Can we accept there is no evidence for god

[Ella S.]

First question: Cannot a lie be less harmful than reality, sometimes? There is a film about a man who taken to a prison labor camp. His son is too young to understand what is going on and smuggles himself in with his father. The father is surprised and afraid for his son. He gets his son to believe they are playing a game of extreme hide & seek lasting for days and weeks, hiding from the guards. This saves his son's life. It seems that in this case at least that a lie is better than the truth. The film about it is titled Life is Beautiful, and it is directed by Roberto Benigni So can't a lie be less harmful or even beneficial, and does the father in this film do wrong to his son by lying?

To me, the point of morality isn't to escape pain or death. It doesn't make sense, within my moral framework, to justify lying by appealing to the consequences. Lying disgraces our intellect, regardless of whether it would be less harmful. It harms our character, which is more important than any bodily damage we might incur.

What if a person claims that they believe there is a particular supernatural being who exists but the person does not try to prove it and does not try to convince anyone through evidence or bribe through promises? For example they do not use creationist arguments or show pictures of footprints or act like there is a miracle. So what if they make claims for themselves but do not peddle evidences or promises?

It doesn't matter. If something is incorrect, then it's better to know the truth. It's still important to educate them, nobody should be left behind in the shadows of ignorance. They're less of a priority, though, so in practice there usually isn't much I could do for someone like that beyond one or two discussions.

Expanding on the comment about being a buzzkill: what if it is more than being a buzzkill? For example what if its a person who could die of stress? What if its some other situation in which the timing is very bad to liberate a person? I recall a film called The Matrix in which a hypothetical scenario appears, and one of the characters named 'Morpheous' says "We do not free a mind if it is too old. If it is too old it will reject reality, because it is too used to the matrix." (paraphrasing) What Morpheous suggests is that someone might go crazy were they to know the truth after living with the lie for a long time. That might be more than a buzzkill. What if it were that bad?

Then you do your best to prepare them for it. There is information out there that, to the unprepared mind, can cause incredible stress or even psychological trauma when it's learned. However, through coping mechanisms, contextual framing, and easing them into the information bit by bit, you can still help individuals digest the information.

Infohazards are real, but the answer isn't to just cut people off from knowing them. Luckily, most infohazards don't require lies to keep out of the hands of those who are susceptible to them and, since we have the internet, they are freely available to whoever feels prepared enough to search them out.

Deconversion from religion is traumatic. It's a horrible experience. At the same time, everyone I know who has gone through it is glad that they were "pulled out of the Matrix," so to say. The pragmatic reality of the situation is that it causes more issues to continue living in a lie.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what is the difference between proof and evidence?

Here are my definitions. Proof is that which convinces, and there are different standards for proofs using pure reason like the Pythagorean Theorem and empirical proof, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt - a slightly more subjective standard. In this light we can say that the theory of evolution as been demonstrated to be correct beyond a reasonable doubt, and can call that proven beyond a reasonable doubt even though it is logically possible that a deceptive transhuman presence arranged all of that evidence to fool us.

When the one convinced is an experienced critical thinker who has not made an error, the conclusion will be a sound one and will be correct. Others using laxer standards may consider ideas proven that are incorrect, but since they were convinced, it was proof to them.

Evidence is the noun form of evident, and refers to anything that becomes evident to the senses the moment a change is discerned. What is it evidence of follows, as memory fleshes out the significance of that apprehension (a doorbell, the smell of smoke, a sense of movement out of the corner of one's eye) - that is, what the evidence is evidence of. Anything one considers more or less likely because of that evidence and its interpretation can be said to be evidence for or against an idea to that person. When a skilled evaluator is doing the interpreting, better answers will be entertained.

These aren't simply harmless, but they can actively benefit those who partake in them. They can help lead one to what some psychologists call "self-transcendence," or at the very least feelings of interconnectedness and awe. There's a lot of beauty to that. It's not for me, but I see that it's there for others. It becomes a problem when they're making the claim that some specific supernatural being literally exists when it doesn't.

Agreed. Earth spirits are generally harmless constructs that I equate to Mother Nature - metaphoric anthropomorphizations. The great sin against man and nature was exporting that sacred quality out of the universe to imaginary spirits in nonexistent spaces, and then giving it a voice and a temper. You've described what I call an authentic spiritual experience, since it involves a sense of connection to nature, although mine doesn't require spirits.

it is all there if you choose to look.

Yes, but look through what? You look through a faith-based confirmation bias. The critical thinker is trained to avoid doing that. He learns open-mindedness. He learns to look at the evidence first and seriously consider any compelling conclusion drawn from it whatever that might be. The faith-based thinker reverses this order when he processes information. He's already decided what's true without sufficient supporting evidence, and then processes evidence in that light. We can call one seeing is believing and other believing is seeing.

If you look through my eyes, you see a great and mysterious world, one that inspires awe and a sense of gratitude, of warmth and belonging, as well as a sense of the sacred and transcendent without ever introducing gods or spirits into the mix. Nature alone is enough.

Mathew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" That's faith and logic 101

No, that's just faith. Logic is testing and confirming or disconfirming it.

Because God is invisible: what you are asking for when you ask for evidence for God is a means of disproving God. Don't look for evidence of God, because finding evidence would be a disproof. If you can prove God exists, you have also disproved that God exists; because you have made God into god. This is a feature not a bug.

That feature certainly helps protect religious dicta from critical scrutiny. One simply declares it inapplicable. Don't look for evidence and don't attempt to limit God's possibilities with reason. Also, don't judge God's choices for ethical or intellectual excellence. Of course, by that reckoning, nothing can be said at all about the possibility of gods except that one cannot call them impossible if that's the case, which is that agnostic atheist's position, and your comment should begin with "If God exists." You're assuming the existence of something that you then go on to explain cannot be demonstrated to exist.

We don't have evidence the universe created itself before it existed, but we are fine with thinking that.

I'm not. I say that it seems that one of these things must be the case, that being one of them:

I. The universe has no cause

1. It has always existed

2. It came into existence uncaused

II. Has a prior cause that has either always existed or came into existence uncaused

1. That cause is conscious (a deity)

2. It is an unconscious substance (multiverse)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do not speak for "we" but I can't, because I know there is evidence.

And from all I've seen you write on the subject, I can only think that what you call "evidence" would not be called so by others.

Take John. John claims he has a trillion dollars, and as evidence, he shows you 3 crisp, new $10 bills, and says, "there's more than 33 million of these back at my house."

Then, along comes Bob and says, "hey, I'm missing $30 I just took out of the ATM. I think John must have stolen it. And look, he's got 3 $10 bills that look just like the ones I took out."

Which of these two presented "evidence" for their claim? John, Bob, both or neither?

In my view, the answer is neither presented evidence for their claim. The fact that John has $30 says absolutely nothing about what else he might possess, nor does it say anything about how he came by it. It is hardly unusual, after all, for a human this day and age to have that much money on them at any moment.

 

[Debater Slayer]

And even if it is the God of Classical Monotheism, it's been around for 2,000+ years now. Do people really think we believed in something for 2,000 years with no evidence whatsoever? There were philosophers from all traditions writing philosophical and theological works on this that went above and beyond I imagine what most modern people have ever bothered reading because Richard Dawkins said something so that cleared it all up. If people dismissed science as easily as they dismiss philosophy they'd be pulled up on it more, but because it's philosophy and theology no-one cares.

I think an easy way to demonstrate the flaw with this argument, which seems to me a form of appeal to popularity, is to apply it to two or more mutually exclusive claims:

• "Did people really believe in Christianity for 2,000 years with no evidence whatsoever?"

• "Did people really believe Allah is the only god for 1,400 years with no evidence whatsoever?"

• "Did people really believe in ancient Egyptian gods for millennia with no evidence whatsoever?"

At least one of the above religions must be wrong if either of the other two is right, though, since Islamic theology is fundamentally at odds with the idea that God has a son or manifests as a trinity, and both theologies are at odds with ancient Egyptian polytheism. Intelligent people have believed in all sorts of mutually exclusive claims for millennia, and this doesn't mean that the beliefs must be true. Instead, I would argue that it demonstrates that different arguments convince different people; what I find convincing may not be so to you, and vice versa.

Human psychology is just too diverse to be narrowed down to a shortlist of "convincing evidence" to the exclusion of all other arguments, and so is our range of personal experiences. This is one of the reasons I find both anti-theism and exclusionary forms of religion (e.g., hardline Baptism or fundamentalist Sunni Islam) to be strongly off the mark in their inability to acknowledge or accommodate the diversity of human experiences and psychology.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Thanks for raising this point. To add another, insisting that evidence (however defined) is even important on this matter strikes me as odd. Fixating on evidence is utterly missing the point of accepting gods into one's way of life. So much so that I often have a hard time understanding this misplaced obsession. Like, you've got this thing in your life that inspires awe and wonder, meaning and gratitude, and someone goes and yelps "BUT ITZ NOT REALZ." Er, kay? Buzzkill much?

I think the focus on evidence is possibly more an outcome of specific religious claims than it is an outcome of anti-theistic attitudes. Consider an especially preachy religion like Sunni Islam or Jehovah's Witnesses: they both generally claim to be universally applicable, and they both attempt to recruit converts. Once someone claims that a religious belief should be imposed on everyone else or is a universal truth, evidence comfortably enters the equation and becomes a crucial yardstick against which we can measure the belief in question.

I have no inclination to ask someone for evidence for their beliefs if they maintain them as personal. However, if they argue that everyone else should follow their beliefs or that their beliefs should be imposed on other people—as we can see with evangelical Republicans or Islamists in Iran and Saudi Arabia—then they need to provide overwhelming evidence to justify this imposition and claim of universalism. An individual doesn't get to use the "it's just my belief, so I don't need to present any evidence!" card if they derive from their beliefs a position that affects others such as support for abortion bans, banning the teaching of evolution in classrooms, or opposition to same-sex marriage.

 

[Trailblazer]

And from all I've seen you write on the subject, I can only think that what you call "evidence" would not be called so by others.

And from all I've seen other people write on the subject, I can only think that what I call "evidence" is evidence to some people but not to atheists.

 

[Brickjectivity]

To me, the point of morality isn't to escape pain or death. It doesn't make sense, within my moral framework, to justify lying by appealing to the consequences. Lying disgraces our intellect, regardless of whether it would be less harmful. It harms our character, which is more important than any bodily damage we might incur.

It doesn't matter. If something is incorrect, then it's better to know the truth. It's still important to educate them, nobody should be left behind in the shadows of ignorance. They're less of a priority, though, so in practice there usually isn't much I could do for someone like that beyond one or two discussions.

Then you do your best to prepare them for it. There is information out there that, to the unprepared mind, can cause incredible stress or even psychological trauma when it's learned. However, through coping mechanisms, contextual framing, and easing them into the information bit by bit, you can still help individuals digest the information.

Infohazards are real, but the answer isn't to just cut people off from knowing them. Luckily, most infohazards don't require lies to keep out of the hands of those who are susceptible to them and, since we have the internet, they are freely available to whoever feels prepared enough to search them out.

Deconversion from religion is traumatic. It's a horrible experience. At the same time, everyone I know who has gone through it is glad that they were "pulled out of the Matrix," so to say. The pragmatic reality of the situation is that it causes more issues to continue living in a lie.

Thank you for taking the time to read my questions and for your honest replies.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That feature certainly helps protect religious dicta from critical scrutiny. One simply declares it inapplicable. Don't look for evidence and don't attempt to limit God's possibilities with reason. Also, don't judge God's choices for ethical or intellectual excellence. Of course, by that reckoning, nothing can be said at all about the possibility of gods except that one cannot call them impossible if that's the case, which is that agnostic atheist's position, and your comment should begin with "If God exists." You're assuming the existence of something that you then go on to explain cannot be demonstrated to exist.

Its a feature which distinguishes God from gods and is one of God's most atheistic attributes. In a world of superstitions and governments using those superstitions to oppress people the gods with their afterlife become a tool for instigating wars and for slandering other groups. If God is used for the same purpose then (I think) it is best either to reform our understanding of God or to challenge God, until god becomes God again. If this destroys God then amen. I have no objection to destroying gods or God either if God be so tainted.

Favorite of mine: "If baal really is a god, then he can defend himself!" Judges 6:31. Too quickly people forget this and start mounting a defense of God, demonstrating that they have lost sight of what matters: People.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

At least one of the above religions must be wrong if either of the other two is right,

That could be the flaw. Drawing that conclusion. It may be the evidence will confirm them all, it may be it only needs a larger context.

The quandary is our relative understanding born out of nature and nurture. How far are we willing to expand our frames of references?

Regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And from all I've seen other people write on the subject, I can only think that what I call "evidence" is evidence to some people but not to atheists.

Certainly true. I just have to point out -- to all those who like to quote scripture or the writings of so-called "prophets" and "messengers" as "evidence" -- that unless you can demonstrate that those writings could not have been written by humans alone, without divine help, they are certainly not that. They are only evidence of what some people thought.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..unless you can demonstrate that those writings could not have been written by humans alone, without divine help, they are certainly not that. They are only evidence of what some people thought.

Well, there we are.
Some people think about God, and wonder whether they might be true, and ponder on their message..

..and other people don't want to bother looking at what they say, because they want somebody else to do the work, and tell them that they must prove it to them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Certainly true. I just have to point out -- to all those who like to quote scripture or the writings of so-called "prophets" and "messengers" as "evidence" -- that unless you can demonstrate that those writings could not have been written by humans alone, without divine help, they are certainly not that. They are only evidence of what some people thought.

Of course, nobody can demonstrate that those writings could not have been written by humans alone, without divine help.

Dozens if not hundreds of times I have said that the scriptures are NOT the evidence.
The evidence is the Person of the Messenger and what He did on His mission.

Of course, nobody can demonstrate that the Person of the Messenger and what He did on His mission means He was a Messenger of God. If one is to believe that, it has to be believed on faith and reason.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, there we are.
Some people think about God, and wonder whether they might be true, and ponder on their message..

..and other people don't want to bother looking at what they say, because they want somebody else to do the work, and tell them that they must prove it to them.

You are, as so often, quite wrong. You probably haven't read all I've written on RF, but let me assure you, I have detailed knowledge of scripture -- more than many religious people I know -- because I am a reader and have been a reader for almost all of my 75 years. I was reading on my own at 3, and have never stopped. I read because I am interested in learning, and I put in the hard work to learn. When I read something that seems to make little sense, or to contradict what I think I know, I track down other sources to see what I can learn. I have read the works of the "early Christian fathers" (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias of Hierapolis) and much more. I've read Aquinas, and Augustine, and Bart Ehrmann and Shelby Spong.

Don't tell me I can't be bothered, or want somebody else to do my work for me. I read them all and and where they made stupid logical errors, I learned that they -- like so many others -- were blinded to truth by a misplaced trust in faith, and by all the usual human failures in logic. Principal among them, choosing what they will see as "evidence" and what they won't.

That last, so that you can try to understand, is called "confirmation bias."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course, nobody can demonstrate that the Person of the Messenger and what He did on His mission means He was a Messenger of God. If one is to believe that, it has to be believed on faith and reason.

Corrected. You have yet to learn that you cannot "reason" without having at least something upon which to base your reasoning. If you can't demonstrate that what he did means he was a "Messenger of God," then reason cannot take you anywhere. You are left with faith -- also known as belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

Corrected. You have yet to learn that you cannot "reason" without having at least something upon which to base your reasoning. If you can't demonstrate that what he did means he was a "Messenger of God," then reason cannot take you anywhere. You are left with faith -- also known as belief.

I have plenty to base my reasoning upon.
I cannot 'prove' that any man is a Messenger of God since I cannot ever prove that God exists...
Thus I have to believe in God and the Messenger on faith coupled with evidence, if I am going to believe at all.
That is called reasoning.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are, as so often, quite wrong. You probably haven't read all I've written on RF, but let me assure you, I have detailed knowledge of scripture..

..that maybe true, but you said: "unless you can demonstrate that those writings could not have been written by humans alone, without divine help, they are certainly not that"

..so do you say this because of something you read?
..if so, what exactly?

 

[CG Didymus]

Why wait, it is all there if you choose to look.

That advice given thousands of years ago.

Mathew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you"

That's faith and logic 101

So the sources of evidence have been given, now you need to "seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you"

Regards Tony

And those that read those words in the New Testament find whom? Jesus or Baha'u'llah? I'd bet that it is Jesus. And what else do we learn from the NT? That we are born sinners and need to be saved by accepting that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins? That Satan and hell are real? That Jesus conquered death? Oh, and back to be born sinners, that we inherited a sin nature because of Adam's sin? That same Adam that Baha'is claim is a manifestation of God? It doesn't help the Baha'is cause to cherry-pick the Bible and the NT. Because now you have to not only show the Baha'i evidence for God. and the evidence that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God, but now you have to show the evidence for how the Baha'is interpret the Bible and the NT. And who knows, maybe the Baha'is are right, but what is the evidence.

 

[rational experiences]

Evidence. I know I'm not God.

I thesis G O D based on scientific precept. My own. Observations. Human present. Human thinking. Humans told stories. Total biology first in number one by legal.

Not number one by science.

A man. Human. The base I stand upon walking is rock. I'm freely moving. God terms fixed.

The highest base rock opened O into a pre mass. Red Black melt mass. Dense hot black not really light. A hole.

I state it's notified advice by my consciousness man human I recognised. By the gases water oxygen visions my bio mind gained.

Science he says is about man only exact. exact reasons. Exact reason about why we reason. About my own survival.

Not how he theoried now already consciously removed. Non bio genetalia recognition it's proof. Child sex adult in natural law mind changed not in natural laws is proven.

As he pretends man owns all types of body mases as types only in the body masses. As it's body mass owned. So he's proven lying.

It's the concept I must only theory man's position self inclusive he now ignores. To be taught. To have realised from his own old historic self destructive human choices.

Science of man. It's theist.

Exact. I must tell my own human truth or I'll be destroyed. Fact.

So he had. O G O D it's position is highest greatest. Observed reason.

Why now he uses flat plane or line theories. As only space the hole is a flat plane as space a hole. Mass passed through it now are dusts at the bottom of a sink hole.

Mans conscious position earth rock.

Therefore practice of science is satanic destruction only. Also taught.

How do you realise that cold it's extreme cause is all that supports anything existing in its own form?

As it's not the same cold for all things.

You have to impose relativity idealism of a not fact of factual advice. Using numbers related by man to his imposed conditions chosen. To be agreed as sciences man's only notification if you were to survive sciences lying.

A man claiming life began as black mass. As God.

As every thesis the equals answer as factual body type advice says no human no human no hu man no human no human again and again and again.

Until a theist says only a living monkey with everything else its highest body masses or separated living conditions to then a human.

Human life Some extra cell mass. Some greater chemical responses. A higher dominion intelligence. Correct theism but not a theory thesis.

So science says by fact for humans self survival a monkey is a humans god. As exact pre type thought observed imaged advices by men say so.

Not for any other reason than self human survival. Was a human told a monkey is your god. Don't look anywhere else or at anything dead. As all origins biology is only now Skeletal dusts not living.

Your baby human is now by law your creator being. Your human bio future as each adult theist human now is dusts also.

Past human dusts...future human thinking now dusts as future human.

Taught exactly as humans highest wisdom.

As it's not a thesis why a human is accepted first. As the human is its own god. By description highest greatest.

Yet highest greatest in science coldest terms isn't human.

Basic science. Humans aren't another humans scientific thesis. Legal already owned agreed to those clauses.

The church a medical healing built building for designed resonations. By building design. Once owned no seats you laid upon the floor. Prostrated to God in full awareness I'm assisted to heal...with great thanks. Father.

Medical Branch. Highest human reality to assist family.

 

[CG Didymus]

Some may come to those radical conclusions, but they would be not be true to the advice given in the Message of the Baha'i Faith about the oneness shared by all faiths. I would offer the Bible needs to be embraced as reliable spiritual evidence of God. It is also reliable evidence of a Revelation.

This is from the Baha'i Writings

"INSCRIPTION IN THE OLD BIBLE
Written by Abdul Baha in Persian

THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God, Abdul Baha Abbas."

Unfortunately there are not of records from that age about the life of Jesus, but what therre is, does portray that Jesus was seen by many to be more than a man, a great reforming force of faith in God.

Regards Tony

Do you believe all of this? Because I thought Baha'is believe that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead. Yet, the NT says he showed himself to be alive.

Luke 24: 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive.

36... Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

Acts 1:1I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive.
​

 

[CG Didymus]

I think an easy way to demonstrate the flaw with this argument, which seems to me a form of appeal to popularity, is to apply it to two or more mutually exclusive claims:

• "Did people really believe in Christianity for 2,000 years with no evidence whatsoever?"

• "Did people really believe Allah is the only god for 1,400 years with no evidence whatsoever?"

• "Did people really believe in ancient Egyptian gods for millennia with no evidence whatsoever?"

At least one of the above religions must be wrong if either of the other two is right, though, since Islamic theology is fundamentally at odds with the idea that God has a son or manifests as a trinity, and both theologies are at odds with ancient Egyptian polytheism. Intelligent people have believed in all sorts of mutually exclusive claims for millennia, and this doesn't mean that the beliefs must be true. Instead, I would argue that it demonstrates that different arguments convince different people; what I find convincing may not be so to you, and vice versa.

Human psychology is just too diverse to be narrowed down to a shortlist of "convincing evidence" to the exclusion of all other arguments, and so is our range of personal experiences. This is one of the reasons I find both anti-theism and exclusionary forms of religion (e.g., hardline Baptism or fundamentalist Sunni Islam) to be strongly off the mark in their inability to acknowledge or accommodate the diversity of human experiences and psychology.

Yes, the ancient gods were easy to prove. Someone asks, "How do we know the god of rain is real?" "It's obvious. We sacrificed a virgin and two days later it rained."