Why it is silly to look for evidence of God

[spidergoat]

You are asking for physical evidence of something non-physical?

It remains to be shows that there is anything unphysical.

 

[spidergoat]

Even the Abrahamic god is not conceived as a vending machine.

Strawman. I'm not suggesting that you get everything you want, but the sacred texts of those religions do relate incidences when God interfered with events.

What use is believing in something that is falsifiable?

It's at least theoretically testable.

 

[gmilam]

You are asking for physical evidence of something non-physical?

You claim the non-physical exists. Support your claim.

What do you see as being the contradiction?

You claim:

Thus we can never prove or disprove whether we and everything and everyone else are controlled or not. It is not even theoretically possible.

Then you turn around and define this control that we can never have evidence of:

'Control' doesn't mean 'puppet mastery.'
It simply means that nothing happens without God's will: you desire to do something, and if God approves of it, you get to do it.

Basically, you are pulling stuff out of your ass. (aka - Making shit up) So, are you a troll or are you really that stupid? (I'm leaning towards troll... but I concede that I may have misjudged you.)

 

[aaqucnaona]

Of course, but you forget one thing, its not for us to find the evidence, its for you to show it us. Moreover, if God is to be of any relevance at all, he must somehow actually affect us, which means his effects are empirical and observable - its like saying you cannot ask for physical evidence for the evidence of gravity, but you can find evidence of gravity between and on difference bodies. God has to be able to do basic God stuff - personal help, everyday care, perform miracles, answers prayer - all ABOVE a change percent of times - then, even if God himself is not evident, his effect is.

Your God of no evidence is of no relevance if we cannot have actual, real, empirical and observation effects of Him in our lives. Otherwise he is not different from the invisible, intangible, transendant car in my garage.

 

[aaqucnaona]

(And I don't have a God to call "mine.")

That makes you an atheist, but do you claim you aren't one?

This one is your God because you came up or presented this hypothetical God we cannot find.

 

[gmilam]

That sounds like a variant on the idea that gods like to hide. Maybe gods are manipulating peoples' search for gods in such a way that gods can never be perceived or recognized by humans, even when the gods are right there alongside us. Kind of a perceptual invisibility-cloak. That remains a formal possibility, I guess. I say 'formal', because I don't take it very seriously. I don't see it as my task to eliminate every imaginary possibility except one. I've read too much science fiction to think that's even possible.

It can also be viewed as a watered down version of the "brain in a jar" scenario. How can we know anything? Maybe everything is an illusion.

Interesting as mental masturbation, but not much more.

 

[arfa brane]

Given the usual definitions of God, however, God cannot be found by such a search principle, not even theoretically.

What about unusual definitions?

I can prove God exists, but only to myself. Otherwise, all I can do is write words down or say them, and act as if I know what I'm talking about. Notice how your opening post and most of the ones following it convey this "I know what I'm talking about" phenomenon. But do you really know what God is, and that it's pointless to search?

If I have a dream about God, is that "proof" that God exists, or only that dreams exist? How do I prove dreams exist?

Note that last paragraph is about something that got beat to death here a while ago. The consensus appears to be that there is no known method of proving that you have dreams, there are only correlations of brain activity determined in a fairly coarse-grained manner. So there is no direct proof. Likewise, you can claim that neural activity means you're thinking, but it isn't proof that you are, or that you have a mind. It indicates that your brain is active, instead.

And you can ridicule notions of God, the existence of God, whether someone can prove God exists, etc. all you like. The truth of it is you want to know, don't you?

"God -- not your usual".

 

[wynn]

I can prove God exists, but only to myself. Otherwise, all I can do is write words down or say them, and act as if I know what I'm talking about. Notice how your opening post and most of the ones following it convey this "I know what I'm talking about" phenomenon. But do you really know what God is, and that it's pointless to search?

If I have a dream about God, is that "proof" that God exists, or only that dreams exist? How do I prove dreams exist?

My approach is actually focused on one's intentions behind one's search for God.
It seems nobody has cought up on this. Granted, I am still in the process of working it out.

One's intentions are something one can reflect upon. And then check whether they are skillful or not.

For example, if someone has a hostile attitude toward that which they consider "God," can such a person reasonably hope to get to know God? It doesn't seem so.

And you can ridicule notions of God, the existence of God, whether someone can prove God exists, etc. all you like. The truth of it is you want to know, don't you?

I can't give a full-blown No to this - but given some popular definitions of God (e.g. Controller, All-Attractive, Supreme Person, Origin/Source, Allmighty, Omniscient) it is impossible for a human to recognize the entity with those characteristics anyway.

I'm trying to work out how the Western approach to theism is inherently a dead-end. And that there are other approaches that are far more meaningful.

 

[wynn]

That makes you an atheist, but do you claim you aren't one?

This one is your God because you came up or presented this hypothetical God we cannot find.

For me to call God "mine" - I'd have to do, have and be a lot more than I am. I'd have to have a vastly more friendly disposition toward God.

Having a statistically rare definition of God doesn't make God "mine."

And I don't feel obligated to "prove God" to just anyone who happens to come along and demand proof.

This is a typical mistake of Western thinking about God: that one must prove God to just anyone who happens to come along and demand proof, and if one isn't able to do so, one must concede that one doesn't have a legitimate view of God.

 

[wynn]

Basically, you are pulling stuff out of your ass. (aka - Making shit up) So, are you a troll or are you really that stupid? (I'm leaning towards troll... but I concede that I may have misjudged you.)

You just don't like philosophy.
That doesn't turn people who do like it, into trolls.


:bugeye:

 

[aaqucnaona]

@wynn - I already addressed the evidence question - how evidence of God's effects must be present even if evidence of God himself is not possible. What do you have to say about that [post 24]?

 

[aaqucnaona]

For me to call God "mine" - I'd have to do, have and be a lot more than I am. I'd have to have a vastly more friendly disposition toward God.

Having a statistically rare definition of God doesn't make God "mine."

And I don't feel obligated to "prove God" to just anyone who happens to come along and demand proof.

This is a typical mistake of Western thinking about God: that one must prove God to just anyone who happens to come along and demand proof, and if one isn't able to do so, one must concede that one doesn't have a legitimate view of God.

Ok, you dont owe anyone proof, but you do owe proof to anyone who is expected to accept or consider this idea seriously. And yes, if you dont have such proof, then you dont have a legitimate view of God, since this particular god is no different from the invisible pink unicorn. We must have proven effects of God on us for us to consider God relevant.

 

[arfa brane]

How do you know you aren't this "God" you claim can't be proven to exist?

Can you prove you aren't? Will your proof involve lining up various definitions and ridiculing them in a kind of reductio ad absurdum approach, or don't you think it's worth trying?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why it is silly to look for evidence of God:


First a few examples for introduction:


If you want to know whether there is a pair of red socks in your socks drawer, then, unless you are a kind of sock Imelda Marcos, the task is easy enough, and requires a small amount of time and effort on your part. But you can be sure beyond reasonable doubt whether there is a pair of red socks in your socks drawer or not.
You could rightfully make the claim "There are no red socks in my socks drawer."

You can also gain certainty as to whether there is a giraffe in the Central Park in New York. That would of course take some man power and time to conduct the search and secure the areas searched. But it can be done, and you could come away being certain whether there is a giraffe in the Central Park or not.
You could rightfully make the claim "There is no giraffe in the the Central Park."

By a similar principle, we can imagine we could search the space between Earth and Mars for the celestial teapot, marking and securing each cubic meter of searched space. Indeed, it would take a lot of time, effort and resoruces, but the principle of the search is essentially the same as when looking for a pair of red socks in your drawer. Given enough resources, we could claim, with certainty, whether there is a celestial teapot or not.
You could rightfully make the claim "There is no celestial teapot between Earth and Mars."


Given the usual definitions of God, however, God cannot be found by such a search principle, not even theoretically.

One of the usual definitions of God is that He is the Controller of the Universe.
This means that everything and everyone in this Universe is controlled by God. Including our efforts to find God or evidence or proof of God.
Thus we can never prove or disprove whether we and everything and everyone else are controlled or not. It is not even theoretically possible.


It is thus a mistake to look for evidence of God.

If the characters in a painting had consciousness, what would be the truthful evidence of their creation, from their perspective?


jan.

 

[wynn]

How do you know you aren't this "God" you claim can't be proven to exist?

I can't make the air that I need for breathing! And a million other things!

 

[wynn]

If the characters in a painting had consciousness, what would be the truthful evidence of their creation, from their perspective?

I am not sure I understand the question.

It seems you are ponting to the absurd question - "How do I know I exist?"

You'll need to explain.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Wynn, can I haz an answer?

 

[wynn]

Ok, you dont owe anyone proof, but you do owe proof to anyone who is expected to accept or consider this idea seriously. And yes, if you dont have such proof, then you dont have a legitimate view of God, since this particular god is no different from the invisible pink unicorn. We must have proven effects of God on us for us to consider God relevant.

Reread the usual definitions of God.

 

[elte]

I'm trying to work out how the Western approach to theism is inherently a dead-end. And that there are other approaches that are far more meaningful.

There might be something to the idea, which has been around a long while, of hoping to find God while developing one's interests and talents. That can be a way of doing good while looking for good (and God).

 

[Jan Ardena]

I am not sure I understand the question.

It seems you are ponting to the absurd question - "How do I know I exist?"

You'll need to explain.

''If the characters in a painting had consciousness, what would be the truthful evidence of their creation, from their perspective?''


If God created us, then we are not much different to characters in a painting.
The difference is that, Gods' power of creation is infinitely more potent than our own.

While the creation of a painting bears the personality and character of it's creator, the painting itself remains separate from it creator. So my question is, how can we successfully find evidence of God (the creator) when everything is evidence, including our ability to find evidence.

To take one or two things and say, this IS evidence, OR NOT, of God, is to miss everything else. So saying God does or does not exist because the evidence says so, is a fruitless exercise, which is why i'm in agreement with the sentiments of this thread.


jan.