Where is the proof ?

[blü 2]

This only shows your lack of understanding of what human witnessing is.

That's certainly one possibility. Not the only one, though.

God is portrayed by the multiple accounts of human testimonies. He told and showed who He is to His chosen eyewitnesses about His deeds and for them to write down as their testimonies and for the rest of human kind to believe with faith.

The accounts I've read do not describe the manner in which God exists, a description of a real god, with identifying features &c, the manner in which God achieves the deeds attributed to [him] and so on. If God is real, if God has objective existence, why are these data missing?

If on the other hand God is the name of an ideal abstraction, or an aspirational perfect being, something that has no objective counterpart or referent, why is this not clearly stated?

Moreover, when people ask for evidence what exactly it is?

It begins with the definition of a real God sufficient to allow us to tell whether any real candidate is God or not.

Until that happens, no one has any idea what real entity or thing we're looking for, believer and nonbeliever alike.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, and what is the difference between proof and evidence? Also, any evidence I did give, you would immediately dismiss as not REAL evidence. We call this shifting the goalposts. Why? Because atheists are under a delusion.

No, that's not why.
It rather is because not all evidence is valid.
Theists will typically come with anecdotal or hearsay evidence.
Or they'll try to go with bible quotes, as if the bible is evidence of the bible.

Invalid evidence, isn't evidence.
No post shifting going on there...

As for evidence we have:

1. A universe that depends on a great number of scientific laws to even exist

How is that evidence for a creator?
Establishing that a universe that works according to certain laws, seems to me to being only evidence that that universe exists - it doesn't address how it came about.

1. Life is such a Goldilocks event that it should exist at all in the universe, and yet this world has thousands/millions of animal/plant/bacteria/fungi species.

We have only examined a few pixels of the night sky and already we have detected PLENTY of rocky planets orbiting in the "goldilock" zone.
As for life elsewhere in the universe, I'm curious to find out how you have determined that earth is the only planet in the universe with life on it.
Or how you have determined that life originating is "impossible", as you just implied.

1. People do actually have unique selves. Souls. This is pretty much provable in any large household that has a consistent method of raising children.

How does raising children prove that "souls" exist?
What is a "soul" and how does raising children in a large household prove it exists?

1. By the way, I am not one of these people that believes science is wrong. Evolution is part of God's plan. I do not, however believe in "survival of the fittest" as this sort of mentality is one of a psychopath that would see Hitler's master race belief as justified. No thanks.

"fit" in context of evolutionary biology does NOT mean "stronger" or "better" or "smarter" or whatever. "fit" means the most adjusted for survival and reproduction in context of its habitat. That's no necessarily the strongest, smartest, fastest.... depending on circumstances, it can also mean the dumbest, weakest or slowest.

"fit" in that context, is about what natural selection favours at that time.

It has nothing to do with how to organize a society.
"survival of the fittest" is just another way of saying "natural selection".

1. The Big Bang was not invented by Stephen Hawking, no matter what "Theory of Everything" movie will tell you. It was by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and scientist, as a way of explaining exactly what happened during the beginning of the universe. Hubble took credit for it two years later.

Did anybody say otherwise?

This not to say "Things are complicated, I can't explain it, must be God." This is things are complicated because there is intelligent design and a creator.

Things can also be complicated because of natural processes.
So that doesn't mean anything and it's just another way of assuming your conclusion.

Because there is a plan, and a planner, there are different models of planets, different species, and they work together to not wipe out the planet.

More bare religious claims.

But let's talk about #5. What was matter before the Big Bang?

Does it even make sense to talk about "before" the big bang?
Because as it stands, that's kind of like talking about "north" of the north pole.

In any case, science has traced back (well, to the best of its current abilities anyway) the history of the universe to what is called Planck time. The "first" moment, if you will. So our current models allow us to consider the history of the universe till about T = 0.00000....001 seconds.
At T = 0, our notion of physics break down completely.

So the only possible answer here, is a simple "we don't know".

Well, not nothing.

You don't know that.

It was a superatom. A "Cosmic Egg" if you will.

I don't know what that means.

But wait, cosmic egg sounds familiar... Yeah, Vedic myth, Egyptian myth, Zoroastrian myth, Greek myth, Phoenician, Norse, etc. They all came up with the same idea. A superconcentrated thing expands itself outward, and like a seed, stuff comes into being. Not an old man, a seed.

Now, you are taking modern cosmological knowledge and mixing it up with ancient myths, pretending that that is what those myths were talking about all along.

But in reality, you are just adding to those myths. And what you are adding, is what science discovered the past 150 years. There's a reason why this was known and understood in this manner until it was discovered recently. And that reason is because it wasn't known before. Not by humans, not by ancient myths.

 

[Thief]

I'm going to be very insistent about cause and effect
no experiment is worthwhile without it

and dismissing the association is to dismiss ...science
and then science is no longer your crutch or flag

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

has anyone undone the notion of cause and effect?

What about it?

if so......so much for science

and all we have is thought experiment and
you can say anything

Not sure what you are talking about.
Perhaps you can elaborate and clarify.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only I can find God within from my own investigation but to me God is so obvious that it’s blinding. I used to be a firm atheist but now I see God’s signs everywhere, in the tiniest insect, in nature, in the human body. Just so many outward proofs alone.

So what is it about insects or the human body that apparantly points to the existance of god?

And consider this. Jesus all alone, opposed, tortured then crucified no wealth or power yet His Cause spreads over the entire planet winning the allegiance of billions all over the world including Kings, Queens and Emperors. The wealthy, the poor all testify to His transforming influence yet some blinded by Hid dazzling light cannot see. So be it. There are plenty of proofs but they are being deliberately ignored.

I considered the story. Now what?

 

[Thief]

Not sure what you are talking about.
Perhaps you can elaborate and clarify.

people accept almost anything ....nodding their heads and waving a hand

but some of the most brilliant ideas come from.....thought
of course the scheme of things must play out well

but if you can't trust your own thinking.............................
oh oh

when asking ......where is the proof?
the question is posed as a negative
as if proof could not be rendered......no matter what

ok....and I reiterate as I have done for the past ten years....
the will not be a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or repeatable experiment
when if comes to God...
ALL you can do is think about it

so
I lean to cause and effect
and science leads me to the primordial singularity

I THINK....Spirit first......
otherwise substance is 'self' creating
substance can procreate
substance....though dead.....can beget the living

and without Spirit
the existence of Man is a complete mystery with no resolve
and extinction the only future

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did Nanjing massacre happen in WWII? The Chinese claim a casualty of 300,000 while denied by the Japanese. In your line of fallacious reasoning, then the Japanese must be right due to the lack of sufficient evidence.

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

You are conflating issues.
Here in your analogy, you are dealing with TWO different claims:
1. the massacre happened (as claimed by the chinese)
2. the massacre DID NOT HAPPEN (as claimed by the japanese)

If there were insufficient evidence in support of the first claim, then that only means that you have insufficient basis to accept that claim as accurate. It does NOT mean that you can suddenly accept the second claim as accurate!

When we transpose this analogy to the theist debate, we get the following:
1. god exists
2. god DOES NOT exist.

My atheism (=my unbelief), is a position on the FIRST claim. I'm not making the second claim. When I respond to the claims of theism, then I am responding to the FIRST claim - NOT the second.

The only thing you can say, is that these claims are mutually exclusive. As in: you can't accept both of them. But it is perfectly possible to reject them both.

Because rejection of a claim is not the same as accepting the opposite of said claim.

Let's go to the gumball machine analogy to make it extra clear.
Imagine a giant gumball machine. There must be thousands of gumballs. You have no way of finding out how many exactly.

The number of gumballs is either even or odd. It can't be both.
You can make 2 claims:
1. the number is even
2. the number is odd.

Now imagine someone coming up to you and saying "I claim the number is even, do you believe me?"
And remember: to believe him, means that you accept his claim as accurate and correct. That's what "to believe" means: to accept as correct.

My answer would be "no", I don't accept that as correct because I have insufficient data to know this. I can thus not commit myself to that claim, because I have no way of verifying.

Does my answer of "no", mean that I'll be saying "yes" to the second claim, that the number is odd?

Off course not.... Because rejecting a claim, is not the same as accepting the opposite of said claim.
It could off course be the case that I in fact accept the opposite claim. The point however, is that you can't know that based on my rejection of the original claim alone.

In a nutshell those demanding evidence in order to believe is living in a BIG delusion.

I'ld say that saying stuff like that, is what is delusional.

Humans mostly rely on faith in a credible source

And what is it, that gives science its credibility, if not the massive piles of evidence that demonstrate that science is an awesome tool to obtain accurate answers to questions about reality?

You seem to be confusing appeals to expertise with appeals to authority.

We trust medical science, because medical science has an impeccable track record of curing people from nasty stuff.

We trust atomic science, because nukes explode and nuclear power stations deliver electricity.

It always comes down to the evidence.

When a friend told you that he had a big meal on Christmas, that remains the only way such a fact can convey. Demanding evidence for this historical event itself is a joke. You have 3 meals a day, 1000 meals a year.

The part about 3 meals a day, 1000 meals a year (+ the knowledge that humans tend to have big meals on holidays), IS evidence. That's evidence which establishes that humans frequently consume meals. That makes the claim very very plausible.

Now, let's take it a step further....

Let's say the claim goes on with "...and the meal consisted of unicorn with a sauce of magic beans"

Would you still find this equally believable? I'll go ahead and assume that you don't.
So, why not?
And what should happen, before you'll accept that part of the claim as well?

Evidence? What is it, other than a joke? Continue to live in dreams!

Repeat that line next time you are in a court room falsely accused of a murder you did not commit.

Let's see how much of a joke you think evidence is at that point.......

 

[sayak83]

Okay... so that's what you believe.


What meditiation experiences could possibly justify a belief in a god?

Personally, I tend to discount experience and perception gained through altered states, whether it's done chemically (e.g. with drugs), through physical stress (e.g. sweat lodges), or through concentrated effort (e.g. prolonged meditation). In general, I don't think that making one's brain less reliable is a reasonable path to a reliable conclusion.


What do you mean by "intuitions about ethics and reality?"

I would consider my current worldview to be consistent with current observations.
What sort of experience?
A sort of experience that transcends the limits set by your life situation or your imagination. Your awareness shifts into a momentless mode. One is aware of all things that is, was or could be at all places and all times.
You must also understand that the experience is not limited by time. I am still in it. It' a bit like the movie Arrival, if you have seen it. I am still having the experience....it is more accurate to say that my existence or being is eternally situated in that boundaryless, momentless experiential phase...and I am interacting with this stream-bound phenomenal world just as a person by the seashore would dip his feet into the waves that break into the sand.

There was no drugs and very little meditation actually. There was a lot of focused search, and one day it just happened. I shifted.

 

[Thief]

Because rejection of a claim is not the same as accepting the opposite of said claim.

but...but....but....

soooooo many things are one or the other
to the left or to the right
this side of the fence or yours
heads or tails
dead or alive

and after the last breath.....
you will stand from your dust
or follow it into the grave

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

but...but....but....

soooooo many things are one or the other
to the left or to the right
this side of the fence or yours
heads or tails
dead or alive

and after the last breath.....
you will stand from your dust
or follow it into the grave

So anyone who doesn't accept the guy who says that the number of gumballs is even must believe that the number of gumballs is odd?

 

[Thief]

So anyone who doesn't accept the guy who says that the number of gumballs is even must believe that the number of gumballs is odd?

hmmmmmm......there could be a small gumball
too small to count as one
maybe a fractional gumball?

 

[loverofhumanity]

So what is it about insects or the human body that apparantly points to the existance of god?



I considered the story. Now what?

Well, to me, every thing is a door reflecting the intelligence and wonders of God from the tiniest insect, to composition of the atom and the marvelously functioning human body. But that’s just me I suppose.

Also the story of how the Prophets alone withstand the forces of opposition yet in the end Their Cause is victorious is an achievement Niobe in earth can emulate.

These are just my view I am sharing but you take it the way you see it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, to me, every thing is a door reflecting the intelligence and wonders of God from the tiniest insect, to composition of the atom and the marvelously functioning human body. But that’s just me I suppose.

Yes, that's just you and your subjective opinion, based on an assumed conclusion.

Also the story of how the Prophets alone withstand the forces of opposition yet in the end Their Cause is victorious is an achievement Niobe in earth can emulate.

All these people preached mutually exclusive religions.

These are just my view I am sharing but you take it the way you see it.

That's cool that you realise these are just your opinions (and as such, are irrelevant when discussing objective matters of reality). But then you should stop pretending that your mere opinions are somehow evidence - let alone PROOF - of the god you happen to worship.

In fact, if anything, these opinions seem to actually be part of your religious beliefs.
They aren't objective, verifiable facts that support your religious beliefs.
Instead, they ARE your religious beliefs. Or at least, part of it.

So don't call them evidence, or worse: proof, because they most definatly aren't.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes, that's just you and your subjective opinion, based on an assumed conclusion.



All these people preached mutually exclusive religions.



That's cool that you realise these are just your opinions (and as such, are irrelevant when discussing objective matters of reality). But then you should stop pretending that your mere opinions are somehow evidence - let alone PROOF - of the god you happen to worship.

In fact, if anything, these opinions seem to actually be part of your religious beliefs.
They aren't objective, verifiable facts that support your religious beliefs.
Instead, they ARE your religious beliefs. Or at least, part of it.

So don't call them evidence, or worse: proof, because they most definatly aren't.

To me it’s evidence but I can’t prove what I know to be true to another person.

That’s only something you can investigate for yourself. So just to clarify the evidence is proof for me and also personal experiences.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To me it’s evidence but I can’t prove what I know to be true to another person.

"You don't know it, if you can't show it"

That’s only something you can investigate for yourself.

Many have, and they have come to vastly vastly different conclusions then you did.....
This shows the unreliability of such a methodology (ie: having an opinion, and running with it by pretending the opinion / the belief is somehow evidence of itself)

So just to clarify the evidence is proof for me and also personal experiences.

The thing about evidence, is that you can share it.
If you can't share it, then it's not evidence.

 

[loverofhumanity]

"You don't know it, if you can't show it"



Many have, and they have come to vastly vastly different conclusions then you did.....
This shows the unreliability of such a methodology (ie: having an opinion, and running with it by pretending the opinion / the belief is somehow evidence of itself)



The thing about evidence, is that you can share it.
If you can't share it, then it's not evidence.

It’s just your opinion. Nothing else.

 

[sojourner]

We don't ask for "proof", we ask for evidence, an even lower bar to pass and yet no reliable evidence for a God is forthcoming.

Who gets to define “God?” It seems that evidence is based, in part, on standard definitions. How I define “God” may not be how a fundamentalist defines “God.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who gets to define “God?” It seems that evidence is based, in part, on standard definitions. How I define “God” may not be how a fundamentalist defines “God.”

Apparently every believer gets to make his own definition of God. I won't define what God is for others.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s just your opinion. Nothing else.

What is just my opinion?

The post you replied to, didn't express opinions.
Those were just facts.

Do you disagree that other people have "searched for god", and found very different gods then the one you happen to worship?

If yes, you should come out more....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It’s just your opinion. Nothing else.

Do you have more than just your opinion?