• 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?

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
Suppose the Quran or Bible had some special knowledge about the way the universe works, something that science eventually comes around discovering. That would in some sense validate a religious text. Just a simple example
I would imagine that it would be considered that the writers got lucky. That and ancient people didn't have our knowledge and ready access to it. They weren't stupid. Some of them came up with some pretty incredible ideas.

It might be validation of a specific idea, but I don't see how that would amount to blanket validation of all claims from either.

Still, that is a complex question. Unfortunately, not one I have a ready answer for.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
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?

I never expected you to seriously consider prophecies as evidence. What happens with prophecies is that some jump through a lot of hoops to prove a prophecy happened post hoc ergo propter hoc. And a skeptic will not find it at all valuable because there seems to be so many hoops to jump through for the apologist to prove a prophecy took place post hoc.

But sure. If this is your idea of evidence that's fine.

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.

Oh okay. I thought you were referring to logical axioms.

Thanks for clarifying.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I never expected you to seriously consider prophecies as evidence. What happens with prophecies is that some jump through a lot of hoops to prove a prophecy happened post hoc ergo propter hoc. And a skeptic will not find it at all valuable because there seems to be so many hoops to jump through for the apologist to prove a prophecy took place post hoc.

But sure. If this is your idea of evidence that's fine.



Oh okay. I thought you were referring to logical axioms.

Thanks for clarifying.
The problem that I have seen with prophecies is that they tend to go against rational rules for a "true prophecy". For example do you take Nostradamus's prophecies seriously?
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
I have millions of examples of this proof.
Just ask for how many you would like.
Then ante up.
The other evidence is in the Bible, which is proof of divine authorship.
That is just one of many stories.
The other evidence is the effect of the power of God, not only on lives, but also on activities of people who belong to God.
All subjective and anecdotal.
Another evidence is the contrast between those who serve God, and those who don't.
What does that even mean? How does it fit in at all?
 

Trailblazer

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?
I believe in God because I believe there is evidence for God.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD, SO WHY DO YOU BELIEVE?

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?

NO PROOF EITHER WAY:

There is no proof that God does exist. There is no proof that God doesn't exist. There are an infinite number of things that you could believe. For example, you could believe in the Greek Gods. So, if you have no reason to believe in God, you might as well have no reason to believe in everything (including the belief that cartoon character, Fred Flintstone, is real). Atheists prefer to only believe in the proven. That way, they don't have to believe in everything. Some theists claim that non-belief might result in hell, so they recommend hedging your bets by believing in God and going to church (just in case there is a God).

ESP

Dr. Jessica Utts is a math professor who proved that ESP works. ESP means that people can snatch information out of the "air" (or what ever it is), and that info could be of the future, past, present, or distant. The contents of a submarine, deep under the ocean can be observed. The contents of a vault with 1 foot steel walls can be examined. If such information can be retrieved, it makes sense that the information is stored. If the info is stored, we don't really understand how. Maybe the distribution of matter in the universe is connected with strings of matter similar to our brain's neurons. But it is my understanding that psychic energy is not the same as regular energy. Regular energy is limited to under the speed of light in a vacuum as it travels across the metric of space (though the metric is expanding and that expansion is accelerating). But, psychic energy doesn't appear to have a speed limit, and it appears to transcend time. Could it be that thoughts and information could be stored for the use of some entity, and that entity might be God? It doesn't prove that God exists, but at least it opens the possibility (hitherto a closed possibility) that God exists.

In a nut shell....if ESP exists, maybe God exists (sharing the same info retrieval system)?

EXISTENTIALISM (DO WE EXIST?):

It is a branch of philosophy (the study of all knowledge). Existentialists ask "are we a butterfly dreaming that we are human, or are we humans dreaming that we are a butterfly?" They claim that we might not even exist. To that, DesCartes exclaimed, "I think, therefore I am." But does that mean "I don't think, therefore I am not?" What about a temporary lapse of thought? Maybe it is okay to worship a nonexistent God if we, too, are nonexistent?

WHAT IF GOD SAID THAT HE (GOD) DOESN'T EXIST:

That brings us back to the old joke (in movies) in which a human heard a noise and asked, "who dat?" then a ghost asked "who dat?" Then the scared human asks "who dat who said who dat when I said who dat?" In other words, if God said that he didn't exist, who was it who said that? From this, we understand that God can either remain silent or say something that isn't relevant to His existence, or state that He does exist. So far, God wants freedom of choice (good go to heaven, and bad to hell), and announcement of His existence might take away that freedom. If everyone could see a huge hand come down from the sky, they would have no choice but to believe (unless they thought that it was some kind of trick of science).

NOW AN ATHEIST, YOU ARE FREE TO BE MORAL:

1. Boy raping priests got away with it because the church explained to their victims (and families) that it would hurt the church to tell. Now you can tell, and priests could face justice.

2. Election of a Religious Right candidate had to be Republican, Christian, a member of the National Rifle Association, for war, and for torture camps. God said "thou shalt not kill." A Christian (or for that matter, a non-christian) was not allowed to say anything about stopping the wars or they would be chastised. W. Bush said "don't cut and run" or "these colors [red, white, and blue] don't run," or "stay the course." France was lambasted for being cowardly if they objected to the wars (wars without justification, and W. Bush and Cheney, and Powell, and Rice all lied to us about the intel) they would be called traitors. W. Bush noted that there were people writing against supporting the wars, so he intentionally lied about them and spread the rumor that al Qaeda agents were on the internet trying to stop the wars. So he called pacifists al Qaeda sympathizers, just to further the killing efforts. Remember, God said "thou shalt not kill."

You have the right to object to the killing and torture of 1,000,000 peaceful Iraqis who were not involved in torture. As an atheist, you now have a right (a right that you didn't have as a theist) to follow God's order "thou shalt not kill."

3. You have the right, as an atheist, to try to fix Global Warming, plastic pollution, offshore drilling, fracking (suspending the Clean Water Act) to keep God's environment either pristine, or at least livable. You no longer have to follow like a lemming, following other lemmings, walking off of a cliff to its death. You can be a maverick....your own man....a person who can think for himself, and do the right things without the lynch mob mentality that pervaded the Religious Right when they invaded peaceful nations.

4. You have the right, as an atheist, to house the homeless, feed the hungry, and cure the sick. Remember, theists opposed universal health care (Obamacare). Remember, also, that Jesus cured the sick, and didn't ask how big their bank books were.

5. You have the right, as an atheist, to embrace Black's rights not to be beaten in the streets and called the N-word. Black Lives Matter. You don't have to follow the party line and eliminate the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, which was the solitary platform of George Bush (the elder) in his run for the governorship of Texas (a former Confederate state). You don't have to follow the party line of George W. Bush (the younger), who sought to eliminate affirmative action, and thereby kick most of the Blacks out of colleges. No more educated token Blacks like Powell and Rice to fool voters.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known 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! )

Supersymmetry is super-awesome. Here's what it means for particle physics.

"There are many different ways of achieving supersymmetry, all predicting different masses for the selectrons, the stop quarks, the sneutrinos and everybody else. To date, no evidence for supersymmetry has been found, and experiments at the Large Hadron Collider have ruled out the simplest supersymmetric models.Feb 14, 2020"

Accepted within the theoretical physics community??????? Not according to the things that I have read (such as the quotation above from space.com).

The Hamiltonian (that is, energy) operator of Schroedinger's Equation is an infinite by infinite operator (an operator is like a matrix) that is filled with entries that are operations (such as lagrangians, gradients, vector calculus, integrals, and derivatives)), and complex numbers (which have real and imaginary parts). An imaginary number is a regular number multiplied by the square root of negative one.

String theory was developed by someone who noticed that matter appears to be made of oscillating strings of energy. I believe that this generality is correct. After all, E = mc^2, which means that matter can be converted to energy. Therefore, unless there is some other substance (such as a glue that pervades space), mass is made of pure trapped energy. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense that this energy forms strings (perhaps loops).

However, string theory was not proven from general priciples, rather, it was merely proposed with no proof. So far, it seems like it might be right, but I can see various problems.

I think that the string matrix (which is now said to be an M matrix) should be somewhat related to, and therefore, somewhat similar to the Hamiltonian operator. But, it isn't. It doesn't contain complex numbers nor operators, but it must (in my opinion). Therefore, I believe that the string theory isn't right because it was sort of averaged to make the oscillation.

Furthermore, I don't think that light makes the same orbit. This is because we know that Hamiltonian energy is stoichastic (that is, a random variable). This would force the orbit of the photon to be random (but it still must keep its constant energy, unless there is some kind of energy oscillation, such as oscillating neutrinos, which are no doubt about increasing and decreasing internal energy by changing the speed of the particle.

Another problem with string theory was ostensibly solved by Dr. Witten, who found that there were several seemingly valid ideas of what a string looked like. Some thought that they were loops, others thought that they were short segments of string that had light reflect back and forth. Witten combined all of them into a single string matrix. This, of course, required the addition of several more dimensions. If, at some time in the future, the shape of the energy is resolved, those extra dimensions would simply vanish.

My problem is that I don't think that the energy is any of the shapes proposed in Witten's M-theory. Rather, I think that the complicated math involved in the Hamiltonian operator would force the shape of the path of the photon to be continually warped (still maintaining it's energy level, unless the energy oscillates like a neutrino oscillation).
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
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.

"Spiritual encounter with a waterfall"....Then we should get squirt guns and baptize everyone we see.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
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?

There is no evidence for what objective reality is in itself. That is not unique to the claims for gods. That is so for all metaphysics and all epistemology that claim to know in the strong sense.
And yes, there is no proof of what objective reality is in itself. You are aware how come science is based on methodological naturalism and not philosophical naturalism?
 

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
You are aware how come science is based on methodological naturalism and not philosophical naturalism?
I think I often conflate the two, though I shouldn’t. To answer your question, is it because methodological naturalism deals with what can be observed, while philosophical naturalism not so much?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I think I often conflate the two, though I shouldn’t. To answer your question, is it because methodological naturalism deals with what can be observed, while philosophical naturalism not so much?

No, methodological naturalism begins with the assumption that objective reality is epistemologically fair. But that is an assumption and without evidence or proof.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran 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! )

This is completely irrelevant to the OP.

First, string theory is a very recent idea - so it most certainly wasn't the motivation for 99.9999999999% of believers.

Secondly, string theory is barely a hypothesis as it currently is impossible to test. On the show The Big Bang Theory (notorious for including rather accurate science jokes) Dr Hofstadder once said to a string theorist when arguing about string theory vs loop quantum gravity : "At least I didn't have to invent 7 additional dimensions just to make the math work!". Prof Lawrence Krauss also once said: "As it stands, string theory is actually not much more then intellectual masturbation".

Third, your "aka GOD!" is just your own interpretation / opinion. There is no god hypothesis AT ALL from which flows predictions anything close to interpretations of string theory.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
This is completely irrelevant to the OP.

First, string theory is a very recent idea - so it most certainly wasn't the motivation for 99.9999999999% of believers.

Secondly, string theory is barely a hypothesis as it currently is impossible to test. On the show The Big Bang Theory (notorious for including rather accurate science jokes) Dr Hofstadder once said to a string theorist when arguing about string theory vs loop quantum gravity : "At least I didn't have to invent 7 additional dimensions just to make the math work!". Prof Lawrence Krauss also once said: "As it stands, string theory is actually not much more then intellectual masturbation".

Third, your "aka GOD!" is just your own interpretation / opinion. There is no god hypothesis AT ALL from which flows predictions anything close to interpretations of string theory.
Says who?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I see evidence for a designer (God) in the design in creation.
I do not believe in the idea of the bread baking itself - i.e. natural processes designing everything.

Arguments of incredulity are fallacious though.

I have millions of examples of this proof.
Just ask for how many you would like.

Let's start with a single one. State it and then explain how it is evidence FOR a god.
Note the word "for". I'm not interested in how you think it is NOT the result of some alternative idea.

Trying to poke holes in evolution doesn't magically turn into support for some other idea.

The other evidence is in the Bible, which is proof of divine authorship.

How so?

The other evidence is the effect of the power of God, not only on lives, but also on activities of people who belong to God.

For example?

Another evidence is the contrast between those who serve God, and those who don't.

For example?

Um. I'm sure there are a lot more, but my brain cells are on shutdown mode, as I am about to hit the hay.
Goodnight.

So far, all you have done is spew bare claims along with an argument from incredulity.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Says who?

You can believe all you like. And I can believe differently than you. But neither of us controls objective reality, unless you are in fact God.
That is in practice how science works as methodological naturalism. That off course has a limit as per this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

But that doesn't mean science doesn't work at all, it just means that it only works in some cases. And yes, there is in the end no philosophical evidence or proof for anything about objective reality other than being independent of the mind.
But in practice there is a limit to what you can do with belief, just as there is a limit to what you can do with science.
I understand both limits and use both methods but on different aspects of the human experience.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Says who?

Common sense.

If god hypothesis would make such predictions, we'ld all know about it.

Also, I'll add a 4th point: as it stands practically nobody, and that even includes quite some string theorists themselves, understands string theory. How could it ever be evidence for a god?

First you'ld need a (falsifiable) god hypothesis that predicts string theory or at least aspects of it.
Second, you'ld need a testable version of string theory.
Third, you'ld need experiments / tests that confirm string theory.

And THEN you might have evidence for the god defined in point 1.

NONE of these 3 are the case.
 

Ludi

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! )
consciousness would have to contain the ability to understand everything before we could, aka, the Divine Image
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
You can believe all you like. And I can believe differently than you. But neither of us controls objective reality, unless you are in fact God.
That is in practice how science works as methodological naturalism. That off course has a limit as per this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

But that doesn't mean science doesn't work at all, it just means that it only works in some cases. And yes, there is in the end no philosophical evidence or proof for anything about objective reality other than being independent of the mind.
But in practice there is a limit to what you can do with belief, just as there is a limit to what you can do with science.
I understand both limits and use both methods but on different aspects of the human experience.
Science work well in ou4 universe, but science will never understand or find God.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Common sense.

If god hypothesis would make such predictions, we'ld all know about it.

Also, I'll add a 4th point: as it stands practically nobody, and that even includes quite some string theorists themselves, understands string theory. How could it ever be evidence for a god?

First you'ld need a (falsifiable) god hypothesis that predicts string theory or at least aspects of it.
Second, you'ld need a testable version of string theory.
Third, you'ld need experiments / tests that confirm string theory.

And THEN you might have evidence for the god defined in point 1.

NONE of these 3 are the case.
You can not find God by use of science.
 
Top