1. 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!

Featured circumstantial evidence to Gods existence

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Segev Moran, Apr 5, 2017.

  1. Segev Moran

    Segev Moran Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,561
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Wow
    Hi,

    As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

    Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

    On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.

    So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

    I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

    Cheers :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    23,375
    Ratings:
    +8,678
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    Circumstantial evidence isn't enough for proof of anything. Far too vague and subjective to be of any substantial worth to even establish a proper foundation for practical examination, much less a full blown conclusion.

    I wouldn't ever accept circumstantial evidence to base a conclusion on.
     
  3. Segev Moran

    Segev Moran Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,561
    Ratings:
    +428
    Religion:
    Wow
    I Agree, But I think Open mind is the name of the game here.
     
  4. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    23,375
    Ratings:
    +8,678
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    Sure, I enjoy speculation with an open mind too and entertaining possibilities.

    Sometimes though, certain parameters become defined enough so it becomes a matter of choosing what you actively know vs. what you would like to think, in regards to matters involving viability and possibility.
     
  5. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,533
    Ratings:
    +2,810
    Does inference and circumstainal mean the same thing?.
     
  6. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,568
    Ratings:
    +8,014
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    I have made the following argument in another as to why materialism is unlikely to be the final word and why the Hindu idea of Brahman may be promising,
    As we uncover the workings of the natural world certain things become clear:-

    1) Physical entities (matter-energy-space-time) interact with each other in highly predictable ways which we call "laws of nature", "causality" etc. However the reason for the existence of this structured patterns of behavior and their invariable attachment with physical entities is unknown.

    2) The laws of nature themselves are mathematical. Mathematics is a domain of abstract and extraordinarily rich non-empirical reality that is "somehow" glued into "stuff" through these laws and accessible to knowledge through rationality. Why should there be such a realm of abstract rational world of mathematics and why they intermingle with stuff via the laws of physics is also not known.

    3) Stuff..connected with the mathematical world via the laws of nature, is also extraordinarily and unexpectedly fecund, coalescing in property rich groups with utterly novel qualities and functions starting from molecules, crystals, living things, stars, galaxies and sentient beings. The repeated (and apparently limitless) potential of emerging wholes with novel properties all stacked on top of each other (from molecules to man i.e.) from "stuff" is observable and describable; but why stuff has such emergence potential is unknown.

    Certain strands of Hinduism propose that there is something more fundamental than matter-energy, laws of nature, mathematics and consciousness/information. On this more fundamental entity all these domains rest, and of which these various domains are aspects of. And this singular fundamental entity, which is called Brahman, provides the connecting glue and the structural richness around which stuff/mathematics/laws etc. is coalescing to make it manifest in the sensory plane. This provides a "why" explanation rather than a what and how explanation. Such an explanation is needed as the interconnectivity of stuff, laws, maths, information, consciousness and repeated emergence are not mere facts, but extraordinary features that cannot be left unexplained.

    And just like biology has provided us with senses to see physical entities and rationality to see mathematics..it has also provided us with inner capabilities, which when honed through meditation or other proper spiritual practices, can help us grasp this fundamental entity undergirding all these domains of knowledge...at least to some extent.

    That is the argument that I would ask atheists and materialists to consider.

    Further points:-
    Is mathematics really a separate realm, or is it also based on empirical experiences?
    Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument
    Characteristics of Brahman as described in early Upanisads
    Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument
    Certain predictions that could be confirmed and disconfirmed by science
    Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument
    How these predictions logically arise from the nature of the proposed entity, Brahman
    Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    23,375
    Ratings:
    +8,678
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    No whenever evidences are used in culmination for establishing a result.
     
    #7 Nowhere Man, Apr 6, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2017
  8. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,767
    Ratings:
    +10,108
    Religion:
    Judaism
    RF is not my first forum and I'v been been a member here for quite some time, yet I do not recall reading or hearing anyone suggest such an argument. Could you share a few examples?
     
  9. Evie

    Evie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    582
    Ratings:
    +25
    Religion:
    BaHai
    Consider the following: A scientist claimed to be able to create life as the elements pertaining to the creation of a human can all be found in dirt. So, to begin his demonstration he grabbed a handful of dirt from the ground. A voice boomed down from the sky saying. 'GET YOUR OWN DIRT'.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. Evie

    Evie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    582
    Ratings:
    +25
    Religion:
    BaHai
    To prove an intangible God. Consider the following: A scientist claimed he could make a human himself because the elements which constitute a human being can all be found in dirt. So, to begin his demonstration he grabbed a handful of dirt from the ground. A voice boomed down from the sky saying, 'GET YOUR OWN DIRT'.
     
  11. miodrag

    miodrag Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    115
    Ratings:
    +41
    Circumstantial evidence is nothing more but an invitation to believe. We may choose to accept suggestions, and then see if a useful idea or a result comes out. But evidence may be understood in a very strict way.

    I wrote in another post:
    So it is not useful to be a radical skeptic. And you are expected to accept suggestions. It is only normal. However, in the strict scientific and philosophical sense, it will be never possible to prove that God exist. In fact, to a skeptic, you cannot prove that even you exist.
     
  12. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,479
    Ratings:
    +587
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    Of course there is evidence for God:

    Tangible/material: Biological, Cosmological, History, Prophecy, Biblical Accuracy

    Intangible/immaterial: Logic, Teleology, Ontology, Love, Justice, Absolutes

    What is also clear IMHO is that propensities/biases lean BOTH ways--a person open to God (most people) says, "God's existence is self-evident to me" and skeptics say, "I have no evidence for God--oh, wow, look how 15B Light Years of Universe formed inside a stretched void!"

    This is akin to twin fetuses in a uterus saying to each other, "Mom, what mom? I've never had evidence of a mom?"
     
  13. jonathan180iq

    jonathan180iq Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,140
    Ratings:
    +2,451
    I respect a lot of what you post, which shouldn't need to be said. But I'd like you to tell me how these three quoted segments below are evidence for anything other than an argument from ignorance...

    "We don't know a bunch of things...therefore Brahma" is exactly the same as saying "We don't know a bunch of things...therefore Yahweh, or Bigfoot, or Ancient Aliens, etc."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Blastcat

    Blastcat Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    685
    Ratings:
    +141
    Religion:
    None
    If you want to play a game, you don't need any evidence. Just believe what you like.
     
  15. Hawkins

    Hawkins Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,304
    Ratings:
    +105
    This is a wrong approach, adapted by brainwashed people. People today are brainwashed by our secular education that they thus demand evidence before belief. However in this very reality humans seldom rely on evidence to believe and putting faith to believe is actually the fundamental way for humans in majority to get to a truth.

    What evidence do you have for any historical figures existed 2000 years ago? History is basically written by humans long ago for us to believe with faith today! History represents one kind of truth which evidence have no bearing on it. For an example, Jewish historian Josephus wrote a series of books 2000 years ago. Now just go through it section by section then tell us which section can be supported by evidence. If evidence is needed before belief, you can ignore the books as a whole. You can even ignore human history as a whole.

    That said. You won't be able to collect evidence of God because once God is evident you don't need faith to believe Him. And by the current covenant in place, no humans thus can be saved! To a certain extent, looking for evidence of God means seeking for the death of all mankind. Similarly to human history, humans don't need to rely on evidence to reach such a truth anyway.
     
  16. alan3261

    alan3261 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2017
    Messages:
    5
    Ratings:
    +2
    Religion:
    waitandseeer
    can everyone please stop with all this god talk; if there is one, what he says, how he wants things, etc., etc.? The bottom line is that WE JUST DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT A HIGHER POWER, so let's stop pretending we do! Full stop!
     
  17. rrosskopf

    rrosskopf LDS High Priest

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    547
    Ratings:
    +55
    Proof is defined as the amount of evidence necessary to convince someone that something is true. The threshold of evidence is highly individual. Some would like to apply the scientific theory to God, but I suggest that we need a new set of rules to explore intelligence. We all know that intelligence exists, but it is not a "thing" in the normal sense of the word. We can't bombard it with radiation to discover its properties. Penrose took a stab at it with his popular book Shadows of the Mind, A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, where he delved deeply into human intelligence.

    Whether one believes that God is everywhere present and eternal, or physically existing in space and time, and subject to universal laws, all agree that God is intelligent. How does one prove whether an intelligent being occasionally interferes with earth history? The only evidence that we are left with is eye witness testimony and the intelligence that seems to guide mankind. In my mind, the only evidence worth pursuing, is some event that is fairly recent, with many witnesses, and established revelations from God. It turns out that we have just such an example.

    Joseph Smith's fame and infamy is such because of the wealth of eye witness testimony and revelations given in modern times. The miracles and visions were not cloaked in obscurity, dating to some ancient past, but part of the fabric of US history. Nor were they confined to Joseph Smith himself, but experienced by a broad swath of people, both members and non-members. We literally have hundreds of thousands of pages of testimony to the events that took place from 1830 to 1845.

    As one studies the life of Joseph Smith, one is slowly drawn to one of two conclusions; that he was either the greatest conman who ever lived, or that he was exactly what his followers claimed - a prophet of God. Sadly, most of the popular literature about Joseph Smith is designed to show him as a fraud, with no attempt at fairness; hatchet jobs by ministers of other churches, angry that they have lost members of their fold to the Mormons. Two evangelical seminarians did an indepth study of Mormon apologetics and came to the conclusion that the Mormon apologetics were more credible than the rash of books claiming to expose the Mormons. (Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?)

    Despite the efforts of many to quickly dismiss Mormon claims, the evidence is such that only a long drawn out investigation of those claims can adequately cover all the areas. There is no silver bullet to discredit Mormonism. In fact, many of those who have made long drawn out investigations have eventually converted to Mormonism.
     
  18. Robert Landbeck

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Messages:
    149
    Ratings:
    +29
    Religion:
    'Christian' when it finally begins
    Why
    Why accept the arguments of any mere mortal when the first literal PROOF may have been revealed? This is what I'm studying and testing at the moment!

    " The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!"

    The need for 'faith' to rely upon argument, opinion or speculation, however ancient or learned, orthodox or traditional, may be coming to an end! This is what I'm studying and testing at the moment:

    "The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!"

    "Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search along a defined path of strict self discipline, [a test of the human heart] to discover His 'Word' of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Thus is a man 'created' in the image and likeness of his Creator.

    So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at The Final Freedoms
     
  19. Thumper

    Thumper Thank the gods I'm an atheist

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2017
    Messages:
    575
    Ratings:
    +441
    Religion:
    Humanism
    "Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

    "If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so. Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

    "All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know.
    " ~ Isaac Asimov
     
    #19 Thumper, Apr 6, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. alan3261

    alan3261 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2017
    Messages:
    5
    Ratings:
    +2
    Religion:
    waitandseeer
     
Loading...