circumstantial evidence to Gods existence

[Segev Moran]

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.

Its difficult to prove an intangible (God) with a 'tangible' most empirical evidence
...
So I will not debate unless my atheist debate fellow allows what amounts to circumstantial evidence.

So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

 

[Twilight Hue]

Circumstantial evidence isn't enough for proof of anything. Far too vague and subjective to be of any substantial worth to even establish a proper foundation for practical examination, much less a full blown conclusion.

I wouldn't ever accept circumstantial evidence to base a conclusion on.

 

[Segev Moran]

Circumstantial evidence isn't enough for proof of anything. Far too vague and subjective to be of any substantial worth to even establish a proper foundation for practical examination, much less a full blown conclusion.

I wouldn't ever accept circumstantial evidence to base a conclusion on.

I Agree, But I think Open mind is the name of the game here.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I Agree, But I think Open mind is the name of the game here.

Sure, I enjoy speculation with an open mind too and entertaining possibilities.

Sometimes though, certain parameters become defined enough so it becomes a matter of choosing what you actively know vs. what you would like to think, in regards to matters involving viability and possibility.

 

[David T]

Circumstantial evidence isn't enough for proof of anything. Far too vague and subjective to be of any substantial worth to even establish a proper foundation for practical examination, much less a full blown conclusion.

I wouldn't ever accept circumstantial evidence to base a conclusion on.

Does inference and circumstainal mean the same thing?.

 

[sayak83]

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.



So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

I have made the following argument in another as to why materialism is unlikely to be the final word and why the Hindu idea of Brahman may be promising,
As we uncover the workings of the natural world certain things become clear:-

1) Physical entities (matter-energy-space-time) interact with each other in highly predictable ways which we call "laws of nature", "causality" etc. However the reason for the existence of this structured patterns of behavior and their invariable attachment with physical entities is unknown.

2) The laws of nature themselves are mathematical. Mathematics is a domain of abstract and extraordinarily rich non-empirical reality that is "somehow" glued into "stuff" through these laws and accessible to knowledge through rationality. Why should there be such a realm of abstract rational world of mathematics and why they intermingle with stuff via the laws of physics is also not known.

3) Stuff..connected with the mathematical world via the laws of nature, is also extraordinarily and unexpectedly fecund, coalescing in property rich groups with utterly novel qualities and functions starting from molecules, crystals, living things, stars, galaxies and sentient beings. The repeated (and apparently limitless) potential of emerging wholes with novel properties all stacked on top of each other (from molecules to man i.e.) from "stuff" is observable and describable; but why stuff has such emergence potential is unknown.

Certain strands of Hinduism propose that there is something more fundamental than matter-energy, laws of nature, mathematics and consciousness/information. On this more fundamental entity all these domains rest, and of which these various domains are aspects of. And this singular fundamental entity, which is called Brahman, provides the connecting glue and the structural richness around which stuff/mathematics/laws etc. is coalescing to make it manifest in the sensory plane. This provides a "why" explanation rather than a what and how explanation. Such an explanation is needed as the interconnectivity of stuff, laws, maths, information, consciousness and repeated emergence are not mere facts, but extraordinary features that cannot be left unexplained.

And just like biology has provided us with senses to see physical entities and rationality to see mathematics..it has also provided us with inner capabilities, which when honed through meditation or other proper spiritual practices, can help us grasp this fundamental entity undergirding all these domains of knowledge...at least to some extent.

That is the argument that I would ask atheists and materialists to consider.

Further points:-
Is mathematics really a separate realm, or is it also based on empirical experiences?
Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument
Characteristics of Brahman as described in early Upanisads
Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument
Certain predictions that could be confirmed and disconfirmed by science
Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument
How these predictions logically arise from the nature of the proposed entity, Brahman
Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument

 

[Twilight Hue]

Does inference and circumstainal mean the same thing?.

No whenever evidences are used in culmination for establishing a result.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

RF is not my first forum and I'v been been a member here for quite some time, yet I do not recall reading or hearing anyone suggest such an argument. Could you share a few examples?

 

[Evie]

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.



So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

Consider the following: A scientist claimed to be able to create life as the elements pertaining to the creation of a human can all be found in dirt. So, to begin his demonstration he grabbed a handful of dirt from the ground. A voice boomed down from the sky saying. 'GET YOUR OWN DIRT'.

 

[Evie]

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.



So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

To prove an intangible God. Consider the following: A scientist claimed he could make a human himself because the elements which constitute a human being can all be found in dirt. So, to begin his demonstration he grabbed a handful of dirt from the ground. A voice boomed down from the sky saying, 'GET YOUR OWN DIRT'.

 

[miodrag]

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.

So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.)

Circumstantial evidence is nothing more but an invitation to believe. We may choose to accept suggestions, and then see if a useful idea or a result comes out. But evidence may be understood in a very strict way.

I wrote in another post:

Descartes explained this a long time ago: cogito ergo sum - that is the only truth we can have. We can only prove that we are real, and we can prove that to ourselves only. And that is the starting point in philosophy. Every other knowledge is founded on belief. We have to believe that if I am certainly real, then there may be others, who know the same, and we can get in a relationship and explore further etc. But if one is a radical skeptic, refusing to accept even that, then no other knowledge is possible except cogito ergo sum. Radical skeptic can know nothing else.

So it is not useful to be a radical skeptic. And you are expected to accept suggestions. It is only normal. However, in the strict scientific and philosophical sense, it will be never possible to prove that God exist. In fact, to a skeptic, you cannot prove that even you exist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.



So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

Of course there is evidence for God:

Tangible/material: Biological, Cosmological, History, Prophecy, Biblical Accuracy

Intangible/immaterial: Logic, Teleology, Ontology, Love, Justice, Absolutes

What is also clear IMHO is that propensities/biases lean BOTH ways--a person open to God (most people) says, "God's existence is self-evident to me" and skeptics say, "I have no evidence for God--oh, wow, look how 15B Light Years of Universe formed inside a stretched void!"

This is akin to twin fetuses in a uterus saying to each other, "Mom, what mom? I've never had evidence of a mom?"

 

[jonathan180iq]

I respect a lot of what you post, which shouldn't need to be said. But I'd like you to tell me how these three quoted segments below are evidence for anything other than an argument from ignorance...

1) Physical entities (matter-energy-space-time) interact with each other in highly predictable ways which we call "laws of nature", "causality" etc. However the reason for the existence of this structured patterns of behavior and their invariable attachment with physical entities is unknown.

2) The laws of nature themselves are mathematical. Mathematics is a domain of abstract and extraordinarily rich non-empirical reality that is "somehow" glued into "stuff" through these laws and accessible to knowledge through rationality. Why should there be such a realm of abstract rational world of mathematics and why they intermingle with stuff via the laws of physics is also not known.

3) Stuff..connected with the mathematical world via the laws of nature, is also extraordinarily and unexpectedly fecund, coalescing in property rich groups with utterly novel qualities and functions starting from molecules, crystals, living things, stars, galaxies and sentient beings. The repeated (and apparently limitless) potential of emerging wholes with novel properties all stacked on top of each other (from molecules to man i.e.) from "stuff" is observable and describable; but why stuff has such emergence potential is unknown.

"We don't know a bunch of things...therefore Brahma" is exactly the same as saying "We don't know a bunch of things...therefore Yahweh, or Bigfoot, or Ancient Aliens, etc."

 

[Blastcat]

I Agree, But I think Open mind is the name of the game here.

If you want to play a game, you don't need any evidence. Just believe what you like.

 

[Hawkins]

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.



So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

This is a wrong approach, adapted by brainwashed people. People today are brainwashed by our secular education that they thus demand evidence before belief. However in this very reality humans seldom rely on evidence to believe and putting faith to believe is actually the fundamental way for humans in majority to get to a truth.

What evidence do you have for any historical figures existed 2000 years ago? History is basically written by humans long ago for us to believe with faith today! History represents one kind of truth which evidence have no bearing on it. For an example, Jewish historian Josephus wrote a series of books 2000 years ago. Now just go through it section by section then tell us which section can be supported by evidence. If evidence is needed before belief, you can ignore the books as a whole. You can even ignore human history as a whole.

That said. You won't be able to collect evidence of God because once God is evident you don't need faith to believe Him. And by the current covenant in place, no humans thus can be saved! To a certain extent, looking for evidence of God means seeking for the death of all mankind. Similarly to human history, humans don't need to rely on evidence to reach such a truth anyway.

 

[alan3261]

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.



So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

can everyone please stop with all this god talk; if there is one, what he says, how he wants things, etc., etc.? The bottom line is that WE JUST DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT A HIGHER POWER, so let's stop pretending we do! Full stop!

 

[rrosskopf]

Proof is defined as the amount of evidence necessary to convince someone that something is true. The threshold of evidence is highly individual. Some would like to apply the scientific theory to God, but I suggest that we need a new set of rules to explore intelligence. We all know that intelligence exists, but it is not a "thing" in the normal sense of the word. We can't bombard it with radiation to discover its properties. Penrose took a stab at it with his popular book Shadows of the Mind, A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, where he delved deeply into human intelligence.

Whether one believes that God is everywhere present and eternal, or physically existing in space and time, and subject to universal laws, all agree that God is intelligent. How does one prove whether an intelligent being occasionally interferes with earth history? The only evidence that we are left with is eye witness testimony and the intelligence that seems to guide mankind. In my mind, the only evidence worth pursuing, is some event that is fairly recent, with many witnesses, and established revelations from God. It turns out that we have just such an example.

Joseph Smith's fame and infamy is such because of the wealth of eye witness testimony and revelations given in modern times. The miracles and visions were not cloaked in obscurity, dating to some ancient past, but part of the fabric of US history. Nor were they confined to Joseph Smith himself, but experienced by a broad swath of people, both members and non-members. We literally have hundreds of thousands of pages of testimony to the events that took place from 1830 to 1845.

As one studies the life of Joseph Smith, one is slowly drawn to one of two conclusions; that he was either the greatest conman who ever lived, or that he was exactly what his followers claimed - a prophet of God. Sadly, most of the popular literature about Joseph Smith is designed to show him as a fraud, with no attempt at fairness; hatchet jobs by ministers of other churches, angry that they have lost members of their fold to the Mormons. Two evangelical seminarians did an indepth study of Mormon apologetics and came to the conclusion that the Mormon apologetics were more credible than the rash of books claiming to expose the Mormons. (Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?)

Despite the efforts of many to quickly dismiss Mormon claims, the evidence is such that only a long drawn out investigation of those claims can adequately cover all the areas. There is no silver bullet to discredit Mormonism. In fact, many of those who have made long drawn out investigations have eventually converted to Mormonism.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

Why

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.



So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

Why accept the arguments of any mere mortal when the first literal PROOF may have been revealed? This is what I'm studying and testing at the moment!

" The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!"

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.



So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

The need for 'faith' to rely upon argument, opinion or speculation, however ancient or learned, orthodox or traditional, may be coming to an end! This is what I'm studying and testing at the moment:

"The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!"

"Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search along a defined path of strict self discipline, [a test of the human heart] to discover His 'Word' of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Thus is a man 'created' in the image and likeness of his Creator.

So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at The Final Freedoms

 

[Thumper]

"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so. Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know." ~ Isaac Asimov

 

[alan3261]

Proof is defined as the amount of evidence necessary to convince someone that something is true. The threshold of evidence is highly individual. Some would like to apply the scientific theory to God, but I suggest that we need a new set of rules to explore intelligence. We all know that intelligence exists, but it is not a "thing" in the normal sense of the word. We can't bombard it with radiation to discover its properties. Penrose took a stab at it with his popular book Shadows of the Mind, A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, where he delved deeply into human intelligence.

Whether one believes that God is everywhere present and eternal, or physically existing in space and time, and subject to universal laws, all agree that God is intelligent. How does one prove whether an intelligent being occasionally interferes with earth history? The only evidence that we are left with is eye witness testimony and the intelligence that seems to guide mankind. In my mind, the only evidence worth pursuing, is some event that is fairly recent, with many witnesses, and established revelations from God. It turns out that we have just such an example.

Joseph Smith's fame and infamy is such because of the wealth of eye witness testimony and revelations given in modern times. The miracles and visions were not cloaked in obscurity, dating to some ancient past, but part of the fabric of US history. Nor were they confined to Joseph Smith himself, but experienced by a broad swath of people, both members and non-members. We literally have hundreds of thousands of pages of testimony to the events that took place from 1830 to 1845.

As one studies the life of Joseph Smith, one is slowly drawn to one of two conclusions; that he was either the greatest conman who ever lived, or that he was exactly what his followers claimed - a prophet of God. Sadly, most of the popular literature about Joseph Smith is designed to show him as a fraud, with no attempt at fairness; hatchet jobs by ministers of other churches, angry that they have lost members of their fold to the Mormons. Two evangelical seminarians did an indepth study of Mormon apologetics and came to the conclusion that the Mormon apologetics were more credible than the rash of books claiming to expose the Mormons. (Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?)

Despite the efforts of many to quickly dismiss Mormon claims, the evidence is such that only a long drawn out investigation of those claims can adequately cover all the areas. There is no silver bullet to discredit Mormonism. In fact, many of those who have made long drawn out investigations have eventually converted to Mormonism.