Faith in no God

[exchemist]

And yet another avoidance of the question. I guess that is the best tactic when confronted with a reality one wishes to avoid.

Not that tired old attempt to provoke people into a stupid discussion, yet again.

This gambit has been tried countless time on this forum. There is nothing to be gained by recycling it for the umpteenth time. Everybody is sick of it.

 

[Nimos]

I just want to point out that this is a bit out of date. Both Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) and Tensor-Vector-Scalar (TeVeS) gravity have been shown to require dark matter to explain the dynamics of the Bullet cluster (as well as a couple of other clusters passing through each other, where dark matter and ordinary matter are separated by the dynamics). So, their primary reason for existence (to avoid having dark matter) has been shown to be impossible under their schemes. Entropic gravity was used to underpin MOND, so has gone out as well.

Just as an aside: I was hoping MOND or TeVeS would win, but the evidence simply didn't go that way.

Im not an expert in dark matter and energy, so you may very well be correct that the information is a bit outdated. And my point for using that as an example, were not whether or not it exist or not. But because I think it shows a good example between simply making a claim and how science approach something, which they don't know.

 

[Polymath257]

Care to have a second opinion?

Sure. But then you give me a video from cranks.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.

Because it doesn't feel like faith? Just as not believing in the myriad other possible entities, beings, objects, and all else we might possibly conceive doesn't either - unless you admit to such - in which case you are devaluing your own faith in whatever you happen to believe.

 

[Karolina]

I know you said you're addressing non-believers more so than believers in God, but I wanted to add my two cents. When people claim there is no evidence for God, I wonder just how much evidence they need, or what kind of evidence, or even how do they define evidence?
Because for me, looking at the vast complexity and interconnectedness of nature and the cosmos is actually plenty of evidence that there is some sort of intelligent Force beyond us. And lately I've been studying natural law and first principles and the existence of these, regardless of time in history or culture, seems like enough evidence that this original Force also is just.
So even though I struggle with organized religion and do not accept scriptural authority, I find plenty of proof for the existence of what I call God. The evidence in looking at is equally accessible to everyone, regardless of religious affiliation. But there's also the psychological factor you must account for that people will see what they want to see. They will find what their looking for. That applies to me as well, but not any more than to atheists. They don't want to find God, so they dismiss the evidence all around them. That's their perogative. But let's not say there is no evidence. The evidence is there. Perhaps we all interpret it differently to get to our preferred positions, but the evidence is there.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Replace word "spacetime" in Albert Einstein 1905AC paper with "girlfriend" and you will simply corrupt the entire proof of E=mc^2.

Your poorly executed joke does nothing to disguise the fact that my point sailed over your head.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Care to have a second opinion?

Sure. But then you give me a video from cranks.

As oppose to those who believes in dark ghost and energies, you mean? Did you really watched the video in its entire content?

I admit there are som very cranky ideas in the Thunderbolts Project, as for instants their mythical interpretations and "electromagnetic capturing of planets" - BUT their essential and strict Electric Universe of formation and motion is just excellent and very natural.

Don´t throw the child out together with the bathing water

 

[Polymath257]

I know you said you're addressing non-believers more so than believers in God, but I wanted to add my two cents. When people claim there is no evidence for God, I wonder just how much evidence they need, or what kind of evidence, or even how do they define evidence?
Because for me, looking at the vast complexity and interconnectedness of nature and the cosmos is actually plenty of evidence that there is some sort of intelligent Force beyond us. And lately I've been studying natural law and first principles and the existence of these, regardless of time in history or culture, seems like enough evidence that this original Force also is just.
So even though I struggle with organized religion and do not accept scriptural authority, I find plenty of proof for the existence of what I call God. The evidence in looking at is equally accessible to everyone, regardless of religious affiliation. But there's also the psychological factor you must account for that people will see what they want to see. They will find what their looking for. That applies to me as well, but not any more than to atheists. They don't want to find God, so they dismiss the evidence all around them. That's their perogative. But let's not say there is no evidence. The evidence is there. Perhaps we all interpret it differently to get to our preferred positions, but the evidence is there.

OK, what I would need for evidence is something that distinguishes a world with a God and natural laws from a world without God, but which still has natural laws.

What is it about the world around you that implies the existence of God? What evidence is different than would be present in a world that simply works through natural laws and does NOT have a God?

You see, as I understand it, evidence is something that distinguishes between possibilities. It isn't just that the evidence is consistent with one viewpoint, it has to actually eliminate (or at least decrease the likelihood) of the opposite viewpoint. if it doesn't do that, it simply isn't evidence at all, one way or the other.

So, we know the universe works by natural laws. Both of us agree to that, I think. What distinguishes universe with natural laws *with* God from those with natural laws *without* God?

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Care to have a second opinion?

As oppose to those who believes in dark ghost and energies, you mean? Did you really watched the video in its entire content?

I admit there are som very cranky ideas in the Thunderbolts Project, as for instants their mythical interpretations and "electromagnetic capturing of planets" - BUT their essential and strict Electric Universe of formation and motion is just excellent and very natural.

Don´t throw the child out together with the bathing water

There was no child.

 

[Native]

OK, what I would need for evidence is something that distinguishes a world with a God and natural laws from a world without God, but which still has natural laws.

This is not a question of distinguishing but of comparing. You could have taken the essence from my linked video which was/is ELECTRIC LIGHT and get your answer to both terms and concepts.

 

[Polymath257]

This is not a question of distinguishing but of comparing. You could have taken the essence from my linked video which was/is ELECTRIC LIGHT and get your answer to both terms and concepts.

If you start by ignoring gravity, you are already worthless.

 

[Native]

If you start by ignoring gravity, you are already worthless.

In the consensus way, yes. But then again, it is the consensus ideas which leads you to no scientific cosmological conclusions very fast. It´s stuck in the ghostly darkness and refuse to see the LIGHT.

 

[Polymath257]

In the consensus way, yes. But then again, it is the consensus ideas which leads you to no scientific cosmological conclusions very fast. It´s stuck in the ghostly darkness and refuse to see the LIGHT.

Oh, we see light. We understand light. And we understand E&M and gravity pretty well. They just don't work as that video suggests.

 

[cladking]

Why not?

"God" is unseen. check
He is unknowable. check.
He can be seen only indirectly through His actions. check.

There must be a God. "God" also fulfills Occam's razor test since the simplest explanation for how everything can exist as it does is that there is a Creator. This isn't certainty but it is prima facie evidence.

By the same token to exist and be studied everything that exists has direct evidence and we have yet to find such direct evidence except through faith.

Essentially we are left with all evidence suggesting there is a God or is no God dependent on how we interpret it.

 

[Native]

Oh, we see light. We understand light. And we understand E&M and gravity pretty well.

Well, if you and the consensus science is that clever knowing everything about "LIGHT", you shouldn´t have any problems of understanding LIGHT as the force of CREATION as notised in several religions.

You see? It´s just a question of seeing the light.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, if you and the consensus science is that clever knowing everything about "LIGHT", you shouldn´t have any problems of understanding LIGHT as the force of CREATION as notised in several religions.

You see? It´s just a question of seeing the light.

I see no reason to take those religions seriously.

 

[wandering peacefully]

but the evidence is there

What is the evidence from your perspective? Evidence that when clearly stated is overwhelming and undersood by everyone.

 

[tas8831]

Just because I have never seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched (the only way to gather data to prove something) a unicorn does not mean they don't exist. Apart from faith, the only thing I could logically say is, "I don't know."

That rings hollow after a while.
At some point, one believes - not on faith, but due to lack of evidence - that unicorns do not exist. If one were to be discovered, that would be evidence that they do exist and one would have to adjust their position accordingly.

On the other hand, if one claimed that there a supernatural entity that had flooded the entire world to the height of the tallest mountains, a sensible person would ask for evidence. A world-wide flood, especially one in the timeline of the biblical literalist, should have left a LOT of evidence.

Yet... There is none. In fact, the evidence there is contradicts such a notion.

So at some point, a person would have to admit that a world-wide flood did not occur.

And yet....

 

[tas8831]

OK, how much faith is required to not believe the invisible pink unicorn exists? I bet not much if any at all.

Plus, unless pink unicorns are trying to control the masses, it is really an apple/orange thing...

 

[tas8831]

The God the Father is proven

Nope.

(as example, there is historic video about "crucifixion darkness").

A video! Why didn't you say so!
is there also one about crucifixion people rising from the grave?

Then there is strong evidence from Genetics Research: presence of M-Eve and Chromosomal Adam in all genes of the human population in 2020;

So you are content to ignore all other genetic evidence, I see.

and the intelligent design of DNA.

This has never been established.

Why do you post these fibs?

Finally, if the God of Knowledge is not perfectly 100% proven, then there can not be any knowledge or proof, even physical or mathematical. Because there is no Absolute Judge what is wrong and what is right, even in scientific sense. Therefore, He would have no right to burn atheists and sinners after the Judgement Day. Conclusion: the God is Spirit of Truth Himself.

Nonsense.