Evidence for God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yo said "So there's nothing in the universe that points to God"..

No, that's what you said.

..and I say that all you see, points to G-d.
..over..

You told us that nothing points to God unless you're already predisposed to see God everywhere.

 

[viole]

Yo said "So there's nothing in the universe that points to God"..

..and I say that all you see, points to G-d.
..over..

like children leukemia.

by the way, who is G-d?

ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

You told us that nothing points to God unless you're already predisposed to see God everywhere.

No .. that is your interpretation of what I am saying.
One does not "see G-d everywhere" .. One sees the universe in all its glory.

You say that you don't say that "You just say that it is all natural' without explaining where nature originates."

..so if G-d is not responsible for all that we see, what is?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yo said "So there's nothing in the universe that points to God"..

..and I say that all you see, points to G-d.
..over..

Yeah, and I have the right sight and you are blind. This subjective game is such fun.

 

[F1fan]

Baha'is are still going with the "messengers" are the evidence? But they to supposedly existed in this spirit world that the Baha'is claim is real, yet they were able to incarnate into a physical body. Then even God was able to appear to Moses but only showed him his back.

Exodus 22: 21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.​

Of course, Baha'is could say that Moses was one of those special manifestations that could communicate with God. But, to me, why even assume the story was real. And Baha'is probably don't. But if true, then it shows that God was able to make himself seen. Then the Bible also has God sending the "angel of the Lord" to go tell somebody something. Whoever that was? But this angel was also a "messenger" from God and was spirit but was able to appear for a short time then disappeared. But it doesn't matter, Baha'is won't accept this Bible evidence. They just don't have faith that God can do these things.

It's very fishy that God inspires books and texts that insist he exists, but God can't leave actual evidence that it exists, as if there is a secret to keep? The evidence suggests that gods are invented by humans. That is the Occam's Razor solution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No .. that is your interpretation of what I am saying.
One does not "see G-d everywhere" .. One sees the universe in all its glory.

You say that you didn't say that "You just say that it is all "natural" without explaining where nature originates."

That's right: I didn't say it.

What I was getting at was that any evidence you have access to will be in a form that a human being can perceive.

Nothing about the natural world being all that exists, just that if you're making claims about invisible realms you can't actually see, then you're pulling it out of your butt because you have no way of knowing, even if the invisible realm is real.

..so if G-d is not responsible for all that we see, what is?

For argument's sake, let's say magical time-travelling squids are responsible for all we see.

Now your task: show me how your god is better supported than this alternative explanation that I just made up.

 

[muhammad_isa]

For argument's sake, let's say magical time-travelling squids are responsible for all we see.

..and I suppose there are other people in the world that believe this, and have scriptures and historical documents to prove it etc.
No .. thought not.

Now your task: show me how your god is better supported than this alternative explanation that I just made up.

If that is the level that you wish to communicate on, you may find someone else to "play".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

..and I suppose there are other people in the world that believe this, and have scriptures and historical documents to prove it etc.
No .. thought not.

You have "scriptures and historical documents" that prove God? Please tell me more.

If that is the level that you wish to communicate on, you may find someone else to "play".

This should be a trivial task if you have support for the existence of God. You aren't up to it?

Edit: if you're offended by me setting a very low bar to clear, I can give you a higher one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They cannot explain where the nuclear forces originate, for example.
How can one detect something that is the very fabric of reality?
You just take it all for granted.

Does acceptance of God gives some better clues about the problem of existence?
Why should anyone take it for granted?
Just because someone claimed to be a messenger of God (he did not give any evidence for that)?

 

[Aupmanyav]

..and I say that all you see, points to G-d.
..over..

If you say so, kindly give us the evidence that may save us too from the horrors of your God's hell (pour hot oil on the head till brains melt).
There is nothing to smirk about. Atheist ask you to give a shred of evidence for your God, and you cannot give that. You just make an assertion and ask us to accept it. That is no discussion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But there isn't a lack of physical evidence, since God sends Messengers on His behalf and they are physical.

But they are insufficient evidence to support belief in a god. They are evidence that people have existed that made claims about gods.

Theists know what the evidence is and that is why we believe God exists.
Atheists don't know what the evidence is and that is why they don't believe God exists.
It is really as simple as that.

It's nothing like that. The faith-based thinkers believe absent sufficient supporting evidence and the critical thinkers don't. They know what you call evidence, but reject the conclusions you say it supports.

It is not 100% faith because it is evidence-based faith

Any faith makes it a faith-based belief. If you cannot arrive at a sound conclusion using your evidence, then your only option for belief is by faith. That's all there is - justified belief and faith. Your evidence doesn't support your claim for it, so your belief is faith-based. There is no middle ground between justified and unjustified belief.

What is rational is to accept what God provides as evidence, IF you want to believe in God.

I want to know what true. That's rational. If there are no gods, why would I want to believe otherwise? That would be irrational (faith).

Science, philosophy, mathematics, medical science, technology are not the domain of religion

No, all of those actually make a contribution to human understanding and improve the human condition. The domain of religion is to make unfalsifiable proclamations that are useless except to comfort people that are uncomfortable without them.

Yes, as far as we can see or measure, God has no effect on the world

And you have missed the implication of such a statement. Make a list of all of the other things that have no effect on any physical object or process at any time in any place, and see what they all have in common. As far as we can measure, dragons have no effect on the world. Nor Klingons. Nor Santa Claus.

If you can see and measure things in the material world, x, y, and z, how do you know that God is not maintaining them if God is invisible?

We don't, but why would we believe that the material world needs a god to sustain it? Such arguments are special pleading fallacies. The same argument regarding gods needing something to sustain them is just as strong or weak. We must give both the same respect. If we give your argument credence, we must give them both credence. If can we reject the idea that gods need an infrastructure to persist, we can reject the same claim about the universe.

I can hardly believe that anyone believes that anyone ever saw God.

Really? That's just the tip of the iceberg of what people believe by faith.

Tony and White Light. No, it was not too much quoting, it was something else. I don't know the details as to why they left,

They were both visibly distressed by debate.

G-d created and maintains the "natural world" .. the universe.

That's a faith-based religious belief with little supporting evidence or explanatory or predictive power, that is, an idea of no utility

If G-d stopped maintaining the universe, it would cease to exist.

I see it more the other way around. If denizens of the universe stopped believing in gods, god beliefs would cease to exist.

I do not believe the world would exist "just because it can",
as to me, it makes no sense whatsoever.

More special pleading. You have chosen to believe that a god exists that created and sustains the world, and that determines what makes "sense" to you. Absent that belief, arguments for gods or against a self-sustaining universe

Why do electrons spin around atoms?
You will say, because it is "a natural law", but that does not explain WHY it is a natural law?

Are you going to suggest that religion has the answer? If so, I disagree that "God did it" is an answer any better than Norman did it. If not, what was your purpose in posting that?

You are just spiritually blind.

I'd say that the opposite is true for the Abrahamic theist. Authentic spiritual experiences have nothing to do with spirits or other worlds.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Atheist ask you to give a shred of evidence for your God, and you cannot give that.

I can, but I won't..
I don't wish to discuss on the level of "invisible pink unicorns" bla bla.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You have chosen to believe that a god exists that created and sustains the world, and that determines what makes "sense" to you.

That's right .. rather than criticising, what do you think is responsible for all we see?

 

[Trailblazer]

When you say "Messengers of God," all I hear is "people who claimed to speak for God."

The Messengers were "people who claimed to speak for God" but that is certainly not all they did, make a claim.
If they had not "claimed to speak for God" how could we know they were speaking for God?

It does not come across as particularly compelling evidence.

In fact, I'd say it's not evidence at all as much as it is just more claims.

If all they did was make claims that would be no evidence at all since a claim means nothing at all unless there is evidence to back it up.
Anyone can claim to be a Messenger of God, but why should anyone believe them if they cannot back up that claim with evidence?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I can, but I won't.

Nice way to dodge the question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's right .. rather than criticising, what do you think is responsible for all we see?

I don't think, that is decided by what we think.

 

[Trailblazer]

what on earth is evidence based faith? You have one or the other.

No, that is illogical since it is the Black-or-White Fallacy.

The Black-or-White Fallacy is the provision of only two alternatives in an argument when there are actually more options available. ... It's also sometimes called the Gray Fallacy, between black and white options, or the middle-ground fallacy, after a middle ground between two warring camps.

Domena writer.meteo24.nazwa.pl jest utrzymywana na serwerach nazwa.pl

One can have evidence as well as faith. I have evidence for Baha'u'llah but since I can never prove that He received messages from God I have to have faith in order to believe that. I also have to have faith that God exists since it can never be proven that God exists. However, there is evidence that God exists and that evidence is the Messengers of God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Messengers were "people who claimed to speak for God" but that is certainly not all they did, make a claim.
If they had not "claimed to speak for God" how could we know they were speaking for God?

If all they did was make claims that would be no evidence at all since a claim means nothing at all unless there is evidence to back it up.
Anyone can claim to be a Messenger of God, but why should anyone believe them if they cannot back up that claim with evidence?

For those who have got their noses cut and have seen the Emperors\'S New Clothes, but not for others.
So anyone claims and you accept. What about Joseph Smith and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Ahmadiyyas.
What evidence did any messenger give for it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

That's right .. rather than criticising, what do you think is responsible for all we see?

Science does not make any claim for that. Science is investigating. We have to wait and not come up with absurd reasons.

 

[Trailblazer]

So anyone claims and you accept. What about Joseph Smith and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Ahmadiyyas.
What evidence did any messenger give for it?

No, I only accept the claims of those who have evidence to back up their claims.
Joseph Smith and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Ahmadiyyas had no evidence.