King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
We come from different worlds. Neither one of us will change.
Next
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for a god existing or not existing
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Next
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
It’s cool u don’t know
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm not as confident.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
I am
Diversity rocks
firedragon
Veteran Member
Sorry to say this, but I think this type of behaviour is more fundamentalist and fanatical than the most fundamentalist religious groups like the ones the word Fundamentalist was used first for against in the west.
You will notice this kind of behaviour in every single thread atheists are engaged in this forum. Every single thread with no exception.
Tooth fairy or/and spaghetti monster or/and a flying teacup is inevitable. Inevitable. Its their hyper religious polemics of their religious leaders indoctrinated in them as their apologetic tactics.
You made a perfect sentence. I dont know if you realise the gravity of what you said. I dont know if you know that this kind of question has a whole academic approach and a field of research in it.
This is why, this forum is so great.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
I don’t even know y I bother conversing with people like this.
Ugh
I’ll learn
Ugh
I’ll learn
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I suppose that if you come from a world where logic and reasoned thought aren't of any importance to you, then you're absolutely right.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
I come from a world of magic and wonder. You keep on keepin on with your logic. No ones stopping you
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
No one suggested that you were. I simply agreed that if you're illogical and unreasoned then attempting a conversation is indeed a waste of time.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
If I choose to remain in a world where only logic and reasoned thought are important, I am limiting my perspective to a very narrow colour palette. So I choose to allow for the possibility of the miraculous and the irrational.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I never claimed that logic and reason are the only things of importance. I simply stated that accepting significant claims without any verifiable evidence flies in the face of logic and reason. Personally truth is important to me, so I do my best to evaluate the truth of significant claims as thoroughly as I am capable.
I too allow for the possibility of the miraculous, but it would be foolish of me to accept every miraculous claim that is made without any evidence that the claim is true.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Logic and reason are great as far as they go. But sometimes they don't go far enough. Some truths are best experienced by that part of us which is beyond the reasoning intellect. These are truths that can only be experienced, never fully understood or explained (though some great minds have tried).
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
You’ll end up talkin in circles with this one
Plainly it's possible for any supernatural being, indeed any being you can think of, to exist as a concept or thing imagined. Superman, Voldemort, Mickey Mouse, all do this.
But if, as seems reasonable, there's a condition that God should have objective existence, in other words should be real, found in nature, not imaginary, then for the positive case it appears there's no evidence, and for the negative case it appears the evidence is extremely strong.
At the heart of this problem, as far as I can tell, is the absence of any coherent concept of what a real god is. Not through want of asking, I've never found a definition of God such that if we found a real candidate, we could determine whether it was God or not.
Without that, it seems to me that to speak of a real God is to have no coherent idea of what you're talking about.
And that this is indeed the case.
1. As above.
2. The simple observation that God is never seen, never says, never does, is only known through tales from our fellow humans.
3. The observation that world behaves exactly as if God is / gods are ideas in individual brains, not real entities.
4. The wide-reaching failure of believers to agree on what supernatural beings exist, what they are, what they do, what they require, and so on, which is consistent with supernatural beings being artifacts of other aspects of human mentation rather than real entities.
5. The absence of any authenticated example of magic ('magic' being the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality) ─ a necessity for concepts like miracles, souls, heaven and an afterlife.
6. Other reasons that will occur to me after I've posted this.
Last edited:
ESP - Evaluating Statistics For Psychic Phenomena | Stats + Stories Episode 11 — Stats + Stories
UCI takes guesswork out of ESP and telepathy – Orange County Register
Dr. Jessica Utts is a professor and chair of the Department of Statistics at the University of California, Irvine, and the 2016 president of the American Statistical Association. She is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
She did statistical analyses of ESP (Extrasensory Perception) for the US government (cooperating with the Stanford Research Institute in the Stargate project (not the sci fi on TV)), and wrote a report to Congress evaluating government research into ESP.
So, ESP has been confirmed as a real thing.
Project MKULTRA was promoted by President George Herbert Walker Bush, and he believed in ESP. President Ronald Reagan believed in ESP, and consulted psychics so often that it could be honestly said that they (the psychics) ran the United States in lieu of Reagan.
The military used ESP, and police departments pay money (generated by taxes) for psychics.
The bible uses ESP in Revelation (psychic reading of St. John the Divine). Even the bible, itself, was written by divine inspiration with ESP about 100 years after the apostles and Jesus had died.
If ESP is real, and it is an unexplained phenomenon, why can't God be real, too?
After all, if information is stored and just floating in the air for us to read and use, why can't there be some entity tapping into this vast storehouse of knowledge for use by his own brain?
Revelation is coming true, right before our eyes.
I guess no trees fall in forests if we didn't hear them fall. But how, then, did fallen trees get there when we go out and look?
The Religious Right had faith, and they wanted an end to abortion (which they perceived as murder), and they wanted prayer in schools (they feel that schools currently teach atheism and teach against creationism). Yet, the Religious Right voted in W. Bush and got wars, at least one torture camp, spying on phones (proven by Eric Snowden), and lies.
So, having faith can be bad. Father Savonarolla had the Bonfire of the Vanities....burning books. The Crusades killed infidels. Hitler, who started out Christian, murdered and tortured Jews.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I have to rate your OP a fail.
Because you used the most generic of all the possible definitions of "evidence": that which convinces.
And since it is obvious that the standards for evidence used by some is so low that others would not even consider it is at evidence, but because it 'convinced' them it is by definition, evidence.
Which is something that has always been a pet peeve of mine.
People asking for evidence and then claiming that which convinced someone is not evidence.
Makes them look bad.
Either their ego is to big for their communication skills, or they are just a jerk, or they are to ignorant to have an honest discussion with, or... the list goes on and on.
Had you specified say objective empirical evidence, I would agree with your OP.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
That also has absollutely nothing to do with what he said.
It simply means if there is no evidence there is nothing but guess work and assumptions.
Why should I "Ignore" or "Focus" on proving God exists when that was not what I was addressing? Can you please explain that need?
That is "your truth". You believe that this is the logical default. But that is your "Faith statement", not a scientific, or socially researched generalisation or tested hypothesis. It is just "faith".
Your highness. Open a new thread and try to discuss decently and ask this question with some objectivity. Even though I know with this kind of personality you will reject anything and everything, I will engage.
Thats what most of the Atheistic apologists and evangelists keep saying. Its repeated like a mantra. "It is an excellent example". No its not. Maybe its an excellent example to analyse you and your type of faith, and you think others are all just like you.
You can keep building a 100 strawman arguments. It is just logically fallacious.
There are an infinite number of things to believe if we don't require evidence (Fred Flintstone is God)(Elmer Fudd is God)(George Burns is God....well, maybe he is).
But if we require proof before we believe, we eliminate an infinite number of things to believe in, and only believe what we can prove.
It is possible that something could be true though we have not yet proven it. So, it is possible that God could exist, though there is no proof yet found. If this is the case, I suppose that most people would be agnostics (those who are not sure), rather than atheists.
But, since the odds God existing might be so thin that people would prefer to be atheists rather than agnostics.
Last edited: