant convincing either way.

You though, are atheist. You deny and reject God, or even the possibility of God, at every turn. So even if the sun disappeared for a day, and you lived to tell the tale. You would not God the credit, because you will still be bleating on about there being no evidence for God.

No, I'm not. I am something pretty far outside your experience, and I don't expect you to understand. You have been too brainwashed to believe in one very specific thing to ever believe another.

BTW I have been claiming that there is no evidence for YOUR god. I have asked you, as has James. You have been unable to answer, unable to give even a single example. (Other than "ask someone else.") Unless miraculous cures will become your first "evidence" that there is a God.

 

[DaveC426913]

No he didn't. He said that our immune system, and ability to heal ourselves, effectively rules out God.

No, he really didn't. you can tell what he said because I quoted what he said that you responded to.

If we can heal ourselves, then why can't God heal us, if it is God's Will.

That is not how evidence works.
"Who is to say that he didn't heal because it's Tuesday" is not evidence that healing occurs because it's Tuesday.

That's easy to say. But how do you know?

As above.

Yes, again with this.
You appear to know what isn't evidence.
Meaning you know what would be evidence.
So spill it.

The attempted diversion is transparent to all.

You have no evidence.

You seriously believe addressing his designation, is an ad hom?

That is precisely what it is. You can't refute the argument, so you attempt to invalidate the arguer. A well-constructed argument stands, no matter who makes it. Your ad hom demonstrates that you acknowledge it is well-constructed (otherwise, you'd be able to dismantle the argument).


Present some evidence, or admit you have none.

Actually, you already have admitted that. About a hundred times now, as James R has drawn attention to.
We're just seeing if you're willing to capitulate.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Anything. Footprints, fingerprints, height, weight, photographs, spectrographs, etc. That's what evidence is.

What comes under “Anything”?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Have you ever had a dog?

Yes.
So what?

If you have never experienced love before, do you think it is possible to observe it, and actually see what love is (as experienced by others)?

Do you think you would be able to try it out, and see, if you like it, or what all the fuss is about?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Yes.
So what?

Then you have seen unconditional love. If you noticed is another matter.

If you have never experienced love before, do you think it is possible to observe it, and actually see what love is (as experienced by others)?

Absolutely, it's called "empathy", the ability to feel another's emotions. Empathic emotional responses are produced by the "mirror neuron system"

Do you think you would be able to try it out, and see, if you like it, or what all the fuss is about? Jan.

I happen to be able to experience very strong empathic responses.

But I'm sure, you too have winced when watching a friend get hurt. Why did you physically wince? You didn't get hurt....

Empathy! Mirror neurons!..................

 

[billvon]

Yes.
So what?

Did your dog love you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Then you have seen unconditional love. If you noticed is another matter.

So you say. But how do you know it is love. It could be attatchment, or attraction, neither of which require love.
So what makes it love, and how do you know it's love?

I happen to be able to experience very strong empathic responses.

But I'm sure, you too have winced when watching a friend get hurt. Why did you physically wince? You didn't get hurt....

Empathy! Mirror neurons!..................

Again, this does not require one to love. To quote The Black Eyed Pease, ''Where is the Love'', and how did you locate it?

jan