• 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!

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So, beyond personal experience and what merely makes sense to us individually, is there any evidence for God that does not require an argument from ignorance or other logical fallacies?
To me the evidence for the pantheistic God/Brahman concept is the collective experiences of many sages/masters/mystics who have claimed experience of cosmic consciousness. Now, I am not saying this is evidence that can not be challenged, but I am saying the collective experience of many respectable people is evidence for a cosmic consciousness/God/Brahman belief. I am not asserting my beliefs without claiming evidence. Evidence is a different word than 'proof'.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
No there isn't. Evidence can be falsified, no claims of god could stand scientific review, hence the reason science does not waste it's time.

Space time is like that, the rubber sheet example shows the effect on flat plain. In actuality the effect is in 4 dimensions
its whats outside our universe pulling that could explain universal inflation. Put your balloon in a rigid containing sphere and induce a vacuum in the sphere. See what happens to the balloon.

How was the universe created? How was life created? How was consciousness created? God is a valid hypothesis. Atheists call that the god of gaps.
Empirical evidence such as every generation of humans has had a god. This god has had similarities though out each incarnation.
Spiritualism which even atheists claim is possible imply there is more to life than science says
Even the scientific theory of multiple dimensions each different from the other includes the possibility of God.


Obviously the material is not a balloon and the balloon would represent the materials of space the sphere would be inside the balloon. The large sphere moving through the balloon forcing it open and closing behind would create the vacuum.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
It is also not an argument from ignorance or logical fallacy. What evidence does science have for the creation of the universe and do you also have problems with their theories or do you have an acceptable theory without material evidence.

Do you support Dark matter or Dark energy as they are theories based off of experience only.
They aren't scientific theories. They are merely hypotheses. Very different things.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens



So, beyond personal experience and what merely makes sense to us individually, is there any evidence for God that does not require an argument from ignorance or other logical fallacies?
and redundant experience of reality

you wake up .....and there it is
all around you

you may dismiss all of this.....when you die
 

The Holy Bottom Burp

Active Member
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

I think this is an amazing quote, and it pretty much sums up why atheism (being without a belief in the existence of God or gods is the meaning I'm using here) is not only reasonable, but easily defended.

Many people claim that personal experience qualifies as evidence when it comes to God, but personal experience is often flawed and misleading (hallucinations, dreams, seemingly miraculous events, etc. are unreliable without verification). It is also unverifiable. So, how can something that is unreliable and unverifiable be considered evidence?

Others claim that God is necessary because God provides an explanation for things that are currently unexplained by science. But, obviously, that is a "God of the gaps" argument or an "argument from ignorance". It isn't nearly enough to just say "God is responsible" without providing verifiable evidence that it is true. We used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. It made perfect sense in regards to how we saw the sun rise and set each day from our perspective. But, that experience and logic turned out to be completely wrong. So, how can what merely makes sense to us be used as evidence?

So, beyond personal experience and what merely makes sense to us individually, is there any evidence for God that does not require an argument from ignorance or other logical fallacies?

Hitchins was a hero of mine, the way he cut through the verbosity and dishonesty of religious apologists was of course entertaining, but it was just so refreshing as well. Hitchins spoke like the boy in The Emperor's New Clothes, he pointed out what most atheists (and I suspect a lot of theists) had been thinking. Damn, I miss him!

I don't think people come to believe in a personal god (I guess that is what we are talking about in the main correct?) because they've heard the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or one of the ontological arguments, or presuppositional arguments etc., all of which I think are flawed anyway, but are supposed to represent "proofs" of god's existence. People have much simpler, and usually very poor reasons for believing covered by the fallacies you mention. I guess you might believe because you are convinced by the historicity and accuracy of the bible, but I found the more I looked at the historicity the more my doubts grew! It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, not if you are intellectually honest about it I'd say.

I remember thinking on the start of my religious journey (I started with Catholicism) "there are millions of Catholics, there must be something in it right?" without stopping to realise that the number of people who believe something is no indicator of the likelihood of it being true! There are quite a lot of Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus as well! I did have a lot of fuzzy thoughts in those days!
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Hitchins was a hero of mine, the way he cut through the verbosity and dishonesty of religious apologists was of course entertaining, but it was just so refreshing as well. Hitchins spoke like the boy in The Emperor's New Clothes, he pointed out what most atheists (and I suspect a lot of theists) had been thinking. Damn, I miss him!

I don't think people come to believe in a personal god (I guess that is what we are talking about in the main correct?) because they've heard the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or one of the ontological arguments, or presuppositional arguments etc., all of which I think are flawed anyway, but are supposed to represent "proofs" of god's existence. People have much simpler, and usually very poor reasons for believing covered by the fallacies you mention. I guess you might believe because you are convinced by the historicity and accuracy of the bible, but I found the more I looked at the historicity the more my doubts grew! It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, not if you are intellectually honest about it I'd say.

I remember thinking on the start of my religious journey (I started with Catholicism) "there are millions of Catholics, there must be something in it right?" without stopping to realise that the number of people who believe something is no indicator of the likelihood of it being true! There are quite a lot of Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus as well! I did have a lot of fuzzy thoughts in those days!
Fuzzy thoughts are fun. I just wanted to say that I agree, and this is very well put. You've summed it up perfectly. Thanks for your input.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Getting five royal flushes in a row is a breeze. Provided the player can keep or discard each card as it is dealt.
That's how Evolution works. The staggering majority of individual organisms don't reproduce. The ones who do are the only ones who matter from an evolutionary standpoint. Even the tiniest of differences will result in changes to the species, eventually. Particularly if the environment is also changing and different characteristics result in successful reproduction over time.
Tom

That's where the anthropomorphism creeps in, we retain something of insignificant value (a dime in our pocket) because we'll take the whole coffee can to the bank one day- we live our entire lives determining each action based on a predicted future benefit. So it's extremely difficult to remove this entirely from our thought experiments

Evolution (according to ToE) cannot look to the future, it cannot retain one component of a fully functional eye for later use, no matter how intuitively beneficial it seems to us

But the mathematical algorithm itself is objective, which is why when run in computer models, it utterly fails to produce the extraordinary results we imagine in our heads
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Logical theory of God
There has never been a time when nothing existed(Supported by several scientific theories). It is probable that this universe came into being at the time of the big bang( Supported by several scientific theories). If things always existed then a thing or things caused an action that created this universe among this or these things a God(has defined as a creator of the universe) is a valid option.
You seem to have forgotten the logic in there?

Though it is possible the "logic" you claim is all in the huge gaps of your presentation...
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
The problem is is that the evidence is so clearly obvious not many can see it. People don't put in the work. When you see it, Atheism looks pretty stupid. Unless Atheism is applying itself against a false religion, it's not logical.
This is nothing more than wishful thinking used to generate happy feelings concerning the severe lack of evidence for every single god exists claim.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Evidence is a different word than 'proof'.
One of my pet peeves is when someone asks for "evidence", not "empirical evidence", not "objective evidence", but just simply "evidence" and then claims that the evidence they get is not "empirical evidence" or "objective evidence".

It is most interesting how so many people do not know the definition of the word "evidence"...
that which causes belief in something​
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If there were a phenomenon (or fact) that we can prove cannot even theoretically be accounted for as the effect of a cause within the universe, there would be no logical obstacle to attributing that phenomenon or fact to God (or any other cause external to the universe). Correct?
So apparently there are no objections to this sort of argument. Is that right?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Fine then present a valid hypothesis for either of the questions that is more than a bold empty claim.
First you will have to show your claim of "created" to be plausible outside wishful thinking.

See, "Created" is YOUR claim, not mine.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I am sincerely hoping someone will present something other than the bold empty claim "God is not an effect"
OK. I haven't seen that claim on this thread (or anywhere else). Have you?

So you have no problem with this sort of argument:
If there were a phenomenon (or fact) that we can prove cannot even theoretically be accounted for as the effect of a cause within the universe, there would be no logical obstacle to attributing that phenomenon or fact to God (or any other cause external to the universe). Correct?
?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
OK. I haven't seen that claim on this thread (or anywhere else). Have you?

So you have no problem with this sort of argument:?
The second you make god an exception to the "reasoning" you use to get to god, you render the "reasoning" you used to get to god useless.
 
Top