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

[Unfettered]

...

I would engage with you on the topic of discussion if you would address the content of the posts without being insulting. I mean that. Part of the enjoyment of posting is receiving a reply. So I'll give you satisfaction this one time. I don't want you thinking that I'm not seeing your posts in reply to mine. I am. But if you can't be polite, you'll get no more replies for me. Maybe you'll care; maybe you won't. But that's not my problem.

Take care.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would engage with you on the topic of discussion if you would address the content of the posts without being insulting.

??????????????????


What in the post you are replying to was "insulting"???

I'm dumbfounded here....
Seriously. Quote specifically the part you found to be "insulting" and explain how it was "insulting".

I don't like being falsely accused like that.

Part of the enjoyment of posting is receiving a reply. So I'll give you satisfaction this one time. I don't want you thinking that I'm not seeing your posts in reply to mine. I am. But if you can't be polite, you'll get no more replies for me.

I didn't curse and I didn't insult you at all.

In fact, I'm going to turn the tables and say that I feel insulted by this false accusation.
In my experience, people go down this road of whining about being "insulted" when they simply don't want to properly reply to the points raised as a defensive / dodging move.


Oh well.

 

[PureX]

"This" discussion? What discussion is that?

I'm simply saying that there is a high bar as to what qualifies as evidence.

Actually, you don't set the bar for what qualifies as evidence. You only set the bar for what you will accept as proof. Nearly every atheist presumes wrongly that the criteria for evidence is that it stands up as proof. And they have no intention of allowing that bar to be met, so they then conclude that "there is no evidence". But there was always lots of evidence. They just chose not to allow it to rise to the level of proof, and so they rejected it as even being evidence at all.

Another very common trick is not to define the terms, like 'God' or 'existence'. If we're asking the question, what does it even mean for God to "exist"? How does an undefined entity commonly conceptualized to be the origin of all that exists, exist before existence, itself? And when the answer is not forthcoming, because the question was never defined, the atheist then proclaims no gods exist unless and until someone else can define and prove it to them, which they have no intention of allowing to happen.

It's 'prejudice prior to investigation', and in this case even prior to definition.

Scientific research is good evidence.

The problem is that science cannot explore non-physical possibilities. Which means it cannot even explore the possibility of God. So it renders absolutely nothing in the way of evidence for or against the conceptual eistence of God.

And arguments that obey all the rules of logic are good evidence. Personal experience is not. Religious texts are not.

Again, you define the evidence out of existence, as if that is your place, when it's not. And then you proclaim there is none. Which is false. As do most atheists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I learn, though not always what is expected.

Thank you for that, but I do understand the terms.

Not a firm foundation for anything beyond the transitory, of course, but understood. Science has its limits.

And there you do demonstrating that you do not understand the term. By keeping an open mind a hypothesis that has been confirmed is one of the strongest foundations that one can have for a reasonable belief. I doubt if you can find anything stronger. I doubt if you can find anything as strong.

As I said, I do learn...

I understand why you'd have that perspective.

Doubling down doesn't change the fact that I'm not arguing for magic or failing to make a logical argument. It does suggest that one of us is disinterested in good-faith discourse.

Then demonstrate that you understand the concept. You only keep telling us that you don't. And when you are arguing for a coder, you are arguing for magic.

Am I failing, or do I just appear to be? I wish someone with authority would tell me…

You have been told that by several people of "authority". Now you are only appearing to be dishonest again. I need to remind you that there is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. Right now you appear to be neither honest nor informed.

Well, if anyone would know whether it does or doesn't, it would be you, right?

Try not to be rude. Just because you are wrong is no excuse to get angry.

I don't claim to be trying for an honest discussion. I am engaged in an honest discussion. I admit, at this point, that I don't really know what you're engaged in. I have some ideas, but I don't claim to know with certainty.

Sorry, but when you go back to an old failed argument that you seemed to have acknowledged that does not appear to be the case.

I have things to correct, but none of them have you identified in this thread. Wait, that's not true. I was sloppy in my use of the word "hypothesis." You called me on that with good reason. I can see how carelessness there could lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Thanks for not letting that slide. That's it, however. Whatever else it is you're referring to when you talk about corrections...I have no idea what it is your talking about. Don't take that personally, though. Just go with it. Not every shot goes in.

Wow! Openly lying now. You repeated your code and coder argument. You were corrected by several people on that. You seemed to have acknowledged your error and then you went back to it.

--------------------
Also, I won't again respond to condescension. I've given you everything you're going to get unless you can curb your desire to insult.

Then do not go out of your way to earn it. And quit being butt hurt because you were corrected. Asking reasonable questions is fine. Making poor arguments and getting angry because you had to be corrected more than once is unreasonable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

??????????????????


What in the post you are replying to was "insulting"???

I'm dumbfounded here....
Seriously. Quote specifically the part you found to be "insulting" and explain how it was "insulting".

I don't like being falsely accused like that.


I didn't curse and I didn't insult you at all.

In fact, I'm going to turn the tables and say that I feel insulted by this false accusation.
In my experience, people go down this road of whining about being "insulted" when they simply don't want to properly reply to the points raised as a defensive / dodging move.


Oh well.

He did the same with me. If a person is going to get butt hurt every time that he or she is corrected they will never learn.

 

[PureX]

Not in any conventional sense of the words.

Everything that exists, physically, exists as an expression of what is possible, against what is not possible. That is the "code" that dictates the "nature" of existence. We do not know the origin or or mechanics of this 'code', and we perhaps never will. But it is apparent, and obvious that it governs all that we experience as physical existence, and it is what science it ultimately trying to understand.

And it is the fact of this 'code' (or logos, as it was labeled by the ancient Greeks) that leads us to surmise the concept of the creator/controller God. The source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And you have no logical argument to make that contradicts this presumption.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He did the same with me. If a person is going to get butt hurt every time that he or she is corrected they will never learn.

Indeed. Not the first time I encounter such behaviour where disagreement + explanation for why there is disagreement is interpreted as being an "insult".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything that exists, physically, exists as an expression of what is possible, against what is not possible. That is the "code" that dictates the "nature" of existence. We do not know the origin or or mechanics of this 'code', and we perhaps never will. But it is apparent, and obvious that it governs all that we experience as physical existence, and it is what science it ultimately trying to understand.

And it is the fact of this 'code' (or logos, as it was labeled by the ancient Greeks) that leads us to surmise the concept of the creator/controller God. The source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And you have no logical argument to make that contradicts this presumption.

Is one even needed? Such desperate word salad appears to be self refuting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, you don't set the bar for what qualifies as evidence. You only set the bar for what you will accept as proof. Nearly every atheist presumes wrongly that the criteria for evidence is that it stands up as proof. And they have no intention of allowing that bar to be met, so they then conclude that "there is no evidence". But there was always lots of evidence. They just chose not to allow it to rise to the level of proof, and so they rejected it as even being evidence at all.

No, you are as usual wrong about atheists. And now you are wrong about evidence. Evidence is well defined in the sciences. I know, you don't like a reasonable definition and now you are apt to mischaracterize it as " scientism". Another concept that you do not understand.

Another very common trick is not to define the terms, like 'God' or 'existence'. If we're asking the question, what does it even mean for God to "exist"? How does an undefined entity commonly conceptualized to be the origin of all that exists, exist before existence, itself? And when the answer is not forthcoming, because the question was never defined, the atheist then proclaims no gods exist unless and until someone else can define and prove it to them, which they have no intention of allowing to happen.

How is that a trick? When certain versions of God are refuted believers inevitably claim " That is not my version of God". That means that the believer has to define his God if he wants to enter into a debate

It's 'prejudice prior to investigation', and in this case even prior to definition.

The problem is that science cannot explore non-physical possibilities. Which means it cannot even explore the possibility of God. So it renders absolutely nothing in the way of evidence for or against the conceptual eistence of God.

That is not totally true. Science and logic working together can refute specific versions of God. They can't refute them all .but of course you just did a major shifting of the burden of proof. If you want to claim that there is a specific version of God the burden of proof is upon you.

Again, you define the evidence out of existence, as if that is your place, when it's not. And then you proclaim there is none. Which is false. As do most atheists.

Or, and this appears to be far more likely, there probably is no good evidence for a God. It is almost as if he doesn't exist at all.

 

[Sundance]

If I may chime in a bit here, as a philosophical sort of person, I must first begin by asking my Atheist friends, “Who or what is God, or the Divine to you?”

What are you thinking of when you think of ‘God’?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I may chime in a bit here, as a philosophical sort of person, I must first begin by asking my Atheist friends, “Who or what is God, or the Divine to you?”

What are you thinking of when you think of ‘God’?

Any version I am apt to come up with is going to be claimed to be inaccurate according to theists. Nor do I have the hubris to define what God is to a theist. And most importantly, it is there belief, it is their burden of proof to define it.

 

[PureX]

They much prefer to snipe at theism from behind their wall of arrogance and ignorance. Their God is "science: the fountainhead and determiner of all truth".

 

[Polymath257]

Logically, questions of spontaneous assembly are secondary to the origins of the processes responsible for the animation of those assembled elements. In fact, the assumption of spontaneity prejudices the question of the nature and origin of the coding involved. It certainly doesn't address the question, and it absolutely does not answer it.

I disagree. When something spontaneously assembles, there is no entity that 'writes' the information formed. I gave a couple of examples of spontaneous, natural processes that form information and where we would NOT say there was a 'writer' of that information.

Also, you assume that if information was formed, there was some entity that 'wrote' that infomation. In the real world, that is seldom the case. Instead, what happens is that there is a sequence of events (a process) that produces the information that the representation of that information (the code). No single entity does the 'writing'.

It ignores it entirely. The most logical source of coding is a coder. Correct? Again, don't prejudice the question with an assumption of consciousness or intention. If the evidence eventually points there, or not, it will point where it points.,

No. Again, look at the examples I gave above. Information (and representation which is a code) can be formed without a 'writer'. Instead, it forms via a process that no single entity 'controls'.

I disagree. It is not necessary to identify anything or anyone involved in order to hypothesize that something coded the chemicals to react a certain way. My only interest is the truth, so I have no dog in the fight. No position to defend. How, then, is it not most prejudicial to the observable evidence—the existence of a code (animate information) and a compatible compiler (as evidenced by the reaction of the chemicals to the assembled code)—to conclude (not merely assume, but conclude) that there was no coder involved on some level?

Then let's remove the distracting word, because I understood we were looking at the question logically. Ultimately, the evidence points to a coder; that's what I'm saying; that's what I'm looking at; that's what I'm inviting others to scrutinize with logic.

No, it points to a *process* that results in the 'code' (the representation of information in a medium).

We're not focusing here on what we see, but rather than we don't see. We're applying what we see to arrive at the thing to which it points. At least, that's what I understand us to be doing. Perhaps you are engaged in some other exercise. I don't know. You'll have to say.i

I'm using the evidence we have to see what conclusions can be made and tested. You made a claim that a certain argument proves (or even gives evidence of) a certain conclusion and I pointed out the logical flaws in your argument that mean you don't get to the conclusion you want.

So the fact that we can change the code, manipulate it, modify the conditions around it, etc., to change things, does not change that in it's natural form, it is a code. Is it possible that the code was not coded? That no part of any code, pattern or system we observe in the universe derives from anything but spontaneous assembly? Sure, it's possible. But it's the least likely explanation. So such a position is highly prejudicial to the evidence.

On the contrary, spontaneous assembly is, by far, the most likely explanation. The chemistry itself, and the tests we have done of it, show that.

I do not judge it to be a mistake to follow observable evidence that points to coded natural processes.

Once again, it looks like you are shifting the definition of 'code'. If all you mean is that there is information about one thing represented in another, we can get into what it means to be information (always a good discussion) and how it is represneted and how such representations come about.

On the contrary, in my judgment it is a mistake to prejudice the possibility of coded natural processes with the least probable explanation—spontaneity uninfluenced by coding.

And, again, that seems, by far, the most likely explanation based on what we know of chemistry. Information often forms spontaneously as does representation of that information. In fact, such formation is almost universal in causal events.

I've yet to see any argument for the latter that conforms to all the observable evidence. Rather every argument in favor of such spontaneity prejudices the evidence against other explanations. I'd just as soon we not do that, but subject all explanations to the same objective scrutiny, and admit every missing piece of the puzzle as we encounter gaps. That is logical. Any suppression of possible explanations suggests bias and abandonment of logic.

I'm not sure how it is prejudice to note that most real world events form information spontaneously and it is NOT 'written' by any entity.

I even gave you cases where information is formed and represented and yet saying there was a 'writer' is very unnatural. Do you want me to give more such examples? There are many.

 

[Polymath257]

I have not contested spontaneous assembly but the leveraging of that observation to dismiss another observation—that what is witnessed is the creation and transmission and replication of genetic code.

Can we use the word 'formation' as opposed to 'creation'? The word 'creation' has connotations that have not been demonstrated.

"Does not appear to be" isn't the kind of language one uses when the claim being made is understood to be definitive or unimpeachable. I cannot say whether or not that was intentional on your part, but I don't hesitate to respond that code is code. That languages, structures, environments, etc., in which code is written, found and executed are clearly not uniform doesn't change the fact that it's all code. Nor is a belief that genetic code is "written" necessary to agree that it is code. It's code.

What is a code? Please give the definition you are using.

The broadest definition I have seen, and which I think needs to be used for this discussion, is that a code is an ordered representation of information. In *that* sense, the process DNA-->protein is a code.

But a code, understood in this way, does NOT imply a 'coder'. No single entity needs to set up and design the representation. In fact, such representations happen spontaneously with some frequency.

I do know what a hypothesis is, but your calling it out here is appropriate. My use of the term has been sloppy. I should have been referencing a theory, not a hypothesis. And while we're here, it should be clarified that I understand us to be engaged in a logical discussion, not a scientific experiment.
You'll have to explain why you included this. I don't see that it has any relevance to anything I'm doing here.

You won't get information about the real world without careful observation, which is the essence of science.

Again, scientific vs logic. I started out in this thread because someone (I don't remember who) invited proof of the existence of god through ought but flawless logic. I hadn't ever seen such an invitation before, so I joined. That said, I've not even reached the point in discussion where the logical argument being presented is prepared to make the final assertion. That time may never come. Do I believe that the existence of god can be proven through flawless logic? Yes. Can I do it? I don't know. That's what were working through. And though there is clear crossover into scientific considerations here, if you've been under the impression that we should be applying scientific standards to everything, this isn't that discussion. At least, not for my part.
I think I've address the scientific standard question. No idea why you're bringing magic into it. Logical analysis doesn't need magic; it either is logical or it isn't. Binary.

Given the incorrect or unsupported assumptions you have made, the vague notions used, and the way you redefine words to suit your goal, I would say that even the first step in your argument has failed totally.

LOL, I'm not here to impress you or measure up to some standard you use to measure fellow posters or their views, though I do learn a lot as I discuss things. The most valued learning, however, is never gained from things said by those who make it personal. I appreciate the time you take to respond. When it feels like you're producing unique thoughts on behalf of the discussion, I find the overall investment of time and effort to be rewarding and worthwhile, whether or not we agree, and regardless of whether I have made the best argument I could have (not all hits are home-runs; and not all swings are hits!). I suggest we not make it personal. What say?

Sounds like a plan. Can you do what I suggested in post #5134? Also, address the examples given in post #5136.

 

[Polymath257]

Everything that exists, physically, exists as an expression of what is possible, against what is not possible. That is the "code" that dictates the "nature" of existence. We do not know the origin or or mechanics of this 'code', and we perhaps never will. But it is apparent, and obvious that it governs all that we experience as physical existence, and it is what science it ultimately trying to understand.

And it is the fact of this 'code' (or logos, as it was labeled by the ancient Greeks) that leads us to surmise the concept of the creator/controller God. The source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And you have no logical argument to make that contradicts this presumption.

Nope. I'm not a neoplatonist. I see them as being fundamentally wrong about almost every conclusion they make.

 

[PureX]

Nope. I'm not a neoplatonist. I see them as being fundamentally wrong about almost every conclusion they make.

Nevertheless, what exists is what was/is possible, and what does not exist is what wasn't and isn't possible. And whatever determined those possibilities/impossibilities determined and continues to determine the nature of existence. And whatever that is, transcends/supersedes existence. Most humans refer to that mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is possible, and all that is not possible, "God".

You can call it whatever you like, but science recognizes and pursues it, religions recognize and pursue it, philosophers recognize and pursue it, artists recognize and pursue it, and most humans in general recognize it even if they aren't in actual pursuit of it. We are all here because of it. And we exist by it's design.

If you don't want to recognize it, that's your choice. But that doesn't make it go away and it doesn't convince anyone else that it's not there.

 

[Polymath257]

Nevertheless, what exists is what was/is possible, and what does not exist is what wasn't and isn't possible. And whatever determined those possibilities/impossibilities determined and continues to determine the nature of existence. And whatever that is, transcends/supersedes existence. Most humans refer to that mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is possible, and all that is not possible, "God".

You are assuming that there was something that determined those things. That is far from being proven. in fact, it seems quite unlikely.

You can call it whatever you like, but science recognizes and pursues it, religions recognize and pursue it, philosophers recognize and pursue it, artists recognize and pursue it, and most humans in general recognize it even if they aren't in actual pursuit of it. We are all here because of it. And we exist by it's design.

interesting how everyone acknowledged it, but I have yet to meet someone who does and can actually demonstrate the existence.

If you don't want to recognize it, that's your choice. But that doesn't make it go away and it doesn't convince anyone else that it's not there.

ok, show that such a thing exists. I have yet to see a valid argument for such. if you want to assume such exists, that is your right, of course. But that doesn't mean anyone else needs to take it seriously.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

God is real. God helped me reach my dreams.
Thank you God for mysterious ways.
Love Anthony Giarrusso.

Why do you believe that God would assist you in purchasing such an expensive vehicle while there are so many poor people, including homeless people living on the streets? What do you think of Matthew 19:21–24? "Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.' 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'Truly, I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." I hope you don't believe that you are more deserving of riches than others are.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Actually, you don't set the bar for what qualifies as evidence. You only set the bar for what you will accept as proof.

Disagree. Certain forms of reasoning are flawed -- fallacies must be avoided or you risk concluding in error. Other forms of evidence are simply not reliable. For example, personal experience is flawed because we often perceive things incorrectly -- our mind just misinterpret what is going on. Or take using sacred texts as evidence -- definitely a no no, because all religious texts have errors. Now, scientific method does not guarantee you an accurate picture, but its reliability is far beyond that of other methods of inquiry. If a person uses science, they basically know that they are getting the best evidence available to date, but they also know that if new evidence comes along that alters the picture, their loyalty is to the evidence, not to their previous conclusion.

The problem is that science cannot explore non-physical possibilities.

That is correct, which is why science says nothing either for or against the existence of God.

Which means it cannot even explore the possibility of God. So it renders absolutely nothing in the way of evidence for or against the conceptual eistence of God.

Again, you define the evidence out of existence, as if that is your place, when it's not. And then you proclaim there is none. Which is false. As do most atheists.

I believe in God, but not because God is proven. In the absence of proof one way or another, I feel comfortable going with my intuition, which is very strong that there is agency behind the universe. Now, I realize that intuition, including that of sensing agency, is not necessarily correct -- humans are known to intuit agency when in fact agency is not actually there. Because of this, I always have a flag up in the back of my head that although I believe in God, I may be wrong.

 

[PureX]

You are assuming that there was something that determined those things. That is far from being proven. in fact, it seems quite unlikely.

It is proven by the fact that existence is a limited set of possibilities fulfilled. Its time to get your head out of the "science is everything and everything is science" cloud, and into the mechanisms of philosophy.

interesting how everyone acknowledged it, but I have yet to meet someone who does and can actually demonstrate the existence.

You have to take the blinders off if you want to see anything.

ok, show that such a thing exists.

It has to. There is no other logical way to reach the result that exists. That is an ordered set of possibilities and impossibilities. You know ... what science studies. What philosophy studies. What religion studies. And what we all must live in accordance with, to survive.