Evidence for God

[Treasure Hunter]

Well, that's a claim, let's see the facts that inform us that you are correct, and not bluffing. I think you are bluffing since you haven't presented evidence that your fantastic claims are in any way true.

Sincere people get conned and fooled, too. So show us what you have to indicate you aren't one of them.

This is the response of someone I perceive to be motivated by dominating and winning arguments rather than genuine truth seeking, which is willing to explore beyond the strict confines of rationality. I am only looking to engage truth seekers.

 

[F1fan]

This is the response of someone I perceive to be motivated by dominating and winning arguments rather than genuine truth seeking, which is willing to explore beyond the strict confines of rationality.

You opened to door to more questions and a request for evidence, and you run away. If you actually had evidence, and an actual God on your side which would bring you massive confidence, I would expect a warrior for God showing atheists how wrong they are. But no, you behave eactly as someone caught making extraordinary claims that they can't defend on an open debate forum. That's how it works around here, make a claim, back it up. This isn't fellowship.

I am only looking to engage truth seekers.

That's me, now all you have to do is present evidence that you have found some truth.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

You opened to door to more questions and a request for evidence, and you run away. If you actually had evidence, and an actual God on your side which would bring you massive confidence, I would expect a warrior for God showing atheists how wrong they are. But no, you behave eactly as someone caught making extraordinary claims that they can't defend on an open debate forum. That's how it works around here, make a claim, back it up. This isn't fellowship.

That's me, now all you have to do is present evidence that you have found some truth.

There will be no evidence for the rationalists, who will receive all that they deserve. I decided that my soul is entitled to more.

 

[F1fan]

There will be no evidence for the rationalists,

Then why are you making claims in an open forum that are subject to logic and rules of evidence like you will find in court?

If not a rational process, then what cognitive process are you trying to appeal to, and is also as reliable as reason?

who will receive all that they deserve.

Oh my, that sounds like a bit of a threat of harm. Is this how enlightenend people typically behave when they encounter skeptics?

I decided that my soul is entitled to more.

It sounds like it's upset and being passive aggressive. Is this the sort of character you intend to show us as a believer? Shouldn't "truth seekers" be more in balance and grounded?

 

[Trailblazer]

I knew how this would go before it unfolded. No, she cannot give you anything specific. It will always be broad, nonspecific generalities.

No you don't know how this will unfold because you are not God. Only God has foreknowledge.
You don't know what I can give him.

 

[danieldemol]

I can't know about God's logic, but I reason that God's logic has to be different from human logic since God is not a human.

That can be used to justify any illogical statement though. For example is it logically impossible that God died on a cross then resurrected after 3 days?! Gods logic is not your logic.

As humans we don't have access to God's logic, only our own and *if* God created us then God presumably gave us our brains for a reason - to reject that which is not logical to us in my view.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No you don't know how this will unfold because you are not God. Only God has foreknowledge.
You don't know what I can give him.

Give whatever is yours to whomever you want. That is no concern for anyone here. What you cannot give is any evidence which will satisfy an atheist about your God or his so-called prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis.
Since atheist do not believe in existence of God, whatever you say about God, about his system, about his messengers, is not relevant to us.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Then why are you making claims in an open forum that are subject to logic and rules of evidence like you will find in court?

If not a rational process, then what cognitive process are you trying to appeal to, and is also as reliable as reason?

Oh my, that sounds like a bit of a threat of harm. Is this how enlightenend people typically behave when they encounter skeptics?

It sounds like it's upset and being passive aggressive. Is this the sort of character you intend to show us as a believer? Shouldn't "truth seekers" be more in balance and grounded?

We're not in court, which makes your assumption of the role of prosecutor rather curious. Why are you so seemingly desperate to prove religious people wrong? What exactly is it that you are so afraid of?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Give whatever is yours to whomever you want. That is no concern for anyone here. What you cannot give is any evidence which will satisfy an atheist about your God or his so-called prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis.
Since atheist do not believe in existence of God, whatever you say about God, about his system, about his messengers, is not relevant to us.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. If the atheist wants to remain thirsty, even when he has been shown the way to the oasis, that's his decision.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK, so there is no basis for any rational human to decide a god of some sort exists?

As per the standard meaning of those words, no.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We're not in court, which makes your assumption of the role of prosecutor rather curious. Why are you so seemingly desperate to prove religious people wrong? What exactly is it that you are so afraid of?

Here is a simple one.
How do you explain that behaviors of these 2 humans? Not as wrong or anything like, but how do explain what is going?

#1: I know, that I am rational and I know that you are not!!!
#2: You are so irrational. I know I am rational and I know that you are not!

So how can these 2 humans both do that?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Here is a simple one.
How do you explain that behaviors of these 2 humans? Not as wrong or anything like, but how do explain what is going?

#1: I know, that I am rational and I know that you are not!!!
#2: You are so irrational. I know I am rational and I know that you are not!

So how can these 2 humans both do that?

It seems to me that both these hypothetical individuals lack two things; the first is self doubt, and the second, a willingness try to see things from another’s perspective. And with attitudes like that, they each render themselves incapable of learning from the other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It seems to me that both these hypothetical individuals lack two things; the first is self doubt, and the second, a willingness try to see things from another’s perspective. And with attitudes like that, they each render themselves incapable of learning from the other.

Further if rationality was as objectively strong as examples with human mobility and jumping off of cliffs, one of them would be dead.
Some people can't doubt rationality and understand that they are only limited rational.
Just as there is a limit to human mobility, there is a limit to human rationality.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No you don't know how this will unfold because you are not God. Only God has foreknowledge.

We've been through this already. You made that claim recently and I rebutted it: "That would be incorrect. Man has much foreknowledge as well. The odds are very good for Peking duck the Saturday evening. I called and reserved a duck and a table for four. Oh, and the sun will swell in about five billion years. In between (hopefully not sooner), I'll die, and the world will go on without me." Your response was to back peddle and move the goalposts, "You can know some things about the future, but not absolutely. The restaurant could be closed due to a fire so there go your plans. We all know we will die someday, that is a given." Did you forget? That was less than three weeks ago.

This is the response of someone I perceive to be motivated by dominating and winning arguments rather than genuine truth seeking, which is willing to explore beyond the strict confines of rationality.

You're in a debate forum. That is the response of a critical thinker who enjoys debate. The faithful routinely frame that as conflict. And there is no truth other than empirical truth if the word is to mean more than something one wants to believe.

I am only looking to engage truth seekers.

You want to engage other soft thinkers, by which I mean people with relaxed standards for belief and truth.

There will be no evidence for the rationalists, who will receive all that they deserve.

Thanks. It's been a long, strange trip, and if I get a second bite at the apple, I'd like to do it the same way again. Empiricism has been a reliable friend, and I recommend it to all. Humanism has been a rational and compassionate worldview that has helped me become the happy person I wanted to be. It is a common trope from the faithful, who assume that there is no happiness without faith in their god, but fail to look around them to see what kind of people the worldview they berate actually is generating and the lives they live. Western Europe doesn't have much religion, but it has some very happy people. Iran and Afghanistan have a lot of religion. Of the Western democracies, the unhappiest people - the only ones experiencing medical bankruptcies, or who can't get an abortion - live in the most religious one. It's a failed worldview, and the evidence is ample.

We're not in court, which makes your assumption of the role of prosecutor rather curious.

You misunderstood him. He is saying that he uses the same critical thinking in debate that attorneys use in court. It's also the same thinking that university professors bring to academic discussions and that scientists bring to peer review.

Why are you so seemingly desperate to prove religious people wrong? What exactly is it that you are so afraid of?

Why do you depict him as desperate for promoting his values and ways of deciding truth? Why do you think that the faithful should be immune to such analysis (both rhetorical questions)? They're in a mixed, public forum now, not a segregated group comprising only other believers as they are used to in church and on religious websites, and many seem unfamiliar with and taken aback by the academic ethic. It's as if they are seeing sporting events and mistaking them for war.

 

[F1fan]

Everything we say and do is judged by its intention .. we reap what we sow.

By ourselves and other humans.

We're not in court,

My point was about the normal standard for evidence and how we make sound judgments, which is the same as logic and debate. Theists make claims that do not stand up to this standard of evidence.

which makes your assumption of the role of prosecutor rather curious.

That is curious since I made no claim like this. See how you can get confused in false beliefs due to unskilled thinking?

Why are you so seemingly desperate to prove religious people wrong?

That isn't how debate works. Theists make various extraordinary claims that they can't show are true, and we skeptics ask questions. We are truth seekers, not dogma seekers, and when you can't back up claims with evidnce, your claims are by default rejected. You should have learned this by now.

What exactly is it that you are so afraid of?

In regards to what? Are you suggesting non-believers are afriad to accept religious claims that lack evidence? Notice how often Muslims reject the religious beliefs of Hindus and Christians. Is that OK? You will reject the religious claims of theists who don't agree with you. Atheists are just one category. The one difference is that atheists show a higher level of skepticism and critical thinking skill and will seek debate where other theists won't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By ourselves and other humans.


My point was about the normal standard for evidence and how we make sound judgments, which is the same as logic and debate. Theists make claims that do not stand up to this standard of evidence.

3500​

That is curious since I made no claim like this. See how you can get confused in false beliefs due to unskilled thinking?

That isn't how debate works. Theists make various extraordinary claims that they can't show are true, and we skeptics ask questions. We are truth seekers, not dogma seekers, and when you can't back up claims with evidnce, your claims are by default rejected. You should have learned this by now.

In regards to what? Are you suggesting non-believers are afriad to accept religious claims that lack evidence? Notice how often Muslims reject the religious beliefs of Hindus and Christians. Is that OK? You will reject the religious claims of theists who don't agree with you. Atheists are just one category. The one difference is that atheists show a higher level of skepticism and critical thinking skill and will seek debate where other theists won't.

Yeah, as long as you understand that, this is the general limit of objective:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[F1fan]

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. If the atheist wants to remain thirsty, even when he has been shown the way to the oasis, that's his decision.

Bad analogy because you believe the trough has water in it. You claim we are thirsty, and that there is water in a trough, and we ask you to show us. You show us an empty trough, and but you insist it is full of water. We see no evidence of water, and you blame us for not seeing any water. But that's ok because we have a canteen and are well hydrated.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, as long as you understand that, this is the general limit of objective:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Yeah there are limits that don't interfere with thinkers examining the claims of those who think some sort of God exists, yet can't explain how or why they believe it. You are one of these with belief in some sort of God, yet the limit of science doesn't stop you believing. Shouldn't you be skeptical?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah there are limits that don't interfere with thinkers examining the claims of those who think some sort of God exists, yet can't explain how or why they believe it. You are one of these with belief in some sort of God, yet the limit of science doesn't stop you believing. Shouldn't you be skeptical?

Well, here is the problem. It is in the end natural to believe as much as it is natural to be an atheist.
It is so in both cases that is a part of the world. So only using objective evidence, explain how I ought not to believe.

 

[F1fan]

Well, here is the problem. It is in the end natural to believe as much as it is natural to be an atheist.

The issue wasn't whether belief is natural, it is how a person uses their ability to reason whether what they believe or conclude follows a reliable set of rules that lead to a sound conclusion and understanding of what is true.

It is so in both cases that is a part of the world. So only using objective evidence, explain how I ought not to believe.

You were quick to post a link about the limits of science, which happens to be a disciplined approach using a set of reliable rules, yet when it comes you your personal beliefs you abandon this just as quickly. So the rules and limits only apply to those who use reason, and for those who don't it's not? Special pleading at its finest.