Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[F1fan]

But it can and does examine the mystery of being

Insofar as the mystery has factual answers. For example the God gene and temporal lobe epilepsy explains the mystery of why otherwise rational people think a God exists. PET and fMRI brain scans reveal that when people think of religious ideas the limbic system of the brain activates, not the neocortex. This tells us how religious ideas activate the fear and reward parts of brains and not the thinking parts.

 

[F1fan]

What obligation? In what way am I obligated to you?

Being truthful, honest, and factual when a person makes a claim is about the obligation to oneself. It's about the ethics a person is committed to and obligated to present as they engage with others.

Many theists acknowledge that they don't know if their beliefs are true or factual. Those who claim their beliefs are true and factual, yet can't offer any truth to that, have compromised ethics and understanding of rational discourse. I doubt it's deliberate, I see many of these theists just adopting beliefs, attitudes, and arguments without any review themselves.

 

[F1fan]

I can see the person with the superiority complex has no intellect to go beyond his foundation. Try.

Are you giving affirmations to yourself here?

Are you speaking from a theory perspective, hypothesis perspective or social research? Can you explain with some good analysis?

All those are part of the same process. Arguably the nature of American society cis constantly evolving, how conservatives are becoming more extreme as a norm for example, so the study of what explains this is ongoing. There is some very good theory that explains social models. For example conservatism being more exclusive, while liberals are more inclusive.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I see the signs of God all around me, in nature and the universe and within myself. I cannot understand how anyone can miss these signs.

We see what you see, but we interpret it differently. I have a naturalistic candidate hypothesis for the existence of the universe that you seem to have dropped from your list of possibilities for no sound reason, an incredulity fallacy: I just don't see how it happened without an intelligent designer, therefore one must exist. If you understood the science, you would see how it might have occurred without a god.

Science has been steadily removing gods from physical processes for centuries now, producing what is now called the god of the gaps (in knowledge). The ruler god was dismissed after the first wave of scientists revealed the clockwork universe, where no god was needed to make the sun pass through the sky or electrons through a wire. Deism was born, the idea that god doesn't affect the universe. A god was stuill needed to build the universe, but not to run it.

Then came the second wave of scientists that showed us that material evolution (the Big Bang) and biological evolution could build the universe from a singularity and the tree of life from a single ancestral population.

Notice the special pleading fallacy in the incredulity fallacy, where you find a universe too complicated to exist undesigned an uncreated, but not the god posited to account for that degree of complexity. A god capable of creating such a universe would seem to be much less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated than its creation, but this gets a pass in the analysis.

Trees exist. We can cut one down. We can see if it make noise.

The problem disappears when we recognize the distinction between sound waves and sound. A falling tree generates waves in the atmosphere around it, which are converted to sound by a mind. Sound doesn't exist outside of minds, like color. If there is nobody to hear the tree fall (animals that can hear count), sound waves are generated, but they are not converted to sound. Even if a tape recorder is capturing the event, there is still no sound until the tape is played to a hearing mind.

Does a dog whistle make a sound? Not to a human ear. Sound wave impact the ear drum, but the cochlea and auditory cortex don't generate sound.

In my opinion someone that judges another person in any negative way because they have faith, the person doing the judging has a miserable life and is trying to get others to join in their misery. But that's how I see it.

Faith is a logical error. It cannot be a path to truth, since wrong ideas are as easily believed by faith as correct ones. What we want is a method to decide which ideas are correct and which are not so that only the former are believed. Critical thinking does this. Faith does not.

As for judging faith-based thinkers, I believe that they've made a mistake believing by faith, and place no value in any conclusions such a person has arrived at using faith-based premises. If a conclusion is predicated on a god belief, it's no more sound than the god belief, and of no value to the skeptic.

For some reason, this position irritates the faith-based thinker, who generally sees it as a personal attack, and becomes angry. I don't really understand that reaction. I know that he has no respect for the way I think or what I believe, either, but I don't know why I would have an emotional reaction to that or be personally offended, so I don't know why he does.

they even developed a church for the spaghetti monster

That's sarcasm, not religion. What do you think those people are doing in these "churches"? Not what goes on in a religious meeting.

The FSM meme was created to point out the absurdity of teaching creationism repackaged as intelligent design to skirt the law in the Kansas public school system.

Here's my prayer to his Noodliness You would be making a mistake to consider this an actual prayer as you would be to think that a FSM meeting place called a church has religious people in it. Both are humor:

Blessed be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, born of extra virgin olive oil, delivered Little Caesarian (in 30 minutes or less) and cast out of the Olive Garden carrying the Ten Condiments, who has come for our salivation. Killed by the Antipasto as foretold in the book of Romanos, Our Savory was snagged by a giant twirling fork, placed on a plate, and hurled onto a wall, where He stuck and dried for our sins. Cheese's Crust, how grated thou art! May there be pizza on earth and gouda will toward men.

If Einstein or Newton thought like these atheists they would not go anywhere.

Religion plays no part in the enduring work of either man. An atheist with Newton's mathematical skills could have written Principia except for the part where Newton invokes God to keep the planets in their orbits, since his math suggested that Jupiter and Saturn would throw planets like earth into the sun or out of the solar system. Successful theistic scientists learn how to compartmentalize their faith-based thinking and leave it outside of the laboratory or observatory. As soon as faith enters the process, it ceases to be science.

Incidentally, Laplace removed the ghost from the machine a century later by developing the mathematics necessary to demonstrate that the solar system was stable without the hand of any god. One less job for gods to do, which is the pattern of the entire history of science.

What’s on the devils menu?

Appetizer: Deviled eggs
Main course: Shrimp diablo
Dessert: Devil's food cake

Thats what most of the Atheistic apologists and evangelists keep saying. Its repeated like a mantra. "It is an excellent example". No its not. Maybe its an excellent example to analyse you and your type of faith, and you think others are all just like you.

I think you have that backward. You think we are like you. You use every religious concept you can think of to describe us. To you, we're evangelists, steeped in faith, and our worldviews religions.

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

Many faith-based thinkers seem to be unaware that it is possible to only think critically. It's really pretty easy to eliminate faith-based thinking and faith-based beliefs from one's repertoire, but it generally requires a university education. In a class on evolution, you'll see the evidence and argument Darwin used to arrive at his conclusions, and your professor won't ask you if you believe it, just whether you learned what was taught. In time, one learns to think only in that matter when deciding what is true about the world, and goes back and removes the faith-based ideas that crept in before learning to think like that, which is what the church leaders are afraid of when Johnny goes off to college.

 

[F1fan]

Why should I "Ignore" or "Focus" on proving God exists when that was not what I was addressing? Can you please explain that need?

You were being critical of atheists not being convinced gods exist. But as I often explain not believing a given claim is the logical default. Your criticisms were not very well formed or relevant to why atheists reject the claims by theists. This type of approach by you is a distraction from the burden of proof theists have as that nagging itch they can't scratch.

That is "your truth". You believe that this is the logical default. But that is your "Faith statement", not a scientific, or socially researched generalisation or tested hypothesis. It is just "faith".

You are over-complicating it. The basic rule of logical default is: any given claim is by default untrue until a claimant can demonstrate it is true. Theists are notorious for failing to demonstrate their gods exist outside of their imagination. That has nothing to do with me, I'm making the observation.

Your highness. Open a new thread and try to discuss decently and ask this question with some objectivity. Even though I know with this kind of personality you will reject anything and everything, I will engage.

Sarcasm like this indicates poor confidence in your position.

Thats what most of the Atheistic apologists and evangelists keep saying. Its repeated like a mantra. "It is an excellent example". No its not. Maybe its an excellent example to analyse you and your type of faith, and you think others are all just like you.

You can keep building a 100 strawman arguments. It is just logically fallacious.

Again you dance around the fact that theists have no evidence that any gods exist. You're no exception.

 

[firedragon]

In what way?



The comparison is about the lack of evidence either way (which is the subject of the thread) so a comparison to other things for which there is no evidence either way is a straw man because....?

This comparison is a straw man, and logically fallacious. It’s beneath you. So provide your epistemology and engage in a meaningful discussion or even a debate, no problem.

 

[firedragon]

Are you giving affirmations to yourself here?



All those are part of the same process. Arguably the nature of American society cis constantly evolving, how conservatives are becoming more extreme as a norm for example, so the study of what explains this is ongoing. There is some very good theory that explains social models. For example conservatism being more exclusive, while liberals are more inclusive.

Absolutely irrelevant.

 

[F1fan]

The problem disappears when we recognize the distinction between sound waves and sound. A falling tree generates waves in the atmosphere around it, which are converted to sound by a mind. Sound doesn't exist outside of minds, like color. If there is nobody to hear the tree fall (animals that can hear count), sound waves are generated, but they are not converted to sound. Even if a tape recorder is capturing the event, there is still no sound until the tape is played to a hearing mind.

Does a dog whistle make a sound? Not to a human ear. Sound wave impact the ear drum, but the cochlea and auditory cortex don't generate sound.

I get your point. The whole concept about the tree falling and making a sound is anthropocentric. It puts the human in the center of what makes X true. To my thinking this is troubling. The question should be asking if there is any change in the state of physics because a human isn't witnessing a phenomenon (take the Uncertainty Principle out of this).

 

[McBell]

This comparison is a straw man, and logically fallacious. It’s beneath you. So provide your epistemology and engage in a meaningful discussion or even a debate, no problem.

One wonders why you completely skipped over the part where you actually answer the question: "is a straw man because....?".

Merely repeating the claim in "answer" to being flat out asked how it is a strawman, makes it appear you are merely throwing out bold empty accusations...

Interestingly enough, I too and curious as the how it is a strawman.
And now, with you flat out avoiding explaining and merely repeating the accusation, I am even more curious.

So how about you stop avoiding explaining and answer the question?

 

[F1fan]

Absolutely irrelevant.

Why is observations about political attitudes irrelevant to you when it's very relevant to the explanations in science?

 

[firedragon]

One wonders why you completely skipped over the part where you actually answer the question: "is a straw man because....?".

Merely repeating the claim in "answer" to being flat out asked how it is a strawman, makes it appear you are merely throwing out bold empty accusations...

Interestingly enough, I too and curious as the how it is a strawman.
And now, with you flat out avoiding explaining and merely repeating the accusation, I am even more curious.

So how about you stop avoiding explaining and answer the question?

It’s a strawman because it’s your own built up caricature of an argument you pose as a substitute to any argument without asking for the epistemology or his conception of ontology and addressing that.

strawman.

 

[firedragon]

Why is observations about political attitudes irrelevant to you when it's very relevant to the explanations in science?

It’s irrelevant because it is not related to the topic or what was discussed.

 

[McBell]

It’s a strawman because it’s your own built up caricature of an argument you pose as a substitute to any argument without asking for the epistemology or his conception of ontology and addressing that.

strawman.

That is a mighty long winded "no"...

Now since you are not willing (or is it able?) to explain how what you claim is a strawman is a strawman, your now completely empty claim can be dismissed as nothing more thn a bold empty claim.

CONGRATULATIONS!!

 

[ratiocinator]

This comparison is a straw man, and logically fallacious.

This is just an assertion. Anybody can just say "oh that's a straw man and logically fallacious".

Why is it a straw man to compare the conclusion that we draw about one unfalsifiable thing for which there is no evidence for its existence and no evidence against its existence, with the conclusion we draw about something else unfalsifiable for which there is no evidence for its existence and no evidence against its existence?

Do you even understand what a straw man fallacy is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What we have here, is a failure to communicate...

That happens quite often when one only has confirmation bias. Believers never seem to have a rational way to express what their evidence is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

After reading a bunch of post this past week, I've decided to create this thread and list all the evidence I found for a god existing and all the evidence for a god not existing.

For a god existing the evidence is...

For a god not existing the evidence is...


There you have it. Look all the evidence over. Compare all the evidence, debate it and see what you come up with. No need to thank me. Its all in a weeks work

Before asking questions of evidence, explain what you mean by god.

You can't find evidence for something (or disprove it), if it only exists by a name without anyone providing a proper definition of the term.

Is it a being? A force? A ghost? A experience? A 'M'ystery?
If it's a force-is it like the force of gravity? An energy?
If it's an experience, is it based on emotions? An event?
If it's a Mystery, than you can't describe it therefore the question of evidence for or against is irrelevant. No one knows.

To add, we assume we all (atheist, theist, alike) have the same definition of god (because we use the term) to form a coherent conversation and debate, but we really don't. It's like throwing the word god around and assuming just because we say it exists or not it means anything in itself.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Certainly;

Nan-In, a Japanese master, received a university professor, who came to enquire about zen.

Nan-In served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he could no longer contain himself. “It’s over full. No more will go in!”

“Like this tea cup,” Nan-In said, “you are full of your own speculations and opinions. How can I show you zen, unless you first empty your cup?”

How is the above truth beyond the reasoning intellect? It makes perfectly logical sense to me.

 

[Fool]

After reading a bunch of post this past week, I've decided to create this thread and list all the evidence I found for a god existing and all the evidence for a god not existing.

For a god existing the evidence is...

For a god not existing the evidence is...


There you have it. Look all the evidence over. Compare all the evidence, debate it and see what you come up with. No need to thank me. Its all in a weeks work

this otherness that some call god doesn't exist. you can't be separate from the Absolute anymore than you can be separate from the universe and declare objective observation.


love is a necessity for conscious things to survive; otherwise life would never arise from chaos, or destruction, love joins. it doesn't separate;

 

[F1fan]

It’s a strawman because it’s your own built up caricature of an argument you pose as a substitute to any argument without asking for the epistemology or his conception of ontology and addressing that.

strawman.

You're not using the straw man fallacy correctly. If atheists were asserting that believers in God also believed in the Tooth Fairy, and we criticized that concept it would apply. Atheists use the Tooth Fairy as an example of another fantastic concept that on par with god concepts since neither have compelling evidence. Theists insist they believe in their god, but not the Tooth Fairy, but can't explain why it's more rational to believe in their god and not the TF.

What you could argue for is some other special ability to sense a god to verify it's existence. We hear faith being used as a means to comprehend or know god exists, but this is never fully explained as a real cause and effect. Theists should claim some sort of extra sensory perception and that's how they know a god exists. Of course this would;d be shown to be unreliable when there are many contradictory descriptions of god.

 

[F1fan]

It’s irrelevant because it is not related to the topic or what was discussed.

OK, so get to providing evidence that any god exists outside of human imagination.