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

[Polymath257]

How about some of these?

Pretty pictures, and I will agree they have a certain vague similarity in how they look. Sort of like a cloud looking like a face.

But can you seriously say that any of those are actually representational? Do you think that the nebula from a supernova, for example, actually represents an eye? Or that the cell dividing actually represents the planetary nebula of a dying star?

Compare any of these to a cave painting of people hunting or of an elk. They clearly represent something different than the ocher of the painting itself. None of your examples comes close.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Holy crap! It is 3:30 in the morning. Speak 'Murican.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 62882

Only three hours later and I am awake. Thanks for the laugh. I might go back to bed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves.

You're saying that the program works for those with the right stuff. You give credit for the successes to the program, and blame failures on the person. By that reckoning, of course the program works, just like every other program. One could also say that Christianity works to make people better people, and when they don't become better people, it's the person and his weak faith that failed, not the religion.

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy: "an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly." So, if one want to imply that a program such as AA works despite many failures, instead of revising one's opinion about the efficacy of the program to reflect its actual ability to help alcoholics that want to quit drinking, one just excludes them "improperly" by blaming failure on them.

Jesus Christ is the Truth, so what is your truth

Truth for me is what can be demonstrated to be correct. People call all other manner of conscious apprehension truth simply because it resonates with them intuitively, which is what I believe you're doing. You have an intuition that Jesus still exists and represents something very important, so you call it truth, even thought there is insufficient evidence for anyone to claim that this idea is correct, an absolute requirement for me as I define truth. Maybe you've seen, "If you can't show it, you don't know it." That's not exactly correct. There are things one can know that others also could once have been shown, but no longer. But that which has never been experienced empirically and could never have been demonstrated cannot be said to be the truth.

One cannot believe without knowing. We define faith as knowing and trusting God. We cannot believe without knowing the object of our faith who is God.

The faithful DO believe without knowing. That's what makes their beliefs examples of faith-based thought.

The skeptic rejects the claim that the believer knows his deity, or communicates with it, or experiences it in any way. That's what makes it faith. If he could do any of those things, he could demonstrate that he does.

Furthermore, if he could know this deity, we all could. The believer has no special senses, and knowledge is acquired by rationally considering the evidence of the senses, knowledge being the collection of ideas that are demonstrably correct. Things known to exist and those only believed to exist by have are different in this critical way - only the former can be demonstrated to exist.

This is the correspondence theory of truth: "the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." - Isaacson, Walter (2008). Einstein: His Life and Universe He believed in a revealed God.

This appears to be anthropomorphizing the laws of nature. His deity is essentially Mother Nature. And this is why I object to this poetic usage of words like God.

On another recent RF threat about souls, one believer diluted the concept from a substance that enters a body around conception to give it a human essence and then later survives death to the sum of an individual's character and personality traits. He's using the same word to describe what clearly exists as others use to mean something very different that probably doesn't exist. That's a metaphorical (poetic) use of the word soul, just as "the soul of the city" is, and means the same thing - the sum of the characteristics acquired through experience and familiarity that help one identify it and distinguish it from other cities. When we call that a soul, nobody wants to reify it. But as soon as we discuss a human being that way, all that excess baggage about immortal. entities and gods and afterlives wells up.

The guy I'm talking about would say that if others get such notions from his use of the word, that is them projecting, and he is correct, but it is a predictable and (for me) undesirable result of using such language. The baggage comes with the word, which is why I avoid it certain contexts. I won't call the laws of nature God (or the essence of an individual person a soul) just to avoid the kind of confusion and ambiguity that Einstein's waxing poetic caused.

Also, I question whether Spinoza and Einstein meant the same thing when using the word God. Spinoza was born well after Copernicus but just before Newton. This was the time of the first wave of scientists who described the clockwork universe that led to deism, or the replacement of the designer-builder-ruler god with the designer-builder god who left the universe to run on its own. Einstein had the benefit of Darwin's works and was one of the contributors to the new cosmology that ultimately dismissed the builder god as well.

If the universe and the tree of life could self-assemble over deep time, then gods were relegated to just the design part and perhaps the creation of seeds like the singularity and the living substrate of biological evolution (the first life). From Spinoza's perspective, a literal deity was probably still necessary for designing and building the universe, although you get the sense that he is already dismissing the ruler, interventionalist god who and recognizing that the cosmos runs itself, the deist perspective. By Einstein's time, the builder god was no longer needed, and atheism was a tenable position (even if Einstein was offended by the word).

Prayer by definition is a conversation with God. It's not a one way conversation.

You're trying to legislate reality with arbitrary definitions again. This definition does not establish that a deity exists or that it communicates with man. And it's not my definition. It doesn't describe reality, where people often claim that they get no message from a deity when they pray beyond an implied yes or no according to whether the wish in the prayer came true, but of course, that is also not a communication from a deity that likely doesn't exist..

 

[ElishaElijah]

You're saying that the program works for those with the right stuff.

When you’re given the instructions and follow them the success rate is high.
When you don’t follow the instructions the failure rate is high.
This is true in almost every area of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you’re given the instructions and follow them the success rate is high.
When you don’t follow the instructions the failure rate is high.
This is true in almost every area of life.

That happens with any recovery program. Good or bad. So you are now in effect admitting that AA may be a very bad recovery program.

That is not how one measures how good a program is. One measures it by results.

 

[Sheldon]

I ignore your posts, on purpose

I know, I am reminded of a small child hiding it's face that thinks it can't be seen, pretty funny really. Which was my point, that you accusing someone else of evading your relentless vapid platitudes, and subjective unevidenced declarations of faith, was beyond ironic, which you have missed again apparently, quelle surprise.

They aren't a discussion,

If you can't grasp them, and so are forced to ignore them, then that's a given.

 

[Kenny]

I will try to bridge the gap using a version of religion from my life in Denmark. Most Danes are Christians in some sense. but their religion is secular in the following sense. Some of them don't judge an abortion to be right or wrong for all other humans based on their beliefs. They leave the choice to the woman.

Now if you want it in theological terms. What you chose to believe in, is between you and God and not my problem even in religious terms. And so in the other direct. God is not public, God is private.
There is of course more, but that is a part of it.

And I'm fine with your position. But your presentation is much different Sheldon (if you look at his posts). You aren't "attacking", your are "sharing" your viewpoint. That's great.

You presented your position, you expressed why, and your conclusion of your thoughts. Yet, still accepting that I have a different viewpoint.

if someone is pro-abortion and list the reasons are "financial, not in their present plans, poverty" or whatever other reason is... fine. That is their position. I may not agree with it but I agree that they have the right for their viewpoint.

I don't believe I "attack" that position (always open for learning) or attack the person that is sharing it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is reality? These forums show us that everyone has a different reality.

The more empirical one is in his assessment of what is true about the world, the more his reality gravitates to a common reality that transcends culture, time, and place, and the better prepared he is to navigate that reality. If one is into mythopoieia (generating fictitious stories) and believing those stories, his reality as he understands it will be whatever he creates. It one is grounded in the application of reason to the evidence of the senses, he will discover the common reality and how it woks.

This is why there are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity alone, but only one periodic table of the elements. Only the latter is anchored to observation, and only the latter can be used to accurately predict outcomes.

But Einstein was fond of Jesus (as represented in the Gospels) and he believed he was an actual historical figure. He said he is "enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene" and that his sayings are beautiful.

Did you think that makes him a theist? His pinion is the same as mine, except he thinks more highly of Jesus than I do, who I see as one of countless people through the ages trying to promote his vision of piety, who had no special insights, and who offered no new moral precepts of lasting value. This seems to offend Christians, and I'm sorry that it does, but the only think remarkable about the life and words of Jesus to me is how they were used by the likes of Paul and Constantine to establish a world religion. I'm pretty sure that if that hadn't happened, the words and name of Jesus would have been forgotten long ago.

When you’re given the instructions [12 steps of AA] and follow them the success rate is high. When you don’t follow the instructions the failure rate is high. This is true in almost every area of life.

But you're using this fact to argue that the program is effective. For me, the effectiveness of the program resides in its success rate. If one ignores the failures, the success rate is 100%. The program needs to effective in most cases to be called effective. Consider the rehabilitation of prisoners of prison. Couldn't we say by your reckoning that the program works, but only for those who follow it. Abstinence only also works - if one remains abstinent. But people fall of the wagon, the return to crime after parole, and they get pregnant anyway. The rate at which these things occur defines the efficacy of the program, not the number of successes considered apart from the failure rate.

I see something similar with Christianity. If people would just listen to Jesus. The program works if one does. Just love one another. That's the secret. What fraction of graduates from Jesus U. are actually better people for it? How much better people are Christians than non-Christians. The answer to that correlates with how effective Christianity is at people building. Likewise with AA: what fraction of people who go there for help quit drinking long term? There's a big difference between a 95% success rate and a 5% success rate, unless one wants to blame the failures on people and give the credit for the successes to the program, in which case both are 100% effective.

 

[Sheldon]

And I'm fine with your position. But your presentation is much different Sheldon (if you look at his posts). You aren't "attacking", your are "sharing" your viewpoint. That's great.

This is a debate forum, argument is in the definition, it's pretty much de rigueur. If you want agreement I believe there are many forum on this site that provide that?

You presented your position, you expressed why, and your conclusion of your thoughts. Yet, still accepting that I have a different viewpoint.

Debate would be pretty much impossible without different view points. I'm also not the one telling others whether they can have an abortion or not, or telling others what they can and cannot do with their bodies or not.

I don't believe I "attack" that position (always open for learning) or attack the person that is sharing it.

debate
verb

1. argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.

 

[Kenny]

This is a debate forum, argument is in the definition, it's pretty much de rigueur. If you want agreement I believe there are many forum on this site that provide that?



Debate would be pretty much impossible without different view points. I'm also not the one telling others whether they can have an abortion or not, or telling others what they can and cannot do with their bodies or not.



debate
verb

1. argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.

then let's argue cogently
ADJECTIVE

• (of an argument or case) clear, logical, and convincing.

 

[Luchito Prays]

Most "answered" prayers are selection bias, where people record the successes, and ignore the failures, "god is mysterious" etc. They also often involve a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, this is especially true when the person using the fallacy perceives the outcome as extremely unlikely. We also know that intercessory prayer has been tested, using double blind clinical trials involving the recovery of post op heart patients, the results demonstrated unequivocally that the prayers had no discernible effect. Of course most believers are not interested in such facts, and this is dismissed with handwaving, "god can't be tested" etc, yet how many ties have we seen apologists try to claim science evidences a deity. It's hard to ignore such bias, if one wants reasoning as objectively as possible.

I'm more skeptic than you. If I was Judas I would ask for Yeshu's (Jesus) autopsy.

I witnessed a very weird case that goes in accord to prayer and an answer to it.

I used to visit a Pentecostal church decades ago. It happens that one day, one of the members of this church, working as a painter, put the aluminum ladder over the electrical cables outside a house. The electric power caused him to have his body twisted as fetus inside the womb. He was taken to the emergency room at the hospital. He can't speak, and showed no signs to understand what was going on around him. His respiration was not calm but intense, like him trying hard to survive.

I was called by phone to give me the news, and after having the hospital address I showed up over there.

The guys from that church were so many, that the waiting room was full. They were told to take turns in groups of three persons at the time to enter into the patient's room.

Suddenly, the patient started to have one of those attacks, shaking like crazy and the guys who were with him were told to go and stay in the waiting room with the rest of people.

All of them were very curious about what was going on in that room, so you can see them blocking the door and window view with their bodies. All their eyes watching the nurses and doctors trying to bring back to life the guy in the bed.

And I say to myself, Are these dudes religious people? What are they doing?

I got mad, because to me, they weren't showing what a believer would do in similar cases, so from behind that bunch of people I told them straight without hesitation

-What the heck are you doing?! Can't you see your brother is dying?! What are you doing like stupid people just watching him die?!

They turned their faces towards me, and without any agreement between them, they immediately were on their knees, some of them with their Bible in their hand rose up, but all of them praying loud while some of them started to cry while doing so.

Now, with a clear view of what was going on in the other room, I saw that the nurses started to take away the machine connected to the guy, everybody i that room with sad face, I guess they just quit trying to keep him alive.

But when the guys in the waiting room continued with their pray and cried like women, I saw that one of the nurses picking up the instruments to leave the room, she smiled and called back the other nurses and doctors who were already in the hallway.

They returned back, and connected back the machine to the patient with their faces with a kind of incredibility but also with happiness.

The guys praying and crying didn't know what was going on in the other room.A nurse came to the waiting room to tell them the good news.

That day I went home, trying to decipher what the hell happened over there.

To me was just a coincidence that at the moment, when they were praying harder, the patient showed to have signs of life again.

What a coincidence, right?

 

[Sheldon]

then let's argue cogently
ADJECTIVE

• (of an argument or case) clear, logical, and convincing.

When you offer a cogent response to something I've actually said, instead of shooting the messenger or offering irrelevant defensive platitudes, then I will give it due diligence. I have not yet seen a rational argument for an extant deity. Perhaps you have one you'd like to share?

 

[Wildswanderer]

The more empirical one is in his assessment of what is true about the world, the more his reality gravitates to a common reality that transcends culture, time, and place, and the better prepared he is to navigate that reality.

And what reality is that? For most people it includes the existence of God(s).

 

[Wildswanderer]

You're trying to legislate reality with arbitrary definitions again.

And you do the exact same thing.

 

[Sheldon]

That day I went home, trying to decipher what the hell happened over there.

To me was just a coincidence that at the moment, when they were praying harder, the patient showed to have signs of life again.

What a coincidence, right?

I have no idea, this is just an anecdote, and there's not enough data or evidence to come to any sound conclusions. I don't believe the praying had anything to do with the man's recovery of course, since there is no evidence to support that. People get electrocuted all the time and survive. I stuck a screwdriver into a connection once after allowing myself to be distracted momentarily, and had not turned it off at the mains, 240 volts was a stark reminder to take more care. There were no prayers of course, just a lot of swearing, do you think that the vituperation might have saved me, or was it just a coincidence?

 

[Sheldon]

And what reality is that? For most people it includes the existence of God(s).

There is only one reality, how people perceive it may vary, but reality does not. Some people perceive a flat earth as real, do you think that makes it real?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm more skeptic than you. If I was Judas I would ask for Yeshu's (Jesus) autopsy.

I witnessed a very weird case that goes in accord to prayer and an answer to it.

I used to visit a Pentecostal church decades ago. It happens that one day, one of the members of this church, working as a painter, put the aluminum ladder over the electrical cables outside a house. The electric power caused him to have his body twisted as fetus inside the womb. He was taken to the emergency room at the hospital. He can't speak, and showed no signs to understand what was going on around him. His respiration was not calm but intense, like him trying hard to survive.

I was called by phone to give me the news, and after having the hospital address I showed up over there.

The guys from that church were so many, that the waiting room was full. They were told to take turns in groups of three persons at the time to enter into the patient's room.

Suddenly, the patient started to have one of those attacks, shaking like crazy and the guys who were with him were told to go and stay in the waiting room with the rest of people.

All of them were very curious about what was going on in that room, so you can see them blocking the door and window view with their bodies. All their eyes watching the nurses and doctors trying to bring back to life the guy in the bed.

And I say to myself, Are these dudes religious people? What are they doing?

I got mad, because to me, they weren't showing what a believer would do in similar cases, so from behind that bunch of people I told them straight without hesitation

-What the heck are you doing?! Can't you see your brother is dying?! What are you doing like stupid people just watching him die?!

They turned their faces towards me, and without any agreement between them, they immediately were on their knees, some of them with their Bible in their hand rose up, but all of them praying loud while some of them started to cry while doing so.

Now, with a clear view of what was going on in the other room, I saw that the nurses started to take away the machine connected to the guy, everybody i that room with sad face, I guess they just quit trying to keep him alive.

But when the guys in the waiting room continued with their pray and cried like women, I saw that one of the nurses picking up the instruments to leave the room, she smiled and called back the other nurses and doctors who were already in the hallway.

They returned back, and connected back the machine to the patient with their faces with a kind of incredibility but also with happiness.

The guys praying and crying didn't know what was going on in the other room.A nurse came to the waiting room to tell them the good news.

That day I went home, trying to decipher what the hell happened over there.

To me was just a coincidence that at the moment, when they were praying harder, the patient showed to have signs of life again.

What a coincidence, right?

Yep. That was a coincidence. They happen all of the time. This is exactly the sort of prayer that was shown not to work with scientific studies on the efficacy of prayer When a proper study was done, that means a large study with many patients, not just with one, they found no effect. In fact if the patient knew that they were being prayed for, though this was just one of the studies, they did worse. But with many patients there was no trend when it came to prayer.

You are relying on one example. That is far too often just coincidence. By itself it is not evidence, it is merely an anecdote. To be evidence one needs to have a large body of data where both successes and failures are recorded. Your single example does not prove that prayer works any more than one single example of a person dying does not prove that prayer is harmful.

 

[Luchito Prays]

I find that claim pretty dubious tbh, as he was extremely disparaging about the bible. Also this has nothing to do with the original claim, from a theist, who asserted only theists have wisdom. A claim that is demonstrably false.

I also don't care what Einstein's personal beliefs were. Sir Isaac Newton believed in the hokum superstition of alchemy and astrology, all this shows is that we should not assume a genius is infallible, as that is when we start using appeals to authority fallacies.

Issac Newton got lots of things right, like when wrote Opticks saying that light is a particle. He wrote of light's transformation. However, other ideas from him do not go well after reviews/

But, how he managed to have his theories accepted?

Very simple. He was a huge dude with hands big and strong. When he finished his presentation, he asked if someone was in disagreement with his ideas. If someone didn't agree with him, then Newton showed his big fist against him. After that, everybody was in complete agreement with his theories.Bad tongues say he hit dudes in those conferences, and always got his ideas to be accepted.

With Einstein was something similar. A dude called Eddington was his fanatic, and made make ups to the plaques from the 1919 expeditions telescopes, in order to make Einstein's prediction to win against Newton's prediction.

When you review the history of science, you will find lots of corruption. Today, is still the same.

The beliefs of those two guys are also a concern.

But between both of them, Newton got right lots of his ideas, while Einstein doesn't go further than his photoelectric, because his relativity theories are just pure imaginations, not science at all. Definitively physical reality and the God don't accept his relativity theories.

You are very confused with the words genius and wise.

An abstract art dude can be a genius with his creations, but such won't make him wise.

Get it?