My experience and gods existence

[F1fan]

This is all about one's own search for truth.

Those who prefer a 'truth" they want, not because it conforms to facts and reason, won't find any actual truth, and aren't interested in it.

Journalism? Really?

Really! believe it or not but there is a high ethical standard for journalism. That does not mean all media outlets honor ethics. Choose carefully.

Science changes all the time.

Of course it does. Science gathers more data as it goes on. It also benefits from better technology and instrumentation. The ethics and objectivity of science has always been the same.

What does a court case even have to do with the subject?

Evidence submitted in court cases has to be credible and verifiable. This is why an opponent in a court case can object to weak or inadmissible evidence.

 

[F1fan]

Thanks for your thoughts.
I don’t think we see miracles or children being saved from cancer, or anyone for that matter, because God’s plan isn’t to fix this world or remove suffering. Instead, He came into the world and suffered in order to provide a way out and deliverance from sin and suffering for eternity in a new heaven and earth.

It's almost as if no God exists.

 

[F1fan]

You don't think nature is evidence?

In science, and without special assumptions, yes.

 

[night912]

Not this rational thinker. Just the human body is enough to make me understand that there has to be a creator. And nature just screams design to anyone willing to pay attention.

What does a world without a creator look like?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't think nature is evidence?

i think we disagree about cognitive relativism in the end.

 

[KWED]

The truth is, when atheists make that claim you cited above, they dont have any research but guesswork.

The simple fact that almost every religionist follows the religion they were born and raised in, and that children raised without religious indoctrination tend to not believe in any god suggests that belief in a god is taught, not innate. This is supported by evidence so is not guesswork.
Ironically, it is the claim that a god exists, or that a religion is true, that is guesswork.

But there is research that data to make your innate knowledge assumption. Some atheists dismiss it committing the genetic fallacy which I definitely think is bigotry. But not all atheists. The educated ones give sophisticated answers but accept research.

The problem many religionists make here is conflating an innate tendency to ascribe the unknown to supernatural agency (which has been explained through evolutionary benefit), with belief in a particular god and proof for a particular religion.

 

[KWED]

Not this rational thinker. Just the human body is enough to make me understand that there has to be a creator.

If you really were a rational thinker, you would be able to assess the evidence for evolution of the human body (and there is a **** ton of it) and come to the conclusion that no creator is necessary.

And nature just screams design to anyone willing to pay attention.

So your "rational thinking" has led you to the conclusion that the only people willing to "pay attention" to nature are creationist religionists, while the many thousands of expert, qualified biologists, botanists, geologists, cosmologists, archaeologists, astronomers, chemists, etc are all ignoring nature?
So how do you explain the fact that all those scientists can present hard evidence to support their position, while you can only present Bronze Age superstition?

This is called the "argument from personal incredulity" fallacy. IOW, just because the toddler doesn't understand how their iPad works, doesn't mean it must be magic.

 

[KWED]

All evidence for everything can be seen as subjective. Shrug.

Not really.
If we make the basic assumption that the world around us actually exists, then some things can be objectively demonstrated.
If 10,000 people independently get the same result for an experiment, that result is not subjective. The evidence that iron oxidises in the presence of oxygen and water is not subjective.

I thought you were a "rational thinker"?

 

[KWED]

Quite a coincidence. The gods of theists tend to have the same morals as the believer. If only the believers agreed with each other.

In my experience, believers often take issue with the morals of their god. That's why they spend so much time and mental gymnastics trying to explain away all the violence, intolerance, rape, slavery, etc in the Bible and Quran.
Religionists are often better than the religion they follow.

 

[KWED]

I think that is interesting question. Difficult to know. Would be nice to know how people got the first idea of God. In atheistic point of view, I have understood that, at some point some human just thought it is nice idea to start to speak about god. In that case person would not have had preexisting knowledge, so where would the idea have come? I don't know, but by what I have seen, people usually are really poor to imagine anything that they have not seen or heard. This is why I believe the idea of God is not from humans.

The development of religions is quite well understood. The earliest ones did not have a concept of "god" as we think of it today. They were animists, with rocks, trees, animals, etc all having a "spirit". This was simply people ascribing their idea of their own consciousness onto other things. From this, the earliest gods were trees, mountains, animals, storms, etc. From this it was natural to imagine gods as part human, or having human characteristics. The idea of a hierarchy or conflict between gods would lead to the concept of monotheism. (This is a very basic overview. There are many papers and books that go into detail if you are interested).

 

[KWED]

Science changes all the time.

No it doesn't. Science may lead to discoveries that change our understanding of the world, but science itself doesn't change.

Can you name one thing that used to have a scientific explanation that is now thought to be caused by god?
Do you want me to list all the things that used to be attributed to gods but now has a scientific explanation?
This alone should be evidence enough to be sceptical about the idea of gods.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I mentioned an experience I had 11 years ago when I almost got hit by two cars and something (or one's arm) went across my chest and pushed me back. Another similar incident wasn't that dramatic (no spirits iow) but two cars almost hit me and one so close I had to get a drink after crossing the street.

I called my Christian former friend and told her the 1st incident. My grandmother had just passed away then and first thing I said was thank you grandma but my friend thought it was god.

Now I don't believe deities exist but she got me thinking that if spiritual awakenings from atheist to theist were true my friend and I wouldn't have drawn two completely different conclusions from the same event.

Her prior knowledge of God lead her to that conclusion. My absence thereof by default did not.

So, I ask believers who have opinions of nonbelievers having spiritual awakenings, has there been any where the person did not have preexisting knowledge of God?

(I've heard it used as proof of god's existence)

And if spiritual awakenings by default lead to God, why do people who share similar events come to completely different opposing conclusions?


Just a thought not a sermon

There are also other explanations. Maybe both are right - God working through a person. Maybe none is right...

 

[Brian2]

The simple fact that almost every religionist follows the religion they were born and raised in, and that children raised without religious indoctrination tend to not believe in any god suggests that belief in a god is taught, not innate. This is supported by evidence so is not guesswork.
Ironically, it is the claim that a god exists, or that a religion is true, that is guesswork.

The problem many religionists make here is conflating an innate tendency to ascribe the unknown to supernatural agency (which has been explained through evolutionary benefit), with belief in a particular god and proof for a particular religion.

Being raised without religious teaching and with family who are unbelievers can also be seen as indoctrination.
You are wrong if you think science has shown that no God is necessary for the creation of what we see around us. That particular idea is guesswork.

 

[Brian2]

She experienced a sense of some greater power, but not the god described in the Bible or any other religious text.

It isn't "innate knowledge". It is an innate tendency to imagine there is some supernatural agency at work.
Neither Keller's sense of something nor the other person's belief in Christianity are necessarily anything more than a trick of the mind.

No one is born with a belief in any kind of religion. That must be taught.

I did not mention a particular religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Being raised without religious teaching and with family who are unbelievers can also be seen as indoctrination.
You are wrong if you think science has shown that no God is necessary for the creation of what we see around us. That particular idea is guesswork.

To be fair. Some people believe that the axioms in methodological are true and not axioms as such, but yes, it is a form of guesswork.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Those who prefer a 'truth" they want, not because it conforms to facts and reason, won't find any actual truth, and aren't interested in it.


Really! believe it or not but there is a high ethical standard for journalism. That does not mean all media outlets honor ethics. Choose carefully.


Of course it does. Science gathers more data as it goes on. It also benefits from better technology and instrumentation. The ethics and objectivity of science has always been the same.


Evidence submitted in court cases has to be credible and verifiable. This is why an opponent in a court case can object to weak or inadmissible evidence.

None of those prove anything. They are all subjective.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What does a world without a creator look like?

I imagine it would suck if it were possible for such a world to exist.

 

[KWED]

Being raised without religious teaching and with family who are unbelievers can also be seen as indoctrination.

In the same way that not playing tennis can be seen as a sport.

You are wrong if you think science has shown that no God is necessary for the creation of what we see around us. That particular idea is guesswork.

It is absolutely true that science has not found any need for god to explain any process or event.
However, I am happy to be corrected - so give some examples of known processes or events where god is a necessity. You did seem pretty certain so looking forward to your reply.

 

[KWED]

I did not mention a particular religion.

So the claim that Keller "already knew about God" is false.

 

[KWED]

To be fair. Some people believe that the axioms in methodological are true and not axioms as such, but yes, it is a form of guesswork.

Hmm. Perhaps you should look up "axiom" in the dictionary.