Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe

[James R]

Trek:

What is you standard of evidence to decide whether or not God is real?

I don't know how to answer that question. I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you please list for me a few different "standards of evidence"? Then I'll tell you which one comes closest to my standard of evidence.

What's your "standard of evidence"?

Also, this seems like a very general question that doesn't require a reference to God. One's standard of evidence - whatever it is - ought to be consistent across all topics, don't you think? Otherwise, you're biased.

I don’t know what’s you mean by evidence of God. Do you think God is entirely separate from his creation?

I don't know what your particular religious belief is, on that. Are you a Christian? If so, then I imagine your views are aligned with those of most Christians, who say things like "God created the universe". If true, that would imply that God is separate from his creation, because there was a state of affairs in which God existed but his creation did not. What's your view on this?

I find it strange that you now say you don't know what I might mean by evidence of God. What kinds of things do you consider to be evidence for the existence of something? For example, what would you consider to be evidence that tomatoes exist, or the Pacific Ocean, say? I imagine that what I mean by evidence won't differ greatly from what you mean by evidence, for those things.

Is God different?

I think you said you have no evidence for God. Is that correct?

Would you believe in tomatoes without having any evidence for their existence? Is the situation different when it comes to God?

There are evidenced for God just do a google search, but you’re not interested.

I didn't say I'm not interested. Please don't try to put words in my mouth.

What are your top three evidences for God? Dot points are fine.

So I want to know what are you talking about when you say “God”.

I'm talking about the God you believe in. Is there any evidence that it is real?

How do you know there is no evidence for God?

I don't. I've been hoping you can show me some evidence. But it seems you can't. Is that right?

I have posted my anwer Nothing can be proven outside of mathematics.

You understand that most of us here are not asking for anything like a mathematical proof of God (though, if you have one, I'm all ears). We are asking if there's any evidence for it.

Do you know of any? You sort of keep flip-flopping back and forth on that, as far as I can tell. You started off saying there is evidence, then you said you couldn't provide any evidence. Then, just now, you said there's evidence on the internet, but you haven't managed to bring any of it here, so far. So which is it? Evidence, or no evidence? If there's evidence, why won't you say what it is? Is it secret?

Also any and everything can be fictionalised. So what’s the point of the thread?

Do you believe God is just a fiction? I get the impression you don't believe that. If it's not a fiction, then can you tell me why you believe in it? It's not for the story-telling aspect, clearly. Then what?

I thought this site was against trolling

I agree that the thread title is very "in your face", but most of us here are not demanding "proof", as I hope you've gathered by now.

Do you think it's somehow unreasonable or unfair to ask for evidence of your God?

Again with the Jan thing!

I just keep noticing resemblances. It's almost uncanny.

Like I said, you can probably save yourself (and me) some time by reviewing those old Jan Ardena threads. Then you and I can have a more productive discussion where we don't have to go over Jan's many old mistakes.

Have you noticed the poor arguments which uncannily resemble each other out of the atheist camp.

Yeah, there were some of those, of course. Jan was here for years. You can concentrate on my arguments if you prefer, since they were mostly pretty good ones.

Just focus on me not this Jan Arden’s.

Okay, but it's hard not to draw parallels, since the two of you apparently share a rather singular mindset when it comes to God. I suppose we might discover divergences as we continue to converse.

We’ll agree to disagree

As you wish. Then we won't need to repeat our respective claims on this particular matter. That will save us both some time and effort. Good.

 

[James R]

Trek:

Sorry to hear about that.
It must have been traumatic

Actually, not at all. It wasn't exactly what I would call subtle indoctrination, but there wasn't any trauma. My parents were well intentioned. I imagine that most of the religious leaders who were involved were also well intentioned, though unfortunately they were also wrong about a lot of things.

Children with kind parents usually trust that they are right about most things, most of the time. It's how a lot of us learn about our world when we are young. Sometimes, it's only when we're older and wiser that we learn that adults can be wrong about stuff, even when they are sincere.

A lot makes sense now

Lest you got the wrong impression, it wasn't only what I was taught in church. I had the feelings of God in my heart, just like you do. Only after I was taught about the idea of God, of course.

I get why you’re so messed up now

Thanks for your kind concern, but I'm not messed up. Please don't make assumptions. It's rude to do that sort of thing. If you want to know, ask first. Probably you just didn't realise you were being rude, there. Right?

How could you?
You were traumatised

No. I just wasn't aware of some things that I learned later. There was no trauma involved, I assure you. You don't have to feel sorry for me, but I appreciate your thoughtful sentiments, of course.

Good for you matey.
A lot of people don’t get that opportunity

Too right! That's why I like to offer the opportunity to other people. I'm very grateful I had it and I like to give back.

You don’t get to realise God by being traumatised.

I'd say there are quite a lot of counter-examples to your thesis.

I’m glad you came out of that

Thanks again for your kind concern for my welfare. Certainly, I have benefitted immeasurably from being "out of that".

You shouldn’t have been convinced at all.
The kingdom of God lies within, not without.
You can’t be convinced of God, but you can be inspired

I had all that, too. I felt God within me. I was inspired, to some degree. It's quite common.

Yours wasn’t.
That we can know for sure

Well, you've already been wrong about the trauma. So how can you know for sure? You're not just making assumptions, are you? Explain your reasoning.

Did you move “God” or the notions of God you had been traumatised by?

I became unconvinced that God is real. No need to overcomplicate things, Trek.

Unfortunately James I don’t think your camp is sensible. This terrible thread and the lack of enthusiasm to breakdown what the real meaning behind posting it, is a classic example of derangement when it comes to the topic of God.

Derangement? Please explain.

Are you suggesting that atheists are mentally ill? How did you reach that conclusion?

Or are you just trying to say something specific about the title of this thread? If so, what is it?

There is a lot to understand about God. Much more than you will learn in an institution that indoctrinated children.

Did you learn about God in an institution, Trek, or are you self-taught? Or did God teach you directly?

Evidence is always related to the subject. If you want evidence of unicorns then you have to see unicorns. But with God that is not the case.

That sounds straightforward. If I want evidence of electrons, I don't have to see electrons. In fact, I can't see electrons. They have to be inferred from indirect evidence.

Is this what you're saying about God? That there's indirect evidence sufficient to establish God's existence? What's the evidence?

So you have to know something prior to acceptance of evidence.

You're not advocating that one approaches purported evidence with a mindset of confirmation bias, I hope (?)

This is why I want to know what you are expecting when it come to evidence of God.

I don't have any specific expectations. What are you offering?

What do you think God is, and what type of evidence would you accept?

Try me. What evidence do you have? I'll let you know whether I will accept it. I will give you my reasons. That should make for a more useful conversation than this current abstract one you seem to be stuck on, wouldn't you say? Let's get into some specifics.

 

[James R]

Common sense will do that, because the obvious in this case, is the foundation

I view most people, including myself as being unclean in the moral sense.
Why do you ask?

Just interested. It's common for religious people to have a heightened sense of what is "unclean", which then tends to be equated with "unholy".

It’s not about them being right or wrong. It’s about what you do as an individual.

No. What your religious leaders told you is not about me as an individual. It's about them. Beware of getting muddled around. Their words are their words; they don't get to shift the blame onto somebody else.

It’s no different to any other pursuit that requires discipline to achieve greater success.
Theism and atheism are simple labels. There’s a whole lot more happening beneath the surface

Right. One shouldn't stereotype or make assumptions that might be unwarranted.

I don’t mind going into all of that, but I have been asking question for a few days now and have not received any intelligent responses. I would like some intelligent responses please

That sounds like an insult. Have I not responded intelligently?

Which hard questions would those be?

Things like: "Why can't I come up with any evidence for God that I'm willing to stand behind?", "Why does God allow evil?", "How do I know that God is real and not just in my head?", "How do I know that the 'connection' I feel with God is real?"

It seems to be you guys who are running from questions…

Like what?

What is your understanding God?

I don't believe in any gods.

I understand that by "God", many people mean an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who created the universe.

What's your understanding of God?

What evidence specifically would convince you God was real?

Try me. What evidence have you got?

I think it is time you people answered these questions.

Done. Your turn.

Dave has already made reference to winning and losing.
Is that all you folks are about?

I'm sorry. Which "folks" are you lumping me in with, Trek?

I don't see atheism vs theism as a competition, if that's what you're trying to ask me, albeit in a rather clumsy way.

That’s what make it convincing.
Nevertheless you can learn from them.

Who do you suggest I learn from, specifically?

That direction is easy to fall into.

Apparently not, especially for Americans, who mostly say they believe in gods.

You should check out former atheist testimonies. Especially the atheists like you people who are in string denial of God.

You're putting the cart before the horse there, Trek. You haven't convinced me there is any God I should be chastised for denying, yet.

If I knew there was a God and yet went around saying there is no God, then you might have a valid point about my being "in strong denial". But the fact is: I haven't told you there is no God. Nor am I aware of any God whose existence I might choose to deny.

You said you had some evidence, didn't you? Are you going to get around to presenting it, or are you just going to whine about how atheists are all in denial etc.? Shouldn't you be spreading the Good News rather than complaining about wrong-think?

At least you’ll learn how far removed you currently are from the concept of God.
Maybe you’ll ask better questions and create better threads.

I didn't create this thread. If you want to search the archives, I created a few good ones about God in the past, though. They make for an interesting and informative read, I assure you.

You’ll have to put up some quotes so we can discuss them.

I thought you said you didn't want to talk about Jan. He's no longer here, anyway, and in any case he was very stuck. Also, it became very clear in the end that he wasn't honest, either with himself or with other people. So, not somebody that honest people like you and I ought to waste more time worrying about, I think. Agree?

Jan obviously had an impact on this site as everybody seems to bring him up a lot

It's okay. We needn't mention him again. Forget him. He's irrelevant to our dialogue. Right?

 

[James R]

"You have to take it on faith."

"You have to take it up the pooper."

Is that level of crudity really necessary?

 

[James R]

Because people think science is the only way to gain knowledge.
People believe that the cell just came together by chance in some primordial goo.

Which people?

People think that Darwinism is true.

That's a crude way to put it. But, probably, I think Darwinism is true. Is there something wrong with that?

People revere scientists that bow to the communist atheist way of thinking.

What are you referring to? Are you thinking Stalin, Lenin, etc.? Or Xi Jinping? Which communist atheist?

And which revered scientists are you thinking of?

People celebrate Darwin day.
People regard going to the Galapagos as a plgrimage

The theory of evolution is rather remarkable. Don't you think? The Galapagos is a unique set of islands. Very interesting, don't you think?

There are quite a few ways we see science operating in a similar way to religions.

What are some of the ways?

But like a lot of religions, those who use science as their religion have it wrong imo.

I agree. Religions, in general, are a bad idea in lots of ways. Not all bad, mind you, but on a balance...

 

[Trek]

don't know how to answer that question. I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you please list for me a few different "standards of evidence"? Then I'll tell you which one comes closest to my standard of evidence.

That is a question for you and other atheists who always claims there is no evidence for God.
It’s time to come clean.

What's your "standard of evidence"?

Let’s deal with one explanation at a time.

Also, this seems like a very general question that doesn't require a reference to God. One's standard of evidence - whatever it is - ought to be consistent across all topics, don't you think? Otherwise, you're biased.

Nevertheless can you answer the question.

don't know what your particular religious belief is, on that. Are you a Christian?

Yes, but what does that have to do with my question?

If so, then I imagine your views are aligned with those of most Christians, who say things like "God created the universe". If true, that would imply that God is separate from his creation, because there was a state of affairs in which God existed but his creation did not. What's your view on this?

Do you have no ideas of your own? You imply based on one’s individual religion?
I’m not the one who is claiming a lack of evidence for God, so my view isn’t important at this time

s God different?

Thats what I’m trying to ascertain from yoos.
For me, obviously God is an entirely different category which is why I want to know from atheists what is their definition of God, and what they are prepared to accept as evidence that God is real.

I think you said you have no evidence for God. Is that correct?

No

Would you believe in tomatoes without having any evidence for their existence? Is the situation different when it comes to God?

Explain how would and why “tomato” would be in our minds and vocabulary.

What are your top three evidences for God? Dot points are fine.

Cosmological argument
Fine tuning argument
The exquisite complex arrangement in the cell

I wouldn’t regard these as “top evidences” but as far as discussing God with atheists, those are the point I would more than likely raise.

I'm talking about the God you believe in. Is there any evidence that it is real?

Explain what you mean by God. Independently of what I believe.

don't. I've been hoping you can show me some evidence. But it seems you can't. Is that right?

So why do you say there is no evidence for God?

You understand that most of us here are not asking for anything like a mathematical proof of God (though, if you have one, I'm all ears). We are asking if there's any evidence for it.

I’m interested in knowing what you mean by God, and what evidence you are prepared to accept, seeing as you pretend to know there is no evidence for God.
This thread asks for proof of whether God is not a fictional character. Nobody including you pulled him up on that. Yet you have banned me, and warned me over stuff I’ve said that is relevant to the discussion, but you didn’t like it.
Do something about this thread, or or get the author to explain what he means by the title and prepared to be questioned on his understanding.

 

[James R]

So you believe that Lysosomes, Centrioles, Microtubules, Golgi Apparatus, Smooth endoplasmic reticulums, Mitochondrion’s, Rough endoplasmic recticulums, Cell membranes, Nuclei, Chromatims, Ribosomes, all just happened to form in goo. Now we have all of life.
And you think you can justify it by throwing out the term biochemist.
You really don’t think that’s magical?

Trek:

This post of yours was reported.

It is off-topic for the current thread. If you want to pit your Creationism against the theory of evolution, that's fine, but please take it to a different thread. You might also like to read some of the prior debates we have had about that particular topic on sciforums, so you don't repeat the same mistakes that (many) other Creationists have made.

 

[James R]

quant:

Truth is religion and since it is your belief that quantum mechanics represents the ultimate truth. I am merely questioning that belief. Is there anything wrong in that? If you claim that your beliefs are supported by mathematics and fail to realise what an absurd claim that is, we are at an impasse. Leaving aside the implications of infinite dimensional Hilbert space the theory does not match the reality of the frequency of photon absorption and emission.

This post was also reported. It is off-topic for the current thread.

If you want to question whether quantum mechanics is the ultimate truth, that's fine, but please start a new thread for that.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure if anybody has actually claimed what you want to dispute, but that can also be discussed in a thread where it is relevant.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Trek has received a couple of warnings following the actioning of reports relating to a number of his posts from earlier in this thread.

Due to accumulated warning points, he will be taking a short break from posting.

 

[James R]

Trek:

That is a question for you and other atheists who always claims there is no evidence for God.

I don't think there's no evidence for God.

For instance, there's lot of anecdotal evidence from believers who report "experiencing" God directly in various ways.

That kind of evidence doesn't convince me that God is real, because there are lots of plausible alternative explanations for those reported experiences that require less multiplication of entities (literally!) than the God hypothesis.

So, there's some evidence that points towards the slim possibility that there is a God, but it strikes me as very weak.

There's also a lot of alleged evidence that some believers like to refer to. But such evidence tends not to point persuasively towards the conclusion that there must be a God behind it.

It’s time to come clean.

Let’s deal with one explanation at a time.

I'm at a loss. I honestly don't know what you mean when you talk about a "standard of evidence". Give me some examples of what you mean. You haven't explained.

Forget God for a moment, if you like. What possible "standards of evidence" are there that would be suitable to conclude that, say, unicorns are real, or that the Pacific Ocean is real? Just list a few of the different standards for me that you have in mind. Then I'll try to answer your question about my "standard" for God and, as a bonus, for unicorns and the Pacific Ocean. After all, we want to be consistent about these things, don't we?

Nevertheless can you answer the question.

Not yet. Can you explain what you mean by a "standard of evidence"?

Yes, but what does that have to do with my question?

I explained, in post #578. Go back and read what you omitted from the part of that post that you quoted.

Do you have no ideas of your own?

Your question was "Do you think God is entirely separate from his creation?"

The short answer is: I don't think that God exists. So any answer I give to this question will necessarily have to be based on some assumptions about a hypothetical God.

I thought you might like to talk about your version of God, rather than just have me make some assumptions at random about a hypothetical. Can we do that?

I asked you some questions. To you, God is not hypothetical, so you should have some solid answers. Right?

You imply based on one’s individual religion?

What else could I do? Different religions make different assumptions about their respective gods.

Look, would you like me to guess at an answer? Would that make it easier for you?

Okay. I think that a God such as the Christian God is not "entirely separate" from his creation. The bible, for example, describes that God as taking an active role in world events and in the lives of individual people. That rules out "entire" separateness. In comparison, a deistic God would be "entirely separate", at least after his only act - the act of Creation. After that, he separates himself and let's his Creation run its own course without interfering.

Different Gods, different separateness. All hypothetical, so far.

But your God is different. Yours is the real God, the correct God. So, tell me about your God. That will be far more useful to us in this conversation than these hypotheticals.

At this point, we've dealt with the "entirely" part. We now have to consider the "separate" part. Do I think that the Christian God (to use that hypothetical again) is separate from his Creation? Yes, I do, for reasons I explained previously (see the part of my post you quoted). And the deist God? Certainly.

Your turn.

I’m not the one who is claiming a lack of evidence for God, so my view isn’t important at this time

Unimportant as it might be, I'm still interested in it. Please tell me your view. Don't be embarrassed.

Thats what I’m trying to ascertain from yoos.
For me, obviously God is an entirely different category...

In what way?

No

Okay. My mistake.

Explain how would and why “tomato” would be in our minds and vocabulary.

It could be a fictional vegetable, for instance.

Why is "unicorn" in our minds and vocabulary, do you think?

Cosmological argument
Fine tuning argument
The exquisite complex arrangement in the cell

Thanks.

Regarding the cosmological argument: if everything must have a cause, why doesn't God need a cause? Isn't that a special pleading that brings down the whole argument?

I wouldn't say that the cosmological argument is an evidence-based argument, though. It doesn't provide evidence for a God, as far as I can tell. It's a philosophical argument, not empirical. (Technically, it's an argument from "natural theology".)

Similarly, the fine-tuning argument is not evidence. The clue is right there in the name; it's an argument. The evidence that would be required to establish its truth would be evidence that there actually is fine tuning in nature, and that natural processes alone could not possibly have resulted in the fine tuning that is observed. Nothing I am aware of fits the criteria, so I think this one also fails as evidence for God. But perhaps you know something I don't. (?)

Your appeal to complexity in the cell looks like another fine tuning argument, or perhaps an argument for "intelligent design". Even if it is true (and I don't see any good reason to suppose that intelligent design is necessary for cells to exist), it doesn't seem to point to a God. So, I'm a little puzzled about why you regard that as evidence for God.

I wouldn’t regard these as “top evidences” but as far as discussing God with atheists, those are the point I would more than likely raise.

Fair enough.

In response, I would say that I don't see anything in the natural world that demands that we resort to supernatural explanations, so far. While something like a cell might seem magical, my educated guess is that it probably isn't.

Of course, guesses don't get us to God any more than they get us to No God. We need more than hunches and gut feelings and wishful thinking, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Explain what you mean by God. Independently of what I believe.

Let's go with the omni God. That seems popular. i.e. God is a conscious, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and purposeful supernatural being who chose to create the universe.

Does this meet with your approval?

So why do you say there is no evidence for God?

It's easier to say than "There's some evidence that some people say points to God, but I don't accept that it does since there seem to be many more plausible explanations, and besides there doesn't seem to be any good evidence of anything supernatural. God appears to be an unnecessary hypothesis for explaining the natural world (or anything else)."

I’m interested in knowing what you mean by God, and what evidence you are prepared to accept, seeing as you pretend to know there is no evidence for God.

I asked you to provide your best evidence.

If the three items above are the best you have to offer, I'm sorry to have to inform you that you still haven't convinced me that your God is real. I find your evidences wanting.

Perhaps you do too.

You don't believe in your God based on evidence, do you? You say you don't need any evidence at all.

What interests me, then, is: what is the basis of your belief in a God?

Are you interested in discussing that, at all? I imagine you have your reasons. You seem to like playing your cards very close to your chest. Are they secret reasons? Or too personal to disclose? Or what?

This thread asks for proof of whether God is not a fictional character. Nobody including you pulled him up on that.

As far as I can tell, God might well be a fictional character. You have offered nothing that convinces me that he is not. And there are lots and lots of very good reasons to conclude that it is very likely that your God is as fictional as all the other gods that you, personally, don't believe in.

 

[James R]

Yet you have banned me, and warned me over stuff I’ve said that is relevant to the discussion, but you didn’t like it.

Your bans are your own business. I assume you must have failed to abide by certain site rules that you agreed to abide by implicitly when you signed up as a member of this forum. You're an adult. It's your responsibility to follow the rules when you post here.

Unfortunately, your recent actions in falsely accusing two other posters here of lying have led to another temporary ban for you. That's entirely a coincidence of timing and it has nothing to do with any of my recent interactions with you. It just happens that I have just worked through a backlog of reported posts, dating back several weeks in some cases. A couple of your posts were reported and I actioned those reports.

Our bans are automatic, except in the case of obviously malicious posting and spammers. If you have been temporarily banned, you will have received numerous prior warnings and advice on how to avoid future similar warnings. Many of our members manage to go for years on sciforums without ever gaining enough warning points to incur an automatic temporary ban. I don't think we ask too much of our members.

If you are accusing me of abuse of moderator powers, that is a matter you ought to take to the Site Feedback or Open Government forum (if you want to make a public spectacle of the matter). Alternatively, if you're confused about why you were moderated by me, or another moderator, you could try asking us in a private message. I'll be happy to clarify.

Do something about this thread, or or get the author to explain what he means by the title and prepared to be questioned on his understanding.

What action would you like to see?

I can't force anybody to explain what they mean by a title, or to answer questions they don't want to answer.

Why don't you ask him yourself?

In the meantime, you and I are having a cordial discussion. Who knows? We might even end up dispelling some of your unfortunate misconceptions about atheists. Or we might end up with me signing up to join your congregation.

 

[DaveC426913]

"There's some evidence that some people say points to God, but I don't accept that it does since there seem to be many more plausible explanations, and besides there doesn't seem to be any good evidence of anything supernatural. God appears to be an unnecessary hypothesis for explaining the natural world (or anything else)."

This is a good summary of the stance of many rational atheists.

Some atheists try to assert the hypothesis there is no God, but run into trouble when trying to promote it, as there is no way to prove a negative of this magnitude. That's an irrational stance.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Is that level of crudity really necessary?

I don't know. Is burning witches necessary? (If you look at my avatar you'll realize how silly your question was.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know. Is burning witches necessary? (If you look at my avatar you'll realize how silly your question was.

Nobody in this forum has burned any witches, as far as I'm aware.

There's a difference between 'I see no sufficent evidence of God' and ' I think following this God is a bad idea'.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Then you need to get some history under your belt. Start with the

Malleus Maleficarum​

 

[DaveC426913]

Then you need to get some history under your belt. Start with the

Malleus Maleficarum​

I'm not sure what your point is. No one on SciFo is 500 years old, as far as we are aware. The question was: why so crude here?

And more to the point: how does this inform the thread topic?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm just tired of being nice to idiots.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm just tired of being nice to idiots.

Well I can't really fault that.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It was easy in the Navy, I usually outranked them. My biggest problem was suppressing the urge to float test them in the middle of the Pacific.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

My biggest problem was suppressing the urge to float test them in the middle of the Pacific.

What if one of em stood up an started walkin around on the water... would you take that as proof of Jesus.???