• 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!

There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

InChrist

Free4ever
Several names on that are disputable and none of them seemed find any evidence. Andrew Flew was old and senile and did not even write much of the book with his name on it if any. There are interviews with him after it was published. Lee Strobel appears to be a fraud since his "investigation" would not be one that an atheist would do. He acted like a Christian looking for evidence and like a Christian accepted the weakest claims as evidence. Francis Collins was not convinced by evidence he had a "spiritual" encounter with a waterfall if I remember correctly.
I apologize, it was actually “Antony” Flew. I mistakenly wrote Andrew. From everything I have read he was not senile in the least and he wrote the book entirely himself.

“The atheist community was not bashful or tardy in attacking professor Flew’s new book. They claimed that Flew was demented or senile and that his co-author, Roy Varghese, did most of the actual writing and inserted his own opinions and claimed them to be Flew’s. Flew shot back with a penetrating public statement making it abundantly clear that the book “one hundred percent” represented his own opinions. Flew’s rejection of atheism and embrace of Deism was unequivocal. He repeatedly affirmed that there had to be an Intelligent Designer to bring life into being.“

Antony Flew: A Leading Atheist Who Came to Believe in God – The Teaching Ministry of Bill Nugent
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I apologize, it was actually “Antony” Flew. I mistakenly wrote Andrew. From everything I have read he was not senile in the least and he wrote the book entirely himself.

“The atheist community was not bashful or tardy in attacking professor Flew’s new book. They claimed that Flew was demented or senile and that his co-author, Roy Varghese, did most of the actual writing and inserted his own opinions and claimed them to be Flew’s. Flew shot back with a penetrating public statement making it abundantly clear that the book “one hundred percent” represented his own opinions. Flew’s rejection of atheism and embrace of Deism was unequivocal. He repeatedly affirmed that there had to be an Intelligent Designer to bring life into being.“

Antony Flew: A Leading Atheist Who Came to Believe in God – The Teaching Ministry of Bill Nugent
That is because you have listened to biased sources. This is not an "atheist" source. It is rather reliable:

The Case of Antony Flew

Now Mark Oppenheimer has a fascinating and depressing piece about how Flew's theistic friends, led by Varghese, seem to have taken advantage of his advancing senility to write a book about his adoption of deism, run it by him for approval, and slap his name on the cover.
Here's Oppenheimer:


As Flew himself conceded, he had not written his book.

“This is really Roy’s doing,” he said, before I had even figured out a polite way to ask. “He showed it to me, and I said O.K. I’m too old for this kind of work!”

When I asked Varghese, he freely admitted that the book was his idea and that he had done all the original writing for it. But he made the book sound like more of a joint effort — slightly more, anyway. “There was stuff he had written before, and some of that was adapted to this,” Varghese said. “There is stuff he’d written to me in correspondence, and I organized a lot of it. And I had interviews with him. So those three elements went into it. Oh, and I exposed him to certain authors and got his views on them. We pulled it together. And then to make it more reader-friendly, HarperCollins had a more popular author go through it.”

So even the ghostwriter had a ghostwriter: Bob Hostetler, an evangelical pastor and author from Ohio, rewrote many passages, especially in the section that narrates Flew’s childhood. With three authors, how much Flew was left in the book? “He went through everything, was happy with everything,” Varghese said
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I’ve been reading through a couple of threads, and I see that it is said that there is no evidence for a god, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. We all agree on this? If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god?
I’m in agreement. I used to believe my personal experiences to be subjective evidence for god, but I know now that’s not the case. I am not a theist anymore because I recognize I was a Christian thanks almost completely to my environment. That’s why I believed. I was brought up in it. Wasn’t because of any proof or anything,
So, theists, why do you believe? Is it mainly because of your environment and geographical location? There is no proof for god (right?), so what logically keeps you believing? Or is logic not supposed to be a factor when it comes to faith? Is it too jarring, the idea of leaving the comfort that religion and belief in a god brings?
I am curious about personal evaluations on why you believe. It can’t be because of logic, as there is no proof of god, right?

What do you consider is "evidence"? Can you explain?

Dont just give usual script Xavier. Your own explanation and an example.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Far more interesting as *negative* evidence for an intelligent creator is the lack of abstract representational art in the universe. For that matter, it is lacking outside of human endeavors.

So, some of the earliest cave paintings have art that clearly represents animals in the environment. That is a sign of an intelligence operating that is capable of abstract thought. And this is different than simply having abstract design.

But such representations are completely lacking.

Why would that be?
How about the human body as relational art? Is there anything more beautiful than the human form? I'm sure you're familiar with the biblical reference that humans were created in God's image.
 

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
What do you consider is "evidence"? Can you explain?

Dont just give usual script Xavier. Your own explanation and an example.
Evidence in the simplest sense. Something that shows god is real. This could look different coming from people of different religions. A Christian beliefs would be verified if prophetic passages of the Bible were proven to be written before the events prophesied. As far as I’m aware, though, there is no such thing. Evidence points towards the prophetic books being written after the events. That’s what scholars say at least.
Perhaps an axiom that proves God, I don’t think there is such an axiom.
 

Suave

Simulated character
So still no reliable sources.
Dr. Sylvester James Gates served on former President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which indicates to me that Dr. Gates is indeed considered by his scientific peers to be a reliable source of knowledge in his scientific field of expertise.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Dr. Sylvester James Gates served on former President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which indicates to me that Dr. Gates is indeed considered by his scientific peers to be a reliable source of knowledge in his scientific field of expertise.
No, in the science what you need would be links to the original peer reviewed works. If it can't get past peer review it is almost certainly false. I won't say for sure, but the odds of being right are extremely small.

He may have earned that respect for other work that he did. Remember, even Newton dabbled in alchemy. Just because a brilliant person wrote it does not make it real.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
How about the human body as relational art? Is there anything more beautiful than the human form? 'm sure you're familiar with the biblical reference that humans were created in God's image.
If a human asked just another human all human babies only since our first two origin human biological parents.

What are you talking about as a human in legal answers.

Seeing the bible is used to swear a legal oath in law courts.

The answer is in cloud mass which is reactive gases and water smoking cooling are Satan angel of God human like images. God in heavens formed human image.

Says a biological born by human sex only as the legal exact human science status the thinker.

That image is human like. We saw it emerge.

Okay. In human history what form is next in line in biology?

An ape he says. Living life the legal topic.

So God as a cloud in the heavens above made you a human image in the clouds?

Yes.

Wasn't it explained by human scientists how and why it manifested?

Yes. Humans designed built then physical and mind human controlled machines to force mass God earth conversion.

So ground O earth first position God in human science manifested the phenomena as you burnt removed cold ground fused mass not a gas?

By exact human conscious biology owner thinker a human the reason why?

Yes said the humans scientific legal description of causes.

Yes said the human...I was told why it had manifested.

As my human self I tried to anti my biological status in a nuclear dust mass conversion.

Why human designed by human mind control of machines use and transmit images as proof human science caused it. With a non human a machine.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Evidence in the simplest sense. Something that shows god is real. This could look different coming from people of different religions. A Christian beliefs would be verified if prophetic passages of the Bible were proven to be written before the events prophesied. As far as I’m aware, though, there is no such thing. Evidence points towards the prophetic books being written after the events. That’s what scholars say at least.
Perhaps an axiom that proves God, I don’t think there is such an axiom.

That doesnt really answer the question brother.

No problem. You asked about an axiom. What do you mean by an axiom? Can you give me an axiom you stand by?
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Please note the discovery of error correcting codes within the equations of symmetry is a rigorously proven theorem.

Reference: https://www.quora.com/Is-theoretica...mmunity-and-has-it-been-corroborated-by-other

Is theoretical physicist James Gates’ intriguing discovery of error-correcting codes within the equations of supersymmetry accepted within the theoretical physicist community, and has it been corroborated by other physicists?

Tristan Hubsch
, PhD Physics, University of Maryland, College Park (1987)
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 1.4K answers and 1M answer views

A.: The discovery is a rigorously proven theorem.

To be precise, the (error-detecting and error-correcting binary doubly-even linear block) codes were discovered/identified within the classification of worldline off-shell supermultiplets without central charge [On Graph-Theoretic Identifications of Adinkras, Supersymmetry Representations and Superfields, by C.F. Doran, M.G. Faux, S.J. Gates, Jr., T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A22 (2007) 869-930, arXiv:math-ph/0512016]. It was then proven that these (minimal) supermultiplets in turn encode the continuum of all possible worldline supermultiplets [On General Off-Shell Representations of Worldline (1D) Supersymmetry, by C.F. Doran, T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Symmetry 6 no. 1, (2014) 67–88, arXiv:1310.3258]. See also my answer to “James Gates claims that he found code in string theory. Does that imply that we live in a simulation?”

If string theory proves to be a valid explanation for the fundamental constituents of the universe being one-dimensional “strings” rather than point-like particles, then this error correction code found within string theory could be a real indication of our simulated universe being controlled by a simulator ( aka God! )

Not impressed. Error-correcting codes and supersymmetry both make extensive use of common lattice structures (the Leech lattice is one example), so it isn't too surprising that you can finagle what looks like one in the other.

Ok guy, there's no call for that kind of language.
 

Suave

Simulated character
No, in the science what you need would be links to the original peer reviewed works. If it can't get past peer review it is almost certainly false. I won't say for sure, but the odds of being right are extremely small.

He may have earned that respect for other work that he did. Remember, even Newton dabbled in alchemy. Just because a brilliant person wrote it does not make it real.

On Graph-Theoretic Identifications of Adinkras, Supersymmetry Representations and Superfields
[math-ph/0512016] On Graph-Theoretic Identifications of Adinkras, Supersymmetry Representations and Superfields (arxiv.org)
 

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
That doesnt really answer the question brother.
You asked for me to provide an example of a proof, I think the one I provided would be a convincing proof. Did I miss something?
No problem. You asked about an axiom. What do you mean by an axiom? Can you give me an axiom you stand by?
An axiom is a statement that is inherently true. I’m not sure it can really be applied to God. “Man acts” is an axiom I stand by I guess. To deny “man acts” is an action, so it proves itself.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I’ve been reading through a couple of threads, and I see that it is said that there is no evidence for a god, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. We all agree on this? If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god?
I’m in agreement. I used to believe my personal experiences to be subjective evidence for god, but I know now that’s not the case. I am not a theist anymore because I recognize I was a Christian thanks almost completely to my environment. That’s why I believed. I was brought up in it. Wasn’t because of any proof or anything,
So, theists, why do you believe? Is it mainly because of your environment and geographical location? There is no proof for god (right?), so what logically keeps you believing? Or is logic not supposed to be a factor when it comes to faith? Is it too jarring, the idea of leaving the comfort that religion and belief in a god brings?
I am curious about personal evaluations on why you believe. It can’t be because of logic, as there is no proof of god, right?
I think the real point is that there is no objective evidence for God or any believed deity. Subjective evidence bears the burden of being anecdotal at best, since it is the experience of an individual that could have numerous sources that are not a deity and even the person might not know.

My upbringing and community. Teaching (what some would call indoctrination). Subjective experience. All those combine to form the basis of my belief.

I am reminded of a couple of quotes by Robert Duvall's character Hub from the movie "Secondhand Lions". Even if I didn't believe, I just like the feeling behind them.

“Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil.”

“True love never dies. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. A man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.”
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member

Suave

Simulated character
Not impressed. Error-correcting codes and supersymmetry both make extensive use of common lattice structures (the Leech lattice is one example), so it isn't too surprising that you can finagle what looks like one in the other.

Some physicists have proposed a method for testing if we are in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix or simulated universe with an underlying grid.
[1210.1847] Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

Based on the assumption that there'd be finite computational resources, a simulated universe would be performed by dividing up the space-time continuum into individually separate and distinctive points. Analogous to mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists conduct to construct nuclei based on Quantum Chromodynamics, observable effects of a grid-like space-time have been studied from these computer simulations which use a 3-D grid to model how elementary particles move and collide with each other. Anomalies found in these simulations suggest that if we are in a simulation universe with an underlying grid, then there'd be various amounts of high energy cosmic rays coming at us from each direction; but if space is continuous, then there'd be high energy cosmic rays coming at us equally from every direction.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Freaks Out When Physicist James Gates Finds Computer Code in String Theory


 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Some physicists have proposed a method for testing if we are in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix or simulated universe with an underlying grid.
[1210.1847] Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

Based on the assumption that there'd be finite computational resources, a simulated universe would be performed by dividing up the space-time continuum into individually separate and distinctive points. Analogous to mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists conduct to construct nuclei based on Quantum Chromodynamics, observable effects of a grid-like space-time have been studied from these computer simulations which use a 3-D grid to model how elementary particles move and collide with each other. Anomalies found in these simulations suggest that if we are in a simulation universe with an underlying grid, then there'd be various amounts of high energy cosmic rays coming at us from each direction; but if space is continuous, then there'd be high energy cosmic rays coming at us equally from every direction.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Freaks Out When Physicist James Gates Finds Computer Code in String Theory

Who added the idiotic music to that? He admits that they cannot do any experiments yet to verify this, It may be just more woo woo.
 

Suave

Simulated character
Getting closer. Still not peer reviewed. Almost anyone can put a paper in arXIV. We have a member here that has done so. As a result no one here is impressed with that source.
International Journal of Modern Physics A Vol. 22, No. 05, pp. 869-930 (2007) Research Papers No Access. ON GRAPH-THEORETIC IDENTIFICATIONS OF ADINKRAS, SUPERSYMMETRY …
ON GRAPH-THEORETIC IDENTIFICATIONS OF ADINKRAS, SUPERSYMMETRY REPRESENTATIONS AND SUPERFIELDS | International Journal of Modern Physics A (worldscientific.com)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
International Journal of Modern Physics A Vol. 22, No. 05, pp. 869-930 (2007) Research Papers No Access. ON GRAPH-THEORETIC IDENTIFICATIONS OF ADINKRAS, SUPERSYMMETRY …
ON GRAPH-THEORETIC IDENTIFICATIONS OF ADINKRAS, SUPERSYMMETRY REPRESENTATIONS AND SUPERFIELDS | International Journal of Modern Physics A (worldscientific.com)
Is that even about the same topic? It appears to be about supersymmetry. That is his specialty so finding a peer reviewed paper about that is not surprising.

If that video is accurate there is no point in doing so. As he stated it this does not sound like an idea that is ready for peer review yet. There is no way to confirm it or refute it which would mean that it is not science.
 
Top