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

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can not find God by use of science.

Nor philosophy or religion as per proof/evidence/truth. You can only find God through faith and I can do faith differently than you.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Nor philosophy or religion as per proof/evidence/truth. You can only find God through faith and I can do faith differently than you.

Religion/spiritual faith is not based on physical proof, like science is

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religion/spiritual faith is not bas3d on physical proof, like science is

No, it is based on faith. I have no problem with that as such, but it practice it has a limit just like science has a limit.

 

[Sheldon]

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! )

I see if, and then could be, and then a broad assumption involving an obvious non-sequitur, and I managed to spot these equivocations without even the most basic understanding of string theory.

I also just checked every major news outlet, and it appears science has not evidenced any deity or anything supernatural. Even Al Jazeera and the Catholic Herald seem to have missed it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can not find God by use of science.

So you agree then.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So you agree then.

I do agree that by use of science you will not find God, but i do not agree that God does not exist.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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?

Believing in God ought to be a choice, not something proven to you by experiments or conversations or papers. Its about how you treat other people and how you live. It has something in common with choosing to live in a better than normal way. You do more than just live, more than just give and take. It should be something you choose because it seems good even though it is a challenge.

Proofs of God and evidences of God are not good. If God were visible then what moral choice would there be? Then believers would be nothing but automatons choosing the most expedient and safest path.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do agree that by use of science you will not find God, but i do not agree that God does not exist.

Well, I didn't make that claim.

I was merely responding to the dude who was claiming that string theory somehow is evidence in support of a god existing.

It is my opinion that it is logically impossible to "prove" the non-existence of pretty much ANYTHING that has no falsifiable definition, unless that things is defined in self-contradictory ways. Like a married bachelor, which is self-refuting.

At best, things can be shown to be unlikely.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Believing in God ought to be a choice, not something proven to you by experiments or conversations or papers. Its about how you treat other people and how you live. It has something in common with choosing to live in a better than normal way. You do more than just live, more than just give and take. It should be something you choose because it seems good even though it is a challenge.

Not sure why you think that choosing to live a good life and doing good is somehow inherently connecting to god beliefs.

Proofs of God and evidences of God are not good. If God were visible then what moral choice would there be? Then believers would be nothing but automatons choosing the most expedient and safest path.

That is the case wheter god is provable or not.

If one acts good(*) because one believes in a god to receive a reward of eternal bliss OR to avoid a punishment of eternal torment, then the motivation of the good deeds is corrupt.

Who is the better person?
The one who doesn't steal "because he doesn't want to go to jail"
or
The one who doesn't steal because of a moral evaluation of that act, regardless of personal consequences?

I say: the latter.




(*) a small disclaimer here... for believers who act "good" as a result of god beliefs, that "good" will more then likely be defined by the religion being followed. The islamist who blows himself up in a crowded market, believes he is doing "good". The radical christian who bombs an abortion clinic or burns 'witches' alive, believes he is doing "good".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Who is the better person?
The one who doesn't steal "because he doesn't want to go to jail"
or
The one who doesn't steal because of a moral evaluation of that act, regardless of personal consequences?

I say: the latter.

Can you prove that?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well, I didn't make that claim.

I was merely responding to the dude who was claiming that string theory somehow is evidence in support of a god existing.

It is my opinion that it is logically impossible to "prove" the non-existence of pretty much ANYTHING that has no falsifiable definition, unless that things is defined in self-contradictory ways. Like a married bachelor, which is self-refuting.

At best, things can be shown to be unlikely.

What you lack to be able to "see" God is faith. Religious/spiritual practice is only based on faith until spiritual wisdom b3gin to rise within the person.

As an atheist, you lack that and can not find God

 

[Sheldon]

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

This kind of desperation to convert atheists without their knowledge or consent is hardly new. Darwin was posthumously and dishonesty crafted a deathbed conversion by an awful theist woman, purportedly a friend. Even the late Christopher Hitchens wasn't safe, with some grasping unethical pastor taking the opportunity of his death to pen an awful tome, duplicitously claiming Hitchens was on the verge of converting to Christianity.

You just have to laugh at such desperation.

 

[Sheldon]

How about the human body as relational art? Is there anything more beautiful than the human form?

My ex wife is a stunning rebuttal to that assertion.

I'm sure you're familiar with the biblical reference that humans were created in God's image.

Humans evolved slowly over time, as have all living things. This is an objective scientific fact.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

That's an appeal to authority fallacy. Scientific expertise, and a credible reputation as an expert, don't mean we should believe anything an expert in a particular field believes. Even within their field of expertise their work would have to be objectively peer reviewed. Unless you think Newton's belief in the hokum of alchemy and astrology are credible, because he was a genius in the field of physics?

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Damn it, beat me to it again...

 

[Colt]

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?

Because there is evidence for God in the subjective experience if you sincerely desire to be lead by him, but one can just ignore God in favor of self-centeredness.--------> Self will run riot!

Human things must be known in order to be loved but divine things must be loved in order to be known. The spirit is within but it doesn't impose on our will, we have to concede loyalty to the leading of the indwelling spirit. "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it."

In terms of Christianity Jesus lived a life in complete subordination to the leading of the Father. He revealed the Father in his life.

Sin therefore is conscious separation from God.

Sin is defined as deliberate disloyalty to Deity. There are degrees of disloyalty:

the partial loyalty of indecision.
the divided loyalty of confliction.
the dying loyalty of indifference.
and the death of loyalty exhibited in devotion to godless ideals.

 

[Sheldon]

I see evidence for a designer (God) in the design in creation.

Circular reasoning fallacy, using a begging the question fallacy. You can't just assume creation, in an argument for a creator.

I do not believe in the idea of the bread baking itself - i.e. natural processes designing everything.

Argument from incredulity fallacy. We know life and the universe exists, and we know natural phenomena exist, if you're adding appeals to mystery with a deity using inexplicable magic, then you have to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence this is even possible, you don't just get to assume it, as this violates Occam's razor.

I have millions of examples of this proof.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy, they're not proofs, they are assumptions and irrational arguments. Your ability o reason and create compelling arguments is hampered by your ignorance of common logical fallacies.

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

Argument from assertion fallacy, quote what you think represents objective evidence from the bible, as I am extremely dubious.

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.

That's just an unevidenced assumption, correlation and causation are not the same thing, again your argument is weak, because reasoning is fundamentally flawed. For example this claim is used by theists who believe in different deities they imagine are real, they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Singling out one subjectively is biased, and so is closed minded by definition, and since I can't believe them all, I must withhold belief.

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

At this particular moment that seems to be an ability to create sound rational arguments, so I think that bare assumption is something of an own goal. Not least because it is edging towards a no true Scotsman fallacy. You are also again dishonestly pretending theism is a universal belief, when it is thousands of different beliefs, involving countless deities that different human cultures have imagined are real. Most theistic belief is nothing more than an accident of the geography of birth.

 

[Sheldon]

That I agree with. So if you write "there is no scientifically provable evidence for God", I would agree with it.

That's not what unfalsifiable means. Unfalsifiable describes an idea, belief or claim that it is impossible to falsify, even were it it be false. Unfalsifiable claims are meaningless, and easy to create. Religions and theism have had millennia so it's not that much of a surprise they concocted a safety net by making the core premise unfalsifiable.

Invisible unicorns anyone?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not sure why you think that choosing to live a good life and doing good is somehow inherently connecting to god beliefs.

Choosing a normally good life is not inherently connected to the divine. That is simple intelligence. Choosing to live better than that is a divine choice. When you choose to live at personal cost for the benefit of all, you are making a divine choice, not merely a human choice. You briefly ascend above mere human nature, and you show that there is something better than good. There is a level of goodness which we cannot normally achieve, because it is self destructive. It is, for us, out of balance and not achievable -- what the ancients call heavenly, meaning it is beyond what we can achieve. It exists only in the ideal. This has nothing to do with god, only with God.

Let me try to explain that God is not god nor related to gods. gods are beings or forces that are related to the physical world in some way. God is not a god. God is conceptual. Christian NT says "God is spirit" which is the same thing I think, although what divides us from concept may only be that we are limited. We are bound to certain rules and exist under the conditions of physical existence. We have passions. God doesn't, and God doesn't share our limitations or our interests. My understanding is that the only area in which God overlaps with us is in the conceptual realm.

When you talk about god beliefs you are talking about beliefs that drive a person through appeals, fears, joy, etc. The concept of God excludes these things. Believing in God does not mean simply living a good life. A good life is not good enough to be divine. At times it may briefly approach divinity but not more than that.

A human cannot be divine, because that goes against our nature. The concept of God is important. Believing in it leads to better behavior; and I am not talking about god beliefs. I'm talking about God, something different than god.

So it is unhealthy to try to prove God exists. This is backwards and leads to people mistaking God for a god. Then they don't even have the concept, so what is the point?

 

[Spirit of Light]

That's not what unfalsifiable means. Unfalsifiable describes an idea, belief or claim that it is impossible to falsify, even were it it be false. Unfalsifiable claims are meaningless, and easy to create. Religions and theism have had millennia so it's not that much of a surprise they concocted a safety net by making the core premise unfalsifiable.

Invisible unicorns anyone?

Just because you can not see God does not mean God does not exist.

Btw about Unicorns...yes I believe they might exist, but not nessesary in this dimension we live in. Other places unknown to humans may exist