Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[firedragon]

You asked me to define a commonly used word with a well known working definition. I think you are being evasive because you know you can't meet the burden of proof for your religious belief.

No problem. It is your opinion that I am being evasive. Maybe it may seem like that to you.

I didn't say the topic wasn't metaphysics, I said it's nonsense. And I'm not convinced any gods exist. You're doing well avoiding proving any does. It's almost as if you know you can't do it.

Thanks. I will not engage in ad hominem anymore. Please engage with the argument. I asked you many many times to provide your epistemology explaining why a fruitful discussion cannot be made without it but you didnt respond at all. Should I accuse you of "you are doing well avoiding this question"? Also bear in mind, this is not about convincing you or anyone which I cannot understand why you have this obsession about convincing and others are trying to convince you. Nope. Drop all of that and engage with the question and/or argument.

Alright. So consider this case and respond with a critical analysis and response.

The current universe is a closed system as you would know. It is like a thermos. This universe has a radius that is expanding eternally. There is anthropy in the centre and a isotropy at the edge. So the universe as homogeneous as can be and isotropic on a large scale yet with local irregularities like galaxies and stars. If the radius expansion is less by one of 10 to the power of 10 negative the universe would collapse, now, and at the immediate stage of the Big Bang (if you dont believe in the Big Bang, I would like to see your reasoning and engage fruitfully). If it was greater with the same equation, the universe would have been empty. Absolutely. And the universe would not have lived to have life, or have had life. Could you tell me why the universe is the way it is by going to the anthropic principle or some physical explanation? Thats a question to you.

The universe expanding at the absolute critical rate to avoid a collapse. This has to have had a most perfect organisation of chaos and order since the beginning of the universe. With the increase of radius of the universe in line with Radius/temperature and time, the the radius has a critical constancy that the whole life of the universe is depending on. How do you explain this? Thats a question to you.

The universe has a cosmic plan and it is not random. The randomness of the universe can be calculated based on a Turin test considering entropy of blackholes, and baryons and what one could muster. If it was a random process the chance of it being one has been calculated to one part of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. So how do you explain that? Thats a question to you.

To achieve this level of perfection in chaos and order since the Big Bang and the current state maybe you would go to an infinite regression. Do you believe an infinite regression is possible with out a constant? What is your explanation? Thats a question to you.

Please respond critically. Try not to use ad hominem or any other accusations but only address the argument.

 

[firedragon]

What argument? I don't recall responding to an argument on this thread, so I can't, even in principle, be using a straw man fallacy. The OP was a question about evidence. Your post that I initially answered seemed like a bit of a rant which accused atheists of all sorts of things but contained nothing of substance to back up those claims.



I suggest you look up the term.

No but thanks.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So not even evidence? Just confirmation bias?

I can only prove it to myself as you too can only validate what you know to yourself. But despite this I want you to know that I respect your views and see you as an equal and although we differ I enjoy our discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don’t you just give in and accept when you’re not able to peddle this superstitious fallacy about no God to those who ‘know’ He is?

Every person has been born with the innate ability to recognise God. Not everyone does though. Obstacles can be ignorance, wilful blindness, considering ones knowledge to be superior in every way, not willing to be open minded.

Those who overcome these barriers see God as clear as the sun. Those who don’t, struggle all their lives trying to rationalise God all the while using their own faulty rational and intellectual tools.

Pure drivel and projection.

I do not claim a God does not exist. I can merely see your flawed reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to who? You are?

According to anyone that can reason rationally. I could see where you were going before you made your error and tried to warn you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can only prove it to myself as you too can only validate what you know to yourself. But despite this I want you to know that I respect your views and see you as an equal and although we differ I enjoy our discussion.

That is not proof. And part of you seems to understand this.

The important question that you keep dodging is:

How do you test your beliefs?

 

[ratiocinator]

God has many worlds and He creates them each how He so chooses.

So the suffering caused by parasites is god's will? Doesn't sound like a very nice god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@loverofhumanity , there is nothing wrong with saying "I believe". Many people believe all sorts of things. But when one claims " I know", that person takes on a huge burden of proof. One must now prove that one knows or be corrected. If a person "knows" without support that indicates he simply believes what he wants to believe.

 

[ratiocinator]

Don’t think anyone is claiming that. You seem to me to be constrained by your own very limited conception of what may constitute divinity.

If there is a creator god, either it wanted people (and other animals) to suffer from things like parasites or didn't and somehow failed remove it from the design.

If 'divinity' to you means something else to others, that's a different conversation. I was talking to a Baha'i about 'God' (so assuming a monotheistic creator god).

 

[ratiocinator]

Every person has been born with the innate ability to recognise God.

How do you know? How do you know that it isn't that some people are born (or raised) with a tendency to see a god where none actually exists?

 

[RestlessSoul]

If there is a creator god, either it wanted people (and other animals) to suffer from things like parasites or didn't and somehow failed remove it from the design.

If 'divinity' to you means something else to others, that's a different conversation. I was talking to a Baha'i about 'God' (so assuming a monotheistic creator god).

To want is a human, and perhaps animal, quality. It’s not a characteristic I would attribute to a divine consciousness.

I don’t know much about Baha’is or their conception of God (the ones on here do seem pretty cool though). So I’ll stay out of any private argument you may have with them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So not even evidence? Just confirmation bias?

You seem very attached to that particular label, so far be it from me to dissuade you from applying it wherever you see fit.

That’s not what I meant though.

 

[ratiocinator]

To want is a human, and perhaps animal, quality. It’s not a characteristic I would attribute to a divine consciousness.

Without knowing your conception of god or divine I can't be sure what you were getting at. However, the sort of God that monotheists often present certainly deliberately creates the world, so perhaps I should have just said 'planned it that way' or 'designed it that way'.

This is basically the age-old problem of evil and suffering. I'd be interested to hear if your conception of the divine has an answer.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Without knowing your conception of god or divine I can't be sure what you were getting at. However, the sort of God that monotheists often present certainly deliberately creates the world, so perhaps I should have just said 'planned it that way' or 'designed it that way'.

This is basically the age-old problem of evil and suffering. I'd be interested to hear if your conception of the divine has an answer.

If the question is, why does a loving Creator allow the innocent to suffer, then I don’t have an answer to that question, no.

What I do have is an absolute conviction in the existence of a loving creator, but this conviction is based not on what the literal minded might accept as evidence, but rather on a tangible faith; tangible being a key word here.

 

[ratiocinator]

If the question is, why does a loving Creator allow the innocent to suffer, then I don’t have an answer to that question, no.

So there appears to be a contradiction.

What I do have is an absolute conviction in the existence of a loving creator, but this conviction is based not on what the literal minded might accept as evidence, but rather on a tangible faith; tangible being a key word here.

So what is 'tangible faith', as opposed to plain ordinary 'faith', then?

 

[RestlessSoul]

So there appears to be a contradiction.



So what is 'tangible faith', as opposed to plain ordinary 'faith', then?

Tangible is an English word. See if you can interpret my sentence for yourself.

You could even have a go at doing so in good faith

 

[ratiocinator]

Tangible is an English word. See if you can interpret my sentence for yourself.

Well tangible can mean clear, definite and real (or perceptible by touch, which seems unlikely). So whose faith do you think is not clear, definite and real? The problem being that people have very real faith in all sorts of religious (and other) ideas for which there is no evidence, and many of these beliefs contradict each other, so they they can't possibly all be true. In fact, it would appear that at least most people with religious faith must wrong.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well tangible can mean clear, definite and real (or perceptible by touch, which seems unlikely). So whose faith do you think is not clear, definite and real? The problem being that people have very real faith in all sorts of religious (and other) ideas for which there is no evidence, and many of these beliefs contradict each other, so they they can't possibly all be true. In fact, it would appear that at least most people with religious faith must wrong.

Must they? If you say so.

I am indeed talking about faith that can be felt (touched). The impact of that faith on human lives can be observed, and that also is tangible.

Faith cannot be seen, but then objects cannot be seen either; all we see is the light those objects reflect.

 

[ratiocinator]

Must they?

Well, whatever god(s) you believe in, most people think you are wrong, so yes, they must.

I am indeed talking about faith that can be felt (touched).

Not sure what you're saying. Faith is a feeling?

The impact of that faith on human lives can be observed, and that also is tangible.

That makes sense, but it doesn't say anything at all about the veracity of the various faith beliefs.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, whatever god(s) you believe in, most people think you are wrong, so yes, they must.



Not sure what you're saying. Faith is a feeling?



That makes sense, but it doesn't say anything at all about the veracity of the various faith beliefs.

One can feel faith, yes. And we humans do occasionally experience a profound connection to a loving God. Though the terminology can be troublesome.

Veracity has to be taken on trust, and that also can be troublesome, granted. I wouldn’t try to deny that humans have done some very stupid things in the belief that they were doing the bidding of God, as they understand God.