an anarchist
Your local loco.
Perhaps if I read through the thousands of replies from recent threads I would see. Time to get reading some more
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can we accept there is no evidence for god
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
That was the answer to the OP by John53.
Except, there is proof and facts to be found in the evidence.
Many of those facts and proof require us to use logic and reason from a rational mind.
The rational mind that is independent of the body.
Regards Tony
I eagerly await proof of God.
And I'm heading to the sports bet app to put everything I have on it not being revealed.
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
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is a claim of evidence. It does not demonstrate any.
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.
Exactly. It’s not science; it’s belief.
The same book Baha'i tell me to ignore.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
Precisely.
There are so many different conceptions of what gods are, what divinity is, and so on. Many of them are completely irrelevant to my life. Some mystics define God as the "root of consciousness" or using purely apophatic theology. Some people personify the wind, the weather, or the seasons as various deities for cultural or personal reasons, knowing full well that their gods are just a specific way of looking at natural forces.
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. That's when it becomes misinformation. For so many reasons, misinformation is harmful. People who do this have essentially wrapped their whole lives around a lie. Yes, I would like to liberate them from that, and I don't think that's being a buzzkill.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not speak for "we" but I can't, because I know there is evidence.
Some can, some can't.
That's OK with me.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
If people want to have fun with their mental puppets and religious hobbies, thinking it's all real and what not, they should go on with it if it makes them happy.
Can we accept there is no evidence for god?
I would argue 'not so fast' as we might be confusing the words 'evidence' and 'proof'.
And even before that we need a definition of 'god'.
I would argue there are aspects to reality that suggest this universe is more than a random happening and that there is some type of transcendent intelligence involved. That is 'evidence for god' but not proof.
If there was absolutely 'no evidence' then we wouldn't have any intelligent believers.
I would argue 'not so fast' as we might be confusing the words 'evidence' and 'proof'.
And even before that we need a definition of 'god'.
I would argue there are aspects to reality that suggest this universe is more than a random happening and that there is some type of transcendent intelligence involved. That is 'evidence for god' but not proof.
If there was absolutely 'no evidence' then we wouldn't have any intelligent believers.
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
This part of your post makes me want to hear your opinion on slightly tangent questions.
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?
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?
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?
I've learnt you offer a lot of claims but the evidence part is missing
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
God is not based upon evidence. That's the whole point of faith.
We don't have evidence the universe created itself before it existed, but we are fine with thinking that.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
It really depends on what is regarded as evidence. If someone were to ask me for evidence of one of my gods, I would simply point to the thunderstorm.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Proof is a formalized method to show that a statement is true, given the axioms are true. Maths is the discipline that uses proof and philosophy, to a degree.
Evidence is a measurement that is in accordance with a hypothesis, especially if the measurement was predicted by the hypothesis. A hypothesis that has successfully predicted multiple measurements without failure is promoted to theory. Science only deals with evidence, not proofs.
So, if your god is a philosophical concept, you need proof. If it is real, i.e. detectable by a scientific measurement, you can have evidence.
Evidence is also used in jurisdiction. If you accuse a god of existing you may also bring evidence which may be of non scientific nature, e.g. testimony. In that case the judge, i.e. the person you want to convince, may find the evidence admissible or not. They may also find the evidence as correct but out-weight by counter evidence.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
The themed reasoning. First by a man.
One type of man.
The baby man. Sacrificed consciousness.
Men thought agreed believed the same.
Same mind inherited star heavens gas fall changed brain.
Versus natural origin human same families DNA. In every nation on earth.
Father's origin life on earth. Natural spiritual man whose advice you ignored. Says our teaching.
Designer thinker men. How to become rich at families losses. First men who became from natural life rich kings and lords.
Then natural man rich king lords chose nuclear earth technologies sun advised.
Changed earths mass earth heavens changed life in every nation.
Man did it directly caused self inherited direct causes.
Men today all make the same claim. Once first the origin body mass type had to be the same.
Changed.
Created all types of bodies.
Hence a body O is separated first to be it's owned identified type of entity.
Why a sun is varied to any planets mass type now in light.
As no man can theory no light as his conscious life does not exist.
To tell truth light has to be present with you to make a humans scientific claim.
As highest coldest clear gas is the sacrificed body light above.
Position carbon is in space void vacuum laws.
If it wasn't true then why does coal mass exist held in mass that is not coal?
Science has been burning gases cold in law heavens above us putting carbon where it doesn't belong.
Life is high percentile bio water. Waters mass exists as waters mass first. Evaporated water off ground owns mass minerals in water mass.
Law history states any mass exists as its own energy type in its mass first why no man is God as we aren't mass.
Therefore all human thinkers agreed once some mass type existed first. And we don't know it.
As science says the law changed is exact.
Unknown was the agreed teaching.
Theists claiming theory now as a human is only about changed bodies that they claim they can change themselves.
If they claim first body types. Then they'd be coldest now. If you changed coldest now we'd all die.
Basic advice.
One type of man.
The baby man. Sacrificed consciousness.
Men thought agreed believed the same.
Same mind inherited star heavens gas fall changed brain.
Versus natural origin human same families DNA. In every nation on earth.
Father's origin life on earth. Natural spiritual man whose advice you ignored. Says our teaching.
Designer thinker men. How to become rich at families losses. First men who became from natural life rich kings and lords.
Then natural man rich king lords chose nuclear earth technologies sun advised.
Changed earths mass earth heavens changed life in every nation.
Man did it directly caused self inherited direct causes.
Men today all make the same claim. Once first the origin body mass type had to be the same.
Changed.
Created all types of bodies.
Hence a body O is separated first to be it's owned identified type of entity.
Why a sun is varied to any planets mass type now in light.
As no man can theory no light as his conscious life does not exist.
To tell truth light has to be present with you to make a humans scientific claim.
As highest coldest clear gas is the sacrificed body light above.
Position carbon is in space void vacuum laws.
If it wasn't true then why does coal mass exist held in mass that is not coal?
Science has been burning gases cold in law heavens above us putting carbon where it doesn't belong.
Life is high percentile bio water. Waters mass exists as waters mass first. Evaporated water off ground owns mass minerals in water mass.
Law history states any mass exists as its own energy type in its mass first why no man is God as we aren't mass.
Therefore all human thinkers agreed once some mass type existed first. And we don't know it.
As science says the law changed is exact.
Unknown was the agreed teaching.
Theists claiming theory now as a human is only about changed bodies that they claim they can change themselves.
If they claim first body types. Then they'd be coldest now. If you changed coldest now we'd all die.
Basic advice.