How can you have evidence for God?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
The same way that science detects everything. Observation and testing.
An all knowing, all powerful god couldn't have forseen these times and prepared?
It seems to me that we have been knocking at gods door long enough-there is no one home.
Of a concocted version of God? You are absolutely right. But what of the God of scripture, the God who is described as pure spirit, the original cause of all perceptions, including your own. How would science detect that?
jan.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
All versions of god are concocted. And it has been demonstrated time after time that scripture is false. A superstition is not the cause of anything.
I also have to ask that same old question
"If god is the original cause, what caused god?"
You have just answered the question of how anyone could possibly claim god exists. They can't.
It can test the hypothesis against the data.
How do you know all the versions of God are concocted, as opposed to direction from God?
What is it about "original" cause you don't understand?
jan.
The evidence of miracles, prayer, the origins of life and the universe... Are there plausable naturalistic explanations for significant phenomenon? None of the data ever collected by scientific observation supports the idea of the supernatural.
spidergoat,
But it's not in a position to rule out the possibility of supernatural events.
Scientific observation is exactly where it is supposed to be, observing natural phenomena.
jan.
But it's not in a position to rule out the possibility of supernatural events.
Scientific observation is exactly where it is supposed to be, observing natural phenomena.
jan.
Incorrect. Science is not limited to natural phenomenon, but to everything that can be observed, directly or indirectly. I agree it cannot rule out the supernatural, but no evidence has yet been observed to support it. Therefore, the idea of the supernatural is as yet a failed hypothesis, and should not be believed by any rational people.
If science discovered evidence for the supernatural, that would open up a whole new avenue of exploration. It would be exciting.
If science discovered evidence for the supernatural, that would open up a whole new avenue of exploration. It would be exciting.
spidergoat,
And what can be observed falls within the range of our basic senses.
What is the current, scientific analasys of ghosts and spirits?
Nor will there ever be any evidence, because it can only explain things from a naturalistic point of view.
Meaning that all knowledge is known only by scientific analasys, and anything else is irrational, and delusional. Great way to control people.
My religion is the only correct religion, belief in any other religion is blasphemy.
Can you see the likeness?
Science has to explain things in a naturalistic way, so there is no hope of science ever discovering the supernatural.
jan.
And what can be observed falls within the range of our basic senses.
What is the current, scientific analasys of ghosts and spirits?
Nor will there ever be any evidence, because it can only explain things from a naturalistic point of view.
Meaning that all knowledge is known only by scientific analasys, and anything else is irrational, and delusional. Great way to control people.
My religion is the only correct religion, belief in any other religion is blasphemy.
Can you see the likeness?
Science has to explain things in a naturalistic way, so there is no hope of science ever discovering the supernatural.
jan.
That is not the case with indirect observation. One may observe the effects of a phenomenon on something observable, and reason a likely explanation. Observation of that thing would only confirm the hypothesis. If no effect from God can be observed, then it is a useless explanation. What indeed is it an explanation for? Religions do not say this at all, they say God has a very direct effect on our lives in a personal way.
Ghost and spirits are the hypothesis used to explain a variety of observations and feelings. So far, there is no evidence that such an explanation is more credible than naturalistic explanations, such as optical and auditory illusions and hallucinations.
There could be evidence of the supernatural, it just hasn't been found yet. You misunderstand science. So far the naturalistic explanations have been the predominant ones, but they are by no means the only possible ones.
Not exactly. Some knowledge is experiential or inherited, guessed and intuited about. It could be useful, but if it cannot be confirmed scientifically, it is provisional, untrustworthy, folk wisdom.
No I don't. Because science uses rigorous methods to reach logical repeatable conclusions, as opposed to religions, which emphasize faith in something unconfirmed, something from a book, something unique to one individual and for which no investigation is admitted to be possible.
To be more exact, a naturalistic explanation but be ruled out before a supernatural one becomes plausable. Since naturalistic explanations are the only ones yet proven trustworthy, this is the present state of affairs. If the supernatural were discovered to be a more likely explanation for something, this state of affairs would change. If, for instance, an observable, repeatable effect were found, such as if a magic word pronounced by someone increased your chance of recovering from a surgical procedure, then a magical realm becomes much more likely, instead of the most unlikely thing imaginable.
It is only tradition and history that make naturalistic explanations the norm in science. It is not the rule in science. Science doesn't rule out the possibility of the supernatural competely, since it must consider everything. It's just that it is nothing more than an unlikely hypothesis at this point.
I would also suggest that you yourself have evidence for what you believe, you don't believe it for no reason. It's just that this evidence doesn't rise to the standards of reliable evidence.
What atheists want of God is exactly what God wants from us. He wants proof that you believe, you want proof to believe. And yet you think He is unreasonable.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
There are no data, god loses, again.
Last edited:
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Your god is not unreasonable he just doesn't exist.
given that transcendental claims exist outside of empirical means of investigation, your statement is just like saying that no data collected by a thermometer supports the idea of telling exactly what time it is.
and what reasonable means did you apply to come to this conclusion?