Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think you or I with our finite view can legitimately say that God does things in a monstrous way when we can't know all the details, see the entire picture, or comprehend the eternal dimension and ramifications of a situation.

This is some deeply messed up thinking, IMO. If we followed it seriously, it would end up with some very morally problematic thinking: "maybe the earthquake was a good thing. Yes, it toppled some buildings and destroyed a daycare, but maybe there's some hidden good in all those crushed kids that we aren't seeing."

Also, if you took it seriously, you would apply it to any consequence, not just the consequences you attribute to God's actions: "Your honour, I ask for leniency in sentencing. Yes, he really did mean to commit this murder, but who among us can be sure that he wasn't doing the world a favour by shooting his innocent victim? Maybe the world is better off because of what he did, and this should be reflected in his sentence."

Maybe you could more clearly elaborate exactly what you mean here or the point you are making.

Take the earthquake example I gave: if the earthquake and all its suffering is "God's will" and a net good somehow, then it would be wrong - or at least wrong-headed - to try to go against God's plan by trying to alleviate that suffering.

OTOH, anyone who has declared through their action that the suffering of the earthquake is bad and that it ought to be alleviated by, say, doing search & rescue, providing medical care, and preventing future catastrophes by rebuilding the city to better seismic standards is demonstrating through their actions that they believe that the suffering is not a net good, and probably that it ought not to have happened in the first place.

Any time a Christian, in the name of Christian charity, helps relieve someone's suffering, hunger, affliction, etc., they're saying through their actions that they believe the world is more perfect with that problem fixed than with it left unaddressed.

 

[Peter Sawrie]

There already is proof God exists: you. The fact that you exist is proof God is.

Nope... the fact that I exist is ONLY proof that I had parents that procreated. FIRST you would need to provide verifiable evidence that some 'god' exists and THEN you'd need do demonstrate that it was this god that is responsible for my existence.

Can a conscious being exist without eternal consciousness first existing?

Since there is no verifiable evidence that any sort of 'eternal consciousness' exists and we know that conscious beings do exist, then it certainly seems possible if not likely that conscious beings can exist without some 'eternal consciousness' existing first.

People fail to realize that the only factual evidence is consciousness and facts must be used to create theories, or they are not reasonable: nor can they be

I don't understand what you mean by 'the only factual evidence is consciousness'. It is true that people use their consciousness to determine what is and what isn't factual evidence, but that's hardly the same as saying consciousness is the 'only factual evidence'. I agree that you must use factual evidence to establish theories. Unfortunately, as noted above, you have NOT provided any factual evidence for the the claims that you made.

 

[Peter Sawrie]

There already is proof God exists: you. The fact that you exist is proof God is.

Nope... the fact that I exist is ONLY proof that I had parents that procreated. FIRST you would need to provide verifiable evidence that some 'god' exists and THEN you'd need do demonstrate that it was this god that is responsible for my existence.

Can a conscious being exist without eternal consciousness first existing?

Since there is no verifiable evidence that any sort of 'eternal consciousness' exists and we know that conscious beings do exist, then it certainly seems possible if not likely that conscious beings can exist without some 'eternal consciousness' existing first.

People fail to realize that the only factual evidence is consciousness and facts must be used to create theories, or they are not reasonable: nor can they be

I don't understand what you mean by 'the only factual evidence is consciousness'. It is true that people use their consciousness to determine what is and what isn't factual evidence, but that's hardly the same as saying consciousness is the 'only factual evidence'. I agree that you must use factual evidence to establish theories. Unfortunately, as noted above, you have NOT provided any factual evidence for the the claims that you made.

You cannot prove my existence outside of your own consciousness, nor your parents. You only know for sure that you exist: it is the only factual piece of evidence that you have. There is a book by Robert Lanza called Biocentrism that clearly shows all the quantum physic studies can only be understood properly when you understand that consciousness is creating matter not the other way around. You have absolutely no evidence that the physical world exists outside of consciousness all you know for sure is your own existence not that of your parents.

 

[Peter Sawrie]

Um, not even decent evidence of the existence of a God. It shows, given known biology, that my parents existed. Not much more.


I don't see why not. Consciousness evolved just like our other abilities.



And I see no reason why the bare existence of consciousness implies the existence of any sort of deity.

You cannot prove my existence outside of your own consciousness, nor your parents either. You only know for sure that you exist: it is the only factual piece of evidence that you have. There is a book by Robert Lanza called Biocentrism that clearly shows all the quantum physic studies can only be understood properly when you understand that consciousness is creating matter not the other way around. You have absolutely no evidence that the physical world exists outside of consciousness all you know for sure is your own existence, not that of your parents.

 

[Peter Sawrie]

And if we eventually discover that many other animals do have some form of consciousness - possibly a step towards ours - and that this has developed over time as all the various species became more complex, will that change your mind? Is their existence proof for them?

You cannot prove their existence of your own consciousness. You only know for sure that you exist: it is the only factual piece of evidence that you have. There is a book by Robert Lanza called Biocentrism that clearly shows all the quantum physic studies can only be understood properly when you understand that consciousness is creating matter, not the other way around. You have absolutely no evidence that the physical world exists outside of consciousness, all you know for sure is your own existence.

 

[Polymath257]

You cannot prove my existence outside of your own consciousness, nor your parents either. You only know for sure that you exist: it is the only factual piece of evidence that you have. There is a book by Robert Lanza called Biocentrism that clearly shows all the quantum physic studies can only be understood properly when you understand that consciousness is creating matter not the other way around. You have absolutely no evidence that the physical world exists outside of consciousness all you know for sure is your own existence, not that of your parents.

I see, so retreat to solipsism and quantum woo. Not very convincing, I have to say.

 

[viole]

You mean if there was proof. Evidence is not proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

I am not aware that we can prove anything, apart from analytical propositions (aka math).

So, no, if I had evidence I would not need to believe. Belief is left to those claims which have no evidence. Like the belief in Gods.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

We only need one God, since God is All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and All-Wise.

That does not prevent from there being two, or more, all-whatever.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You cannot prove my existence outside of your own consciousness, nor your parents either. You only know for sure that you exist: it is the only factual piece of evidence that you have. There is a book by Robert Lanza called Biocentrism that clearly shows all the quantum physic studies can only be understood properly when you understand that consciousness is creating matter not the other way around. You have absolutely no evidence that the physical world exists outside of consciousness all you know for sure is your own existence, not that of your parents.

IOW: "we can't really know anything, so why not make up a god or two?"

 

[viole]

I understand why you think that way but that is a Catch-22 since you cannot establish the existence of God without a Messenger of God, one who speaks as a Representative of God.

If people bothered to really think about this it would become obvious why God would use a Messenger to establish His existence. God is not a man who can show up on Earth so how else could God prove His existence. I have been asking atheists this question for years, but I still have not received any reasonable answers.

Well, the atheist, as any rational person should do, is think like this:

God is almighty. If He managed to make Himself known to the middle man, aka prophet, why not to the the rest, as well? That should be quite easy. According to the Bible He did it all the time.

Actually, the fact that you take seriously the middle men is self defeating, for it entails that

1) either God can make Himself known to humans and you do not need middle men, or

2) He cannot, in which case the middle man just made things up.

The latter being the most obvious conclusion. Since not existing things cannot do anything.

Ciao

- viole

 

[InChrist]

If the bible interpreted and clarified itself, then please explain why there are more than 50,000 different sects of christianity each with a different interpretations of their preferred version of the hundreds of different versions of the bible?

I believe the Bible is consistent in what it says, yet people superimpose their own thoughts, motives, and ideas upon the scriptures.

Yet i i provided a couple of verses that state otherwise. And there are many more.

Yet, as I pointed out the verses you provided do not say God created sin and there are no verses anywhere in the Bible which say that God creates sin. It is impossible for God to create sin because sin is something contrary and less than the perfection of God.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe the Bible is consistent in what it says, yet people superimpose their own thoughts, motives, and ideas upon the scriptures.



Yet, as I pointed out the verses you provided do not say God created sin and there are no verses anywhere in the Bible which say that God creates sin. It is impossible for God to create sin because sin is something contrary and less than the perfection of God.

I have read 3 different versions of the bible, it it not consistent,

Actually they do. * form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. *

 

[QuestioningMind]

You cannot prove my existence outside of your own consciousness, nor your parents. You only know for sure that you exist: it is the only factual piece of evidence that you have. There is a book by Robert Lanza called Biocentrism that clearly shows all the quantum physic studies can only be understood properly when you understand that consciousness is creating matter not the other way around. You have absolutely no evidence that the physical world exists outside of consciousness all you know for sure is your own existence not that of your parents.

I already agreed that it is only a conscious mind that can seek out factual evidence.

What I'm waiting for is your verifiable evidence for the claims you made. What is your evidence for an 'eternal consciousness'? And how is the reality of my consciousness existing in any way shape or form evidence for some god being?

 

[InChrist]

This is some deeply messed up thinking, IMO. If we followed it seriously, it would end up with some very morally problematic thinking: "maybe the earthquake was a good thing. Yes, it toppled some buildings and destroyed a daycare, but maybe there's some hidden good in all those crushed kids that we aren't seeing."

Also, if you took it seriously, you would apply it to any consequence, not just the consequences you attribute to God's actions: "Your honour, I ask for leniency in sentencing. Yes, he really did mean to commit this murder, but who among us can be sure that he wasn't doing the world a favour by shooting his innocent victim? Maybe the world is better off because of what he did, and this should be reflected in his sentence."

I don't think that is the way it works because no one among us can determine such things. As finite humans we do not have the prerogative to know at all whether the world is better off because of some disaster or not. Besides, the scriptures have also stated that this world is fallen due to sin and therefore bad things occur, such as earthquakes. Murdering innocent people is clearly against God's law. I think your argument falls flat.

Take the earthquake example I gave: if the earthquake and all its suffering is "God's will" and a net good somehow, then it would be wrong - or at least wrong-headed - to try to go against God's plan by trying to alleviate that suffering.

OTOH, anyone who has declared through their action that the suffering of the earthquake is bad and that it ought to be alleviated by, say, doing search & rescue, providing medical care, and preventing future catastrophes by rebuilding the city to better seismic standards is demonstrating through their actions that they believe that the suffering is not a net good, and probably that it ought not to have happened in the first place.

Any time a Christian, in the name of Christian charity, helps relieve someone's suffering, hunger, affliction, etc., they're saying through their actions that they believe the world is more perfect with that problem fixed than with it left unaddressed.

On the contrary, Jesus is our example and while on the earth He demonstrated compassion and alleviated suffering wherever He went. That is what Christians are called to do. This world is full of suffering caused by human sin, which outside of God's will, yet God uses everything to draw people to Himself and bring wholeness.

 

[InChrist]

I have read 3 different versions of the bible, it it not consistent,

Actually they do. * form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. *

As I said, the Hebrew word does mean sin or moral evil. There is no verse in the Bible which says God created sin.

 

[paarsurrey]

the fact that I exist is ONLY proof that I had parents that procreated.

I don't think that one's consciousness is a proof of existence of one's parents .
Please elaborate it.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Can a conscious being exist without eternal consciousness first existing?

Can a conscious human being exist without that human being's parents first existing? Please

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Consciousness evolved just like our other abilities.

The primary thing is one's own consciousness that tells one that one exists. Then this consciousness needs other sources of knowledge to know the existence of others around. What are your sources of knowledge and how do you know that they are 100% correct, please?

Regards

 

[QuestioningMind]

I don't think that one's consciousness is a proof of existence of one's parents .
Please elaborate it.

Regards

As far as I'm aware there has never been an example of consciousness existing without a physical brain. The physical brain that I happen to possess is the result of my parents procreating. Thus my existence is proof that my parents procreated.

Does that clarify matters?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Can a conscious human being exist without that human being's parents first existing? Please

Regards

No they cannot... however my parents, though conscious, were not conscious prior to their birth and I have no reason to believe that they will remain conscious after their death. Thus they are not 'eternal consciousness'.