Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

But we can describe what a tooth fairy is compared to say a monster or barney. How can god compare if there is no agreed definition of it?

 

[ratiocinator]

But we can describe what a tooth fairy is compared to say a monster or barney. How can god compare if there is no agreed definition of it?

The lack of a definition is a problem in general (and it's a question I asked in my first post on this thread: #86) because there might be evidence for or against some specific definitions (again, as I pointed out, there is solid evidence against a god that created the universe in 6 literal days 6000 years ago). However, the comparison isn't really about what these things specifically are but what the rational response is to a proposal that something (anything) exists for which there is no evidence and nothing that can rule it out either.

 

[F1fan]

But we can describe what a tooth fairy is compared to say a monster or barney. How can god compare if there is no agreed definition of it?

Yes we can describe what a Tooth Fairly is with a lot of detail. Hobbits are well described. Yahweh is describes in the Old Testament. The new and improved Yahweh is described in the New Testament. Hindu gods are well described, and you can get statues of many of them for your house or temple.

So the dilemma for theists is all these thousands of gods. The Abrahamic religious have the same god, and that Judaic version evolved from a polytheistic system. So if anything the many, many gods in human history is a problem for the monotheists.

 

[F1fan]

The lack of a definition is a problem in general (and it's a question I asked in my first post on this thread: #86) because there might be evidence for or against some specific definitions (again, as I pointed out, there is solid evidence against a god that created the universe in 6 literal days 6000 years ago). However, the comparison isn't really about what these things specifically are but what the rational response is to a proposal that something (anything) exists for which there is no evidence and nothing that can rule it out either.

The interesting thing about Hindu gods, and eastern religion in general, is that the many gods represent real things, or real natural phenomenon. So they aren't treated as personalities like the Abrahamic religions do. I think it allows a lot more freedom of belief and celebration than the Western tradition has set up.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes we can describe what a Tooth Fairly is with a lot of detail. Hobbits are well described. Yahweh is describes in the Old Testament. The new and improved Yahweh is described in the New Testament. Hindu gods are well described, and you can get statues of many of them for your house or temple.

So the dilemma for theists is all these thousands of gods. The Abrahamic religious have the same god, and that Judaic version evolved from a polytheistic system. So if anything the many, many gods in human history is a problem for the monotheists.

What is Jehovah?
What does he look like?
In the OT he seems to dislike human sacrifice (thank gosh)
In the NT he promotes it ( )
Is he just what that particular culture(s) make him out to be?

The bible only gives the definition I AM.

What is that?

(Not even christians know)

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

It happens when two people view the same phenomena, but comprehend and experience the nature of those phenomena from different perspectives.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

Good then. You’ve emptied your cup of preconceptions and fixed ideas. So;

There is a thing confusedly formed,
Born before heaven and earth.
Silent and void
It stands alone and does not change,
Goes round and does not weary.
It is capable of being the mother of heaven and earth.
As yet I do not know it’s name.
I style it ‘the way’.

 

[firedragon]

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

No.

 

[firedragon]

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?

Cut and pasted from above.

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.

 

[F1fan]

What is Jehovah?

I think it's a Hebrew deity.

What does he look like?

I'm not sure.

In the OT he seems to dislike human sacrifice (thank gosh)
In the NT he promotes it ( )
Is he just what that particular culture(s) make him out to be?

Funny how God always conforms to what religious authority says.

The bible only gives the definition I AM.

What is that?

(Not even christians know)

No they don't. But It has nothing to do with what Descarte said because I don't know how an imaginary God can think.

 

[McBell]

Cut and pasted from above.

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.

Who is it you are trying to convince?

At this point it appears it is yourself...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think it's a Hebrew deity.

Jews don't describe their god. So....

 

[F1fan]

It happens when two people view the same phenomena, but comprehend and experience the nature of those phenomena from different perspectives.

Right. Say you're alone at home one night and you hear a noise at the back of your house. Is it a ghost? Is it a burglar? Is it an animal? Maybe the wind is knocking somewhat against the house.

Minds can assume any of these and respond. But note their experience is not by knowing what the noise is, but guessing what it is. The assumptions is what is creating the experiences, from fear to mundane. An objective mind would investigate and try to find a definitive answer, and then respond. Our limbic system is still very primitive, like most any other wild animal. Our fear response mechanism is still there and we have to work hard with mental discipline to manage the reaction.

 

[F1fan]

Jews don't describe their god. So....

Right, and can't even write its name. Oddly they can get mad at God.

 

[firedragon]

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

First you have to explain your epistemology and what you mean by your word "evidence". Everyone is different.

You are discussing a metaphysical subject. So you should understand that you define your grounds. This is not a scientific theory like relativity. So if your type of discussion and demand is like a chemistry experiment where someone puts p2o5, heats it and rids of o. It has to be a philosophical discussion and the proof provided will be based on deduction.

So go ahead and define your epistemology first, and yes, I will engage.

 

[firedragon]

Who is it you are trying to convince?

At this point it appears it is yourself...

That was not your post I responded to. And I dont have any intentions of convincing you or anyone else. Zilch. Maybe you do and you think others are the same as you trying to convince people.

If you have a good argument present it with a critical approach. Try.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Right. Say you're alone at home one night and you hear a noise at the back of your house. Is it a ghost? Is it a burglar? Is it an animal? Maybe the wind is knocking somewhat against the house.

Minds can assume any of these and respond. But note their experience is not by knowing what the noise is, but guessing what it is. The assumptions is what is creating the experiences, from fear to mundane. An objective mind would investigate and try to find a definitive answer, and then respond. Our limbic system is still very primitive, like most any other wild animal. Our fear response mechanism is still there and we have to work hard with mental discipline to manage the reaction.

Interesting twist this conversation has taken. Why are we talking about fear? The original observation, by @loverofhumanity , was more in the nature of wonder at the glory of the material world; and the spirituality implicit in that response, to which @Subduction Zone was resistant.

Both fear and wonder are intense responses to stimuli, of course.

Anyway my point was not that different people interpret evidence differently, to solve some sort of mystery. It was that two people can observe the same phenomenon - a sunset, say - but one sees the mundane and the other the miraculous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It happens when two people view the same phenomena, but comprehend and experience the nature of those phenomena from different perspectives.

Not necessarily. "Evidence" that only convinces yourself is hardly evidence at all. Evidence is something that should convince any rational thinker, but then it must have rational reasoning as to why a particular observation is evidence.

 

[Etritonakin]

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

It seems logical to me that everything is proof of God's existence (based on the concept of God literally being everything).

God would essentially be the original -the sum of all things -having/having developed self-awareness and all else -from as simple a state as possible.

It would necessarily be so as things could only progress so far until the development of memory, processing, modeling -the ability to mirror reality in memory -make changes -then apply them to reality.

Certain things necessarily precede and make up the development of such -and the development of such necessarily precedes that which is otherwise impossible.

That is the point at which absolute inevitability ceases -at which things can possibly be otherwise.

After that point, levels of purposeful complexity become possible which are indicative of the existence of a self-awareness -which accommodate the needs and desires of a self-awareness.

It is the point of logical separation of self and environment, mind and body/interface, etc.
God would be both self and environment -separated logically into that which could decide to act and that which could be acted upon -a more complex version of the most simple interaction.

It is assumed by some that the universe did not need a creator -which is to say conscious decision and action was not necessary, but it's extreme purposeful complexity indicates otherwise -as does the fact that it is extremely accomodating of the needs and desires of a self-awareness. Furthermore, it is also extremely accomodating to -and indicates preparedness for (forethought), the needs and desires of the many self-awarenesses which eventually inhabited it.

The fact that we look out from this point into an unfathomably vast universe -full of worlds we might explore and create upon -and that it was prepared before our existence -does indicate that it was literally prepared for us. (Furthermore, everything is made of building blocks which once did not exist as such -with which are minds are capable of creating just about anything we can imagine -and bodies which can experience those things deeply. The minds, bodies and building blocks were made for each other -and in logically reversed order -which indicates forethought.
The original would have had much simpler building blocks previously -which required the original to arrange them into something so purposefully complex.)
Even our extremely complex and capable bodies -and the fact that we simply awaken within them -indicates similar -and also hints at the nature of the original.

An original is not only necessary, but would have necessarily decided upon all as increasingly able -including configuration of both self and environment. Even though some of those decisions were inevitably arrived at, they required a mind to arrive at them. No-brainers, but which required a brain, so to speak.

The position of original would also be necessary for that which is attributed to God -omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

(If you read such things as "I AM THAT AM", most high, Alpha and Omega, first and last,...was, is and is to come, etc., in that light it makes perfect sense.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems logical to me that everything is proof of God's existence (based on the concept of God literally being everything).

God would essentially be the original -the sum of all things -having/having developed self-awareness and all else -from as simple a state as possible.

It would necessarily be so as things could only progress so far until the development of memory, processing, modeling -the ability to mirror reality in memory -make changes -then apply them to reality.

Certain things necessarily precede and make up the development of such -and the development of such necessarily precedes that which is otherwise impossible.

That is the point at which absolute inevitability ceases -at which things can possibly be otherwise.

After that point, levels of purposeful complexity become possible which are indicative of the existence of a self-awareness -which accommodate the needs and desires of a self-awareness.

It is the point of logical separation of self and environment, mind and body/interface, etc.
God would be both self and environment -separated logically into that which could decide to act and that which could be acted upon -a more complex version of the most simple interaction.

It is assumed by some that the universe did not need a creator -which is to say conscious decision and action was not necessary, but it's extreme purposeful complexity indicates otherwise -as does the fact that it is extremely accomodating of the needs and desires of a self-awareness. Furthermore, it is also extremely accomodating to -and indicates preparedness for (forethought), the needs and desires of the many self-awarenesses which eventually inhabited it.

The fact that we look out from this point into an unfathomably vast universe -full of worlds we might explore and create upon -and that it was prepared before our existence -does indicate that it was literally prepared for us.
Even our extremely complex and capable bodies -and the fact that we simply awaken within them -indicates similar -and also hints at the nature of the original.

An original is not only necessary, but would have necessarily decided upon all as increasingly able -including configuration of both self and environment. Even though some of those decisions were inevitably arrived at, they required a mind to arrive at them. No-brainers, but which required a brain, so to speak.

Your "proof" falis beucase you failed to consider the alternative. Why do you think that a God is even necessary?