There is no evidence of God

[Enai de a lukal]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]...[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] I do agree that Someone made us (along with the rest of the universe).
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]PS: According to the more nondualistic view, we are said to be (human manifestations of) God Himself, so finding evidence of God is real easy in that case -- just look in the nearest mirror and one will see God looking right back at 'em! [/FONT][/FONT]

The problem is that this "evidence" is consistent with the negation of the claim its supposed to be evidence for- since if there were no intelligent designer, and the naturalistic picture is correct, things would look the same as they do now anyways.

A claim that is consistent with any and all evidence is said to be unfalsifiable, and as far as any explanatory value goes, such a claim is a pseudo-claim. It tells us precisely nothing, and can simply be dispensed with.

The notion of an intelligent designer appears to be such a claim; vacuous and superfluous.

 

[Willamena]

When you look in a mirror, reflection is the only thing evidenced--and for some people, reflection is the image of god.

 

[Repox]

Because we live in a material world, there can be no evidence of a spiritual being. For science to validate our universe as a natural phenomena however, it must prove how something (universe) came from nothing. So far, science has not been able to explain the big bang, the only evidence we have for the beginning of everything.

 

[Astravalon]

The problem is that this "evidence" is consistent with the negation of the claim its supposed to be evidence for- since if there were no intelligent designer, and the naturalistic picture is correct, things would look the same as they do now anyways.

A claim that is consistent with any and all evidence is said to be unfalsifiable, and as far as any explanatory value goes, such a claim is a pseudo-claim. It tells us precisely nothing, and can simply be dispensed with.

The notion of an intelligent designer appears to be such a claim; vacuous and superfluous.

To some, yes. Obviously, if it were that definitive, however, discussions like this one would no longer seem necessary.

One would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to say, definitively, that there is no God anywhere at all. Then again, if one is omniscient and omnipresent, one probably is God. In which case ... I dunno ... congratulations?

 

[nash8]

I believe that this argument depends totally on ones definition of God. If you have a panenthiestic or panthiestic definition of God, it is near impossible for anyone to deny God's existence according to these views on God, because you would basically have to deny everything's existince.

If for example you take energy for the concept of God, which I personally would adhere to. It can neither be created or destroyed, it exists everywhere (omnipresent), and it directly affects our lives in almost every way. Now you could say that it is not intelligent, which I would agree with in certain aspects, but then how can you explain how energy acts according to specific laws? Is intelligence the ability to act according to certain laws or the ability to be able to defy them? Or is it the ability to be able to choose either? Then you have to ask yourself, do humans have the ability to break the laws of phsysics, quantum or otherwise?

 

[yoda89]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Good point. There was some sort of designer behind those pyramids. We might not know (yet) the identity thereof, but those pyramids likely didn't come about by randomly falling blocks of cement (though even if they [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]had[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif], that would be rather cool too! )[/FONT][/FONT].

Do not. I repeat do not discourage me from my faith in magically falling blocks. They are heavy and if you do not believe in them as we all must. They will crush your with their all powerful Legoness. :slap:

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]While I don't (any longer) lean as heavily on just one religious text as the sole authority on how we came about, I do agree that Someone made us (along with the rest of the universe). [/FONT][/FONT]

Religious texts do not constitute solid evidence. They are heavily subjective and emotionally involved. They are in the physical sense books and written works. However they come from periods that cannot be compared to others thus are said to hold some historical truths on life during those periods. Like any book even harry potter one can find a sense of comfort within the words. They are books nothing more nothing less.

By saying 'someone' do you constitute a thought within in the mind or a higher deity?

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]PS: According to the more nondualistic view, we are said to be (human manifestations of) God Himself, so finding evidence of God is real easy in that case -- just look in the nearest mirror and one will see God looking right back at 'em! [/FONT][/FONT]

Physical manifestations or thought manifestations?
If you constitute defining yourself as God. How does that differ from a man looking in the mirror and defining himself as a candy cane?

 

[yoda89]

It's all about faith, and trust in God. Most people think that God's existence is the main issue religion revolves around, but that's what we have to have faith in in order to come towards our true goal - spiritual enlightenment, etc. For me, religion is a teacher of faith, and without religion, faith would be reduced.

Many choose to remain blind to answering the truly lingering question within themselves. To the ask themselves that there is no God. Religions are creations of few men to make money off of peoples fear and revolves around greed. Spirituality and thus self thought would increase due to lack religions that preach a man made predetermined doctrine. You follow long dead men's beliefs not your own.

 

[outhouse]

I believe that this argument depends totally on ones definition of God.

That would actually be evidence that man creates god, because man defines what ever pleases him.

 

[Astravalon]

Do not. I repeat do not discourage me from my faith in magically falling blocks. They are heavy and if you do not believe in them as we all must. They will crush your with their all powerful Legoness. :slap:

By saying 'someone' do you constitute a thought within in the mind or a higher deity?

I use it in the sense of a higher deity that did the creating, yes.

Physical manifestations or thought manifestations?

Physical – at least, enough so for practical purposes.

If you constitute defining yourself as God. How does that differ from a man looking in the mirror and defining himself as a candy cane?

According to a nondualist view, God permeates everything. Well – and not to make this too complicated – the pantheist view would say that everything is God (any pantheists reading this please correct me if I'm wording it wrong). I'm a panentheist, which views God in everything, but also that God goes beyond everything. The physical universe, imo, is not "as God as it gets".

So I suppose if one viewed a candy-cane deity as permeating all of existence, then it would be the same thing; i.e., their god is the Candy Cane and if the Caneist is also pantheist, then he or she would say that they were one of the physical manifestations of the Candy Cane. (sorry if that doesn't make sense, lol!).

 

[ruffen]

When religious people talk about evidence for God, it seems that the conceept of evidence is a subjective one "oh, but it is evidence for me personally".

But that is not even on the same scale as scientific evidence which is neutral and follows repeatable experiments and observations.

 

[ruffen]

It's all about faith, and trust in God. Most people think that God's existence is the main issue religion revolves around, but that's what we have to have faith in in order to come towards our true goal - spiritual enlightenment, etc. For me, religion is a teacher of faith, and without religion, faith would be reduced.

But if you have faith that something that doesn't actually exist, exists, that is not spiritual enlightenment. Enlightenment should bring you closer to some sort of objective truth about these matters, not lull yourself into a fantasy of beings and creatures.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

To some, yes. Obviously, if it were that definitive, however, discussions like this one would no longer seem necessary.

Really? So, because discussions about the basics of QM are still quite necessary (the public by and large being completely ignorant on this subject) then... the basics of QM are not definitive?

This just seems non-sequitur.

One would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to say, definitively, that there is no God anywhere at all.

No. If the concept of God entails a contradiction, then we can say, definitively, that there is no such thing.

And any definition of God which includes any of the pairs of attributes I mentioned above cannot exist, anymore than a round square could exist.

 

[ruffen]

No. If the concept of God entails a contradiction, then we can say, definitively, that there is no such thing.

And any definition of God which includes any of the pairs of attributes I mentioned above cannot exist, anymore than a round square could exist.

:yes:

 

[Quagmire]

And a claim which is consistent with any and all possible evidence is no claim at all.

So you're saying there's too much proof.

 

[ChristineES]

When religious people talk about evidence for God, it seems that the conceept of evidence is a subjective one "oh, but it is evidence for me personally".

But that is not even on the same scale as scientific evidence which is neutral and follows repeatable experiments and observations.

No one has said it does. What I am saying is that I have evidence of God and I can see it everywhere. I could point it out to you and you would give a different explanation.
I separate science from religion. Science is a wonderful thing- we learn a lot from it. Religion is about spiritual matters while science is about physical matters.

 

[Astravalon]

No. If the concept of God entails a contradiction, then we can say, definitively, that there is no such thing.

And how far has that gotten those who insist that? Has the world population in it's entirety thrown up their hands and said, "Yep, there's no God. It's been proven." Just as the entire world hasn't thrown up their hands and said "Yep, there is a God. It's been proven."

And any definition of God which includes any of the pairs of attributes I mentioned above cannot exist, anymore than a round square could exist.

In this phase or dimension of existence, I have yet to encounter a round square. But this dimension isn't the only one, is it? Until I've searched the entire universe, as well as every available dimension there might be, I cannot say there exists nothing that I would define as a 'round square'. I can put my faith in experts who tell me that no round squares exist, and even use their methods of proving it myself just to be sure, but that's about it. There's a lot to our existence that's uncharted territory yet.

It's one thing for me to say I don't believe a round square exists, or that I haven't seen evidence that suits me as to its existence. But it's quite another for me to authoritatively declare that they absotively, posilutely, don't exist.

Like I said in another post, I can't prove that tomorrow exists, yet you should see my calendar.

Will one's world cave in on itself if they don't believe in round squares? No, I don't think so, any more than if they don't believe in a deity. Life goes on, with nothing to prove (very liberating, that!).

 

[nash8]

That would actually be evidence that man creates god, because man defines what ever pleases him.

Just because we define something doesn't mean we created it does it? I define a chair as something I sit on, but that doesn't mean I created it.

 

[McBell]

When religious people talk about evidence for God, it seems that the conceept of evidence is a subjective one "oh, but it is evidence for me personally".

But that is not even on the same scale as scientific evidence which is neutral and follows repeatable experiments and observations.

That is why it is important to specify what kind of evidence when making claims about evidence.

Every theist I know has evidence for their god.
Just because I do not except said evidence does not make said evidence not evidence.

The title should have read "there is no objective empirical evidence for god".

 

[yoda89]

I use it in the sense of a higher deity that did the creating, yes.

Concepts in a higher deitys can be explained of lack of knowledge. We often attribute a higher being to things we do not yet understand. Until we gain the knowledge of how something works. Basic examples include rain, lighting and tornados. At one time these were thought to be created by a deity. Until we understood how it worked. It is easier to say something was created by a higher being due to fear.

Physical – at least, enough so for practical purposes.

The complexities of the mind are not yet know. They will not be for some time. Acceptance that we do not none yet what caused something is the first step. Therefore it is more difficult to deal with a solid Religion views which tie ones thoughts to an already established sense of ones self. We often see effect and in our mind need to justify it by making up a cause.

According to a nondualist view, God permeates everything. Well – and not to make this too complicated – the

pantheist view would say that everything is God (any pantheists reading this please correct me if I'm wording it wrong). I'm a panentheist, which views God in everything, but also that God goes beyond everything. The physical universe, imo, is not "as God as it gets".

'God' is again the fear of the unknown. While I am what is considered a strong atheist. I strongly respect self thought and it seems you are doing so. I do not respect strict blind minded-religion. But I play nice. We also establish causes by relating to what we do not know. We understand aspects of ourselves. There again of singularity. Does that mean you believe chairs are God/s. A remote control is God or do you see it more as energy? Because we do know much about energy(or at least we think we do). To say God is everything yet everything is lack of knowledge of humanity for things we do not yet understand.

So I suppose if one viewed a candy-cane deity as permeating all of existence, then it would be the same thing; i.e., their god is the Candy Cane and if the Caneist is also pantheist, then he or she would say that they were one of the physical manifestations of

the Candy Cane. (sorry if that doesn't make sense, lol!).

Not sure I understand that one. But, I personally subscribe to butterfingers.

 

[Looncall]

I believe that this argument depends totally on ones definition of God. If you have a panenthiestic or panthiestic definition of God, it is near impossible for anyone to deny God's existence according to these views on God, because you would basically have to deny everything's existince.

If for example you take energy for the concept of God, which I personally would adhere to. It can neither be created or destroyed, it exists everywhere (omnipresent), and it directly affects our lives in almost every way. Now you could say that it is not intelligent, which I would agree with in certain aspects, but then how can you explain how energy acts according to specific laws? Is intelligence the ability to act according to certain laws or the ability to be able to defy them? Or is it the ability to be able to choose either? Then you have to ask yourself, do humans have the ability to break the laws of phsysics, quantum or otherwise?

This is just word salad. Energy is not a substance, nor is it an entity that could possibly be intelligent.

Energy is just a shorthand way of describing states that things are in. If an apple hangs from a tree, we say it has potential energy, but the apple is in no way different than if it were on the ground.

This new-agey talk of energy is just a new-fangled kind of superstition.