circumstantial evidence to Gods existence

[BilliardsBall]

I did not know majority decided reality. If so, you should pray to Shiva. The Bagavad Gita says that Shiva answers all prayers. So why don't you worship Shiva?

However even this may change - Allah is gaining converts much faster that Christianity or Hinduism.

Again, I await real evidence.

You are misunderstanding. It is wholly impossible to use a control group to test theism because nearly 100% of persons disagree with you, always, every culture--the missionaries never found atheist "pagans"--and you are making this assumption as well--the majority are all deceived. Prove it! Show me another area, where MOST people disagree with FACTS.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First point is I haven't made any distinctions between atheist and theist. I assume what is true for one is also true for the other.


I've no idea about other atheists. They are as capable of being "trick" by the subconscious mind as anyone. I am as well, but being aware of it I try to take step to guard against it.



The size of the control group though important, is not as important as documented, repeatable, consistent results.



It's not mass confirmation. It's repeatable results. For example lets say you believe you have spoken to God and believe you know God's will. I've also spoken with God and believe I know God's will. If this is true, any number who have spoken with God and know God's will should all have the same consistent message.



I hope it obvious I'm making no distinction between atheists and theist by now. Yes, I tell my kids to not trust anything I say but verify it for themselves. Research it, get various opinions, test it if possible



It has to do with having a method to validate these experiences.



I have had these experiences. No need to validate an experience you haven't had yourself.



Actually I'd advise against taken my word for anything. To be consistent with what I tell my kids.



It's a logical conclusion based on your starting premise. We all have to accept that premise and be comfortable with it before we get into the logic of it.

It's not mass confirmation. It's repeatable results. For example lets say you believe you have spoken to God and believe you know God's will. I've also spoken with God and believe I know God's will. If this is true, any number who have spoken with God and know God's will should all have the same consistent message.

Because why? I’ve met students who all heard the same lecture and took home certain salient points different from the rest. How did God get in that small box?

It's a logical conclusion based on your starting premise. We all have to accept that premise and be comfortable with it before we get into the logic of it.

If we take God out of the review here, do we think watches lack watchmakers in general? Is there something designed by man that you feel is best explained by mechanistic randomness?

The universe in its entirety and points reflects design.

 

[Nakosis]

Because why? I’ve met students who all heard the same lecture and took home certain salient points different from the rest. How did God get in that small box?

Exactly, goes back to the inadequacies of the anecdotal experience. Ideally they would study this and learn how to be a more efficient lecturer. Communication is a skill. I'd assume God would know how to communicate skillfully enough to be able to get a consistent message across.

If we take God out of the review here, do we think watches lack watchmakers in general? Is there something designed by man that you feel is best explained by mechanistic randomness?
The universe in its entirety and points reflects design.

Using something designed by man kind of begs the question. Lets take man out of the picture and talk rocks. Does a rock need a rock maker? Could the creation of a rock be explained by physical forces and natural laws? Is it necessary that there was a blueprint for the rock to exist?

Your first criticism might probably be, you can't compare the complexity of a rock to a watch. Well you are comparing the complexity of a watch to the complexity of a human being, and beyond that, the complexity of a watch to the complexity of the universe.

While you maybe able to understand the complexity of a watch needing a watchmaker, that doesn't mean you understand the complexity of the universe, life or what was necessary for either to exist.

 

[Nakosis]

Please answer exactly. Has one tested Sub-conscious Mind and the Conscious Mind physically with a physical experiment. When did one perform this experiment physically? Please
Regards

No, one has defined what one means in one's use of the term mind. If you have questions about how the human nervous system transmits information, here's a good resource. Human Physiology/The Nervous System - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

If you doubt anything that is explained, I suggest you question it. Research it until you feel comfortable with what is being explained. Validate it in whatever why you feel necessary. If you find any errors in the information, it's important that you get in contact with the source and offer corrections.

 

[columbus]

The vast, overwhelming majority of people in this world say knowledge of God is self-evident and that God reveals Himself to those who seek God.

Dang you are good at fallacious arguments.
This one is called argument from popular opinion. I forget how to spell the fancy Latin term for that.
Tom

 

[Evie]

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.

well said.

 

[Thumper]

You are misunderstanding. It is wholly impossible to use a control group to test theism because nearly 100% of persons disagree with you, always, every culture--the missionaries never found atheist "pagans"--and you are making this assumption as well--the majority are all deceived. Prove it! Show me another area, where MOST people disagree with FACTS.

What facts?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It be a lot more believable if this happen before the correct answer was known. Always wondered what good is prediction if the actual event that is predicted is not known until after the event happens.



Possibly, they were the culprits in the Bible.



Sure, through persecution, in order to survive folks have to develop extraordinary intellect. Those that did survive. Obviously not all did. Supports the theory of evolution anyway.

1. That's what I'm saying! The UN put the word out to make Israel a nation in 1948--the prophecy was noticed AFTER. A great story. Additionally, there are dozens more prophecies about Israel that came true.

2. What would their motivation be? Most Jewish people don't believe the OT is God's Word. And why would people go into nearly 100 different nations and ask to be killed, persecuted, expelled...? The Jewish people are the Chosen People in BOTH testaments, not "culprits".

3. This isn't "extraordinary intellect". It's MUCH more. Also, since we Jews were the light of many, many nations, why were we killed and tortured.

Be careful to ask reasonable questions of yourself and God. It sounds like you are going on some limbs here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Exactly, goes back to the inadequacies of the anecdotal experience. Ideally they would study this and learn how to be a more efficient lecturer. Communication is a skill. I'd assume God would know how to communicate skillfully enough to be able to get a consistent message across.



Using something designed by man kind of begs the question. Lets take man out of the picture and talk rocks. Does a rock need a rock maker? Could the creation of a rock be explained by physical forces and natural laws? Is it necessary that there was a blueprint for the rock to exist?

Your first criticism might probably be, you can't compare the complexity of a rock to a watch. Well you are comparing the complexity of a watch to the complexity of a human being, and beyond that, the complexity of a watch to the complexity of the universe.

While you maybe able to understand the complexity of a watch needing a watchmaker, that doesn't mean you understand the complexity of the universe, life or what was necessary for either to exist.

1. You are assuming that we don't have consistent messages, aren't you? All religions I've encountered have a time for God's judgment, sin or karma, an adversary or devil, that man is fallen, etc.

2. I'm not sure I understand your second point. Rocks show immense complexity and design. In fact, NO TWO GRAINS OF SAND ON EARTH ARE ALIKE. And the number of grains of sand rivals the number of stars in the universe (and the Bible says you can no more count the stars than you can the grains of sand--this from a time when astrologers could count a few thousand stars with the unaided eye). Snowflakes ALSO are unique. ALL animals and plants are unique, even animal "identical" twins. Microscopes show design. Quantum and subatomic physics shown design, order, complexity, harmony. Math, logic, etc. show design. Giant telescopes show design, beauty. Design isn't somewhere. It's everywhere.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Dang you are good at fallacious arguments.
This one is called argument from popular opinion. I forget how to spell the fancy Latin term for that.
Tom

It's a little more complex than ad populum, of course. We know most people say God is self-evident or evident to them. We know that most people will affirm facts and use logic and reason. Most people disbelieve the flat Earthers and Moon hoaxers.

Please explain why the ONLY thing nearly ALL people believe in is God when "there is no evidence or facts for God".

That is much different than an ad populum argument.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What facts?

Huh? I thought atheists look at history, cosmology, biology, etc. and conclude the facts support a mechanistic universe without a designer.

Yet I still believe in God as do most. Please show me why the inmates run this world asylum by showing me ANY other area of ANYTHING where the OVERWHELMING majority believe something that's wrong despite the facts (or if you prefer, absence of facts or evidence).

 

[columbus]

Please explain why the ONLY thing nearly ALL people believe in is God when "there is no evidence or facts for God".

They don't.

There is a dizzying myriad of characters in human thought and worldviews that get the generic word god applied to them, despite being mutually exclusive concepts. When people capitalize the word, God, they usually mean their own god image and not the vast majority of others.
As you have pointed out in multiple threads, even Christian doesn't have an objective meaning. Your God is different from that of a majority of other gods of self identifying Christians who don't match your beliefs about "born again".
Tom

 

[Thumper]

Huh? I thought atheists look at history, cosmology, biology, etc. and conclude the facts support a mechanistic universe without a designer.

Yet I still believe in God as do most. Please show me why the inmates run this world asylum by showing me ANY other area of ANYTHING where the OVERWHELMING majority believe something that's wrong despite the facts (or if you prefer, absence of facts or evidence).

It is not "most". Why do you lie so much?

 

[Segev Moran]

Could you be confusing the thinking process (i.e., rational) with the foundation this process is based on? In the "lab" the scientist is using observable and measurable data. But in their religious beliefs, there is no physical data, that's why it is called "belief on faith."

Maybe, in a way. But that wasn't the point i was trying to make.
What I meant by that is that the way a theist accepts an evidence of a God is the same as they accept a physical evidence.
For yourself, Love is a chemical reaction and a few more billions of electric ones. (I Agree btw)
For the theist, Love is not only a physical thing. One might treat as any other evidence.
I Happen to agree your secularism. this does not mean that a theist agrees with it.
This is my point. The theist acts in a different way of thinking.
I used to use the exact same logic. Today, I know better. but it is true to myself.. my friend for example cannot understand how i m so blind to the evidence to God "all around me".

So what I think is important, is to try and understand the way a theist understand life, and only then will you able to make your claims more wisely.

The longer I have been an atheists, the harder it is to remember how I ever believe such stuff. It has become hard for me to even consider religious belief beyond thinking of it as nonsense.

I Agree. It's the exact same for me. I Cannot grasp the fact that I used to think someone's suffering might be a way of God to "teach" him something.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." - H. L. Mencken

I disagree with that quote.
I Think it is the person we need to respect, not religion.
I Have no respect what so ever to ANY religion.
I have yet to encounter any religion that I can say is worth any respect (maybe Jainism).
I do however, respect those theists who understand that the religion has many problems and are today "modern" religious.

I think it is same to say that the majority of people are not fundamental in their religious way of life. ( Thank God??? )

In general, I do not respect Ideas. What the point in that?

Cheers

 

[Nakosis]

1. That's what I'm saying! The UN put the word out to make Israel a nation in 1948--the prophecy was noticed AFTER. A great story. Additionally, there are dozens more prophecies about Israel that came true.

This is the view of another Christian group.
The modern State of Israel to this day bases its claim to statehood on a UN resolution and what it calls the natural and historic right of the Jewish people. Is it reasonable to expect that the God of the Bible would perform the greatest prophetic miracle in the 20th century in behalf of a people who refuse to give him credit?

How Does the Modern Claim to Statehood Compare?

Modern Israel’s secular attitude contrasts sharply with the situation in 537 B.C.E. Back then, the nation of Israel was indeed ‘reborn’ as if in a day after being devastated and depopulated by the Babylonians 70 years earlier. At that time, Isaiah 66:8 was strikingly fulfilled when the Persian conqueror of Babylon, Cyrus the Great, authorized the return of the Jews to their homeland.—Ezra 1:2.
Does Bible Prophecy Point to the Modern State of Israel? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Suffice to say biblical interpretation is in the eye of the beholder.

2. What would their motivation be? Most Jewish people don't believe the OT is God's Word. And why would people go into nearly 100 different nations and ask to be killed, persecuted, expelled...? The Jewish people are the Chosen People in BOTH testaments, not "culprits".

Again, this is according to your interpretation of the Bible. What I'm saying is that without the growth of Christianity, there'd likely be a lot less Jewish persecution going on.

3. This isn't "extraordinary intellect". It's MUCH more. Also, since we Jews were the light of many, many nations, why were we killed and tortured.
Be careful to ask reasonable questions of yourself and God. It sounds like you are going on some limbs here.

A really good book on how things like this happen is "Outliers: The Story of Success" by Malcolm Gladwell. Specifically pay attention to the explanation of why there are so many good Jewish Attorneys.

 

[Segev Moran]

Please explain why the ONLY thing nearly ALL people believe in is God when "there is no evidence or facts for God".

It only makes sense! (And not in a good way )
I'll explain:

Going back 10K years from today...
Would you say people knew what the sun is? Of course not!
It was the brightest thing they have ever seen anywhere in their entire world.
It was moving, seeming to just float out there above everyone.
Nothing can overcome it.
They understood that without sub, there are no life! Its not hard to observe.
They noticed that when the sun is gone, it is much colder.

What else could they think other than some unknown all powerful force it is?
All religions started as a worship to the un -explained natural forces.
As time goes by, People become wiser, and learn better.
This, could only lead to one place... Once they realized the sun is not a god, the only other explanation the best of mind in that time could come up with, was that there is a bigger force that created the sun.
And so, as years are passing, and more and more people understand that the gods are not really actively changing their fates, religion becomes more and more vague and dogmatic.

Theism is the "trails" of those times.
Breadcrumbs if you wish of times where science was very immature.

I am willing to bet my eternity () that if you'll check back in a thousand years, the number of theist will be greatly reduced.
And no.. It is not because God said that as time passes we will become more and more distant from God.. (Hmmm, maybe those who invented the religion knew that eventually people will understand its a fiction?)

Thus, You and many great and amazing people, are still "stuck" in those times.

So yes.. once upon a time, the vast majority of people were Theists. not because they knew better... because they didn't!

 

[Nakosis]

1. You are assuming that we don't have consistent messages, aren't you? All religions I've encountered have a time for God's judgment, sin or karma, an adversary or devil, that man is fallen, etc.

No, objectively it's easy to see the difference in the messages from folks claiming to speak for God. O course from your view, you've already decided the truth of these other religions. For example sin and karma and not the same thing.

2. I'm not sure I understand your second point. Rocks show immense complexity and design. In fact, NO TWO GRAINS OF SAND ON EARTH ARE ALIKE. And the number of grains of sand rivals the number of stars in the universe (and the Bible says you can no more count the stars than you can the grains of sand--this from a time when astrologers could count a few thousand stars with the unaided eye). Snowflakes ALSO are unique. ALL animals and plants are unique, even animal "identical" twins. Microscopes show design. Quantum and subatomic physics shown design, order, complexity, harmony. Math, logic, etc. show design. Giant telescopes show design, beauty. Design isn't somewhere. It's everywhere.

Instead of viewing reality objectively, you've already decided the truth about reality. There's no need of a God in the explanation of how rocks are formed.
How Are Rocks Formed? - Universe Today

The point here for me was that the analogy of the watchmaker was a bad one. It's an attempt to put God and the universe into the same small box with the creation of a watch.

You're certain of the truth, I'm uncertain of the truth. You may see uncertainty as a weakness and I can understand that. Folks admire certainty and confidence. It's not easy for people to admit that they don't know the truth about something.

Being an atheist, I lack any bias about God. I've no need to prove the truth of any particular religion or concept of God. I accept evidence that can be scientifically validated, not because it disproves God but because I find it to be the only reliable method of validating what we claim to be true. However one thing you can't do is try to validate what is true already certain of your knowledge of what is true. You have to be willing to embrace uncertainty. If you can't do that then you will always only be able to find the answers you seek, not discover what is true.

 

[Thumper]

No, objectively it's easy to see the difference in the messages from folks claiming to speak for God. O course from your view, you've already decided the truth of these other religions. For example sin and karma and not the same thing.



Instead of viewing reality objectively, you've already decided the truth about reality. There's no need of a God in the explanation of how rocks are formed.
How Are Rocks Formed? - Universe Today

The point here for me was that the analogy of the watchmaker was a bad one. It's an attempt to put God and the universe into the same small box with the creation of a watch.

You're certain of the truth, I'm uncertain of the truth. You may see uncertainty as a weakness and I can understand that. Folks admire certainty and confidence. It's not easy for people to admit that they don't know the truth about something.

Being an atheist, I lack any bias about God. I've no need to prove the truth of any particular religion or concept of God. I accept evidence that can be scientifically validated, not because it disproves God but because I find it to be the only reliable method of validating what we claim to be true. However one thing you can't do is try to validate what is true already certain of your knowledge of what is true. You have to be willing to embrace uncertainty. If you can't do that then you will always only be able to find the answers you seek, not discover what is true.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

 

[BilliardsBall]

They don't.

There is a dizzying myriad of characters in human thought and worldviews that get the generic word god applied to them, despite being mutually exclusive concepts. When people capitalize the word, God, they usually mean their own god image and not the vast majority of others.
As you have pointed out in multiple threads, even Christian doesn't have an objective meaning. Your God is different from that of a majority of other gods of self identifying Christians who don't match your beliefs about "born again".
Tom

Yes, my belief about trusting Jesus for salvation is different. Most religions, however, tend to trusting God and our good deeds for salvation. A recent thread asked regarding the logic of the Christian faith:

1. No one is morally perfect.

2. Morally imperfect people hurt one another, and frequently.

3. Transformation makes us eligible for utopia.

4. Self-transformation never quite makes it.

5. The cross, the resurrection. c'est ça

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is not "most". Why do you lie so much?

If I say I have no sin, I am a liar, but I do sin.

Thumper, 90%-plus of people who have ever lived = most.

Most people believe in (or while alive) believed in a God(s). You can show me the latest revisionist survey proving how many atheists exist in the West or worldwide, and you'll never get above 49%. MOST people believe in God.

"Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." - Sir Issac Newton