Evidence of God existence

[stvdv]

28 jul 2018 stvdv 020 52

Interesting. I must have missed that thread.

The only reason atheists "worry" about a definition of god is that theists continually attempt to proselytize. If nobody did that, I agree, I would not really care.

Thank you. A theist can read it maybe in more ways:
1: The theist can think I better proselytize more, because "Milton Platt" at least "Cares" because of our "continually attempt to proselytize"
2: I read in your words "it's good I don't proselytize": a')No need for Atheists to know about God + b)Atheist is smart enough to find out without me proselytizing anyway.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"God", by definition, does not.

Yes, god does need an explanation as to why the "first cause" begins with "god." For all we know, if something/one did create this universe, this creator is just as mortal and wonked in the heads as humans.
And "god, by definition" tells us nothing. Hindu gods? Norse gods? Pantheism? Zeus or Ra? God defines nothing more than a vague concept of a hypothetical supernatural entity.

It doesn't make the 'unreal', either.

Yeah, it's very unreal. Such as, believing they are king of the world, have a million kids, their dad is coming to kill them, fighting with angels while in jail, they seem real to the person with schizophrenia, but they aren't real. No more than Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

You're demanding proof, not considering the evidence. That, to me, indicates a very strong bias that is seeking to protect and maintain itself.

There is no evidence. Sure, people claim Josephus, but many scholars believe that what he allegedly wrote about Jesus was a forgery added in later by Christians. With Tacitus, that was over a century after Jesus.
Thus, I stand by my statement that "there is none."

This depends entirely on how one interprets the text.

A book that is so filled with so many contradictions and inconsistencies that a defense based on a sort of "it depends on you interpret it" does not speak well for the chances of said book being anything about god.

 

[blü 2]

what is the best evidence of God existence?

Before anyone can answer that question, we need a clear definition of 'god', one that would allow us to tell whether any real candidate were God, or a god, or not.

I've never come across such a definition, but I don't see how your question can be answered without it.

 

[stvdv]

Before anyone can answer that question, we need a clear definition of 'god', one that would allow us to tell whether any real candidate were God, or a god, or not.

I've never come across such a definition, but I don't see how your question can be answered without it.

Agreed. I tried it with a new thread. Nothing came out. Maybe you try. But my idea "it must be very simple"

Like "If we don't define God first, we better STOP debating about God. We just make ourselves look like fools"

And it would be convenient to find a definition that all RF member agree on [when they participate in the debate]

[And from now on this is what I will tell people who evangelize/proselytize. Provide definition of God first. agreed by all]

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed. I tried it with a new thread. Nothing came out. Maybe you try. But my idea "it must be very simple"

Like "If we don't define God first, we better STOP debating about God. We just make ourselves look like fools"

And it would be convenient to find a definition that all RF member agree on [when they participate in the debate]

[And from now on this is what I will tell people who evangelize/proselytize. Provide definition of God first. agreed by all]

I don't think that that will ever happen.

 

[stvdv]

28 jul 2018 stvdv 020 57 info

we need a clear definition of 'god', one that would allow us to tell whether any real candidate were God, or a god, or not.

Agreed. I tried it with a new thread. Nothing came out. Maybe you try. But my idea "it must be very simple"
Like "If we don't define God first, we better STOP debating about God. We just make ourselves look like fools"
And it would be convenient to find a definition that all RF member agree on [when they participate in the debate]
[And from now on this is what I will tell people who evangelize/proselytize. Provide definition of God first. agreed by all]

I don't think that that will ever happen.

I think you are right. So it's solved, no definition of God possible that fits all. No need to debate on something w/o definition IMO.

My Definition:
God = The cause of Creation

Period.

I don't fill this in:"Can be Real" OR "Can be Imagination" OR .... I use my Common Sense and don't debate, knowing:"People who talk never were able to convey the Truth about God"

This seems to be a valuable Koan. And I am fine with that.

 

[Walterbl]

Aminoacids

Aminoacids are not alive

But the components of life: amino acids, cell walls. &c. arise spontaneously all the time, through simple chemistry.

But even the most simple form of life requires thousands of these components assembled in a very specific way. The odds that these components randomly assemble themselves into something resembling life are minuscule.

The smallest independent life likely needs at least 1500 gene products to survive. Evolutionary biologist Colin Patterson estimated 1700 as “perhaps close to the minimum necessary for independent life.” (Evolution, 2nd ed. [Ithica: Comstock, 1999], 23.

Not necessarily. Some count viruses as being alive.

Virus can't reproduce if there are no other living forms around, so they could not have been the first form of life.

It is a gross error to assume that the earliest of life would be as complex as today's life.

Still, there is a minimum of complexity required for a molecule to self replicate.

 

[Apologes]

And "god, by definition" tells us nothing. Hindu gods? Norse gods? Pantheism? Zeus or Ra? God defines nothing more than a vague concept of a hypothetical supernatural entity.

To my knowledge, practically all half-decent cosmological arguments since Aquinas introduce God in the last premises of the argument in a way that would show the already established cause of the universe to be the exact same thing people would refer to as God. Should a cosmological argument arrive at a cause of the universe that is deduced to be immaterial, personal, powerful and possessing a lot of other properties that are typically associated with classical theism they are more than justified to call said cause God where God is simply a term used to refer to this cause.

To most cosmological arguments, the exact relation of this God with respect to particular religions (be it the Christian God or Zeus) is left unmentioned for the simple reason that the cosmological arguments (more often than not) do not seek to establish the truth of any particular religion but the truth of classical theism.

Yes, god does need an explanation as to why the "first cause" begins with "god." For all we know, if something/one did create this universe, this creator is just as mortal and wonked in the heads as humans.

Following from the previous point, when one has arrived at a cause they call God then one is justified to stop looking for any additional causes as they are not needed to explain anything further. One cause is sufficient to explain all the data and so postulating additional causes would compromise the theory's simplicity and as such would be a violation of Occam's Razor.

There is no evidence. Sure, people claim Josephus, but many scholars believe that what he allegedly wrote about Jesus was a forgery added in later by Christians. With Tacitus, that was over a century after Jesus.
Thus, I stand by my statement that "there is none."

You're clearly out of touch with the overwhelming consensus on the historical Jesus studies which affirms without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was a very real historical figure with his baptism by John the Baptist and death by crucifixion being almost universally accepted by modern scholarship.

Said scholars do indeed consider Testimonium Flavium to have been tampered with by Christians but they also believe that Josephus' mention of Jesus in Antiquities was indeed authentic. Tacitus is also accepted as reliable as late reports can pass the criteria for historical reliability perfectly well and are commonly used to reconstruct the lives of ancient people.

A book that is so filled with so many contradictions and inconsistencies that a defense based on a sort of "it depends on you interpret it" does not speak well for the chances of said book being anything about god.

Except the Bible is not just one book but a compilation of dozens of books, letters and other writings that vary greatly in their nature and context. To look at the whole thing as if it's one book written from cover to cover by God and passed down to the believing lot is only going to get a pass from the most hardcore fundamentalists.

Most sensible Christians take the Bible as inspired by God in what it teaches but accept the errors of the human side that is more than present in the scriptures. Mind you, the early Church didn't even have a Bible but the canon itself was formed much later on.

 

[blü 2]

Agreed. I tried it with a new thread. Nothing came out. Maybe you try. But my idea "it must be very simple"

I don't require it to be simple as such. I'll be happy if it provides an objective test ─ a test that in principle anyone can use ─ that clearly distinguishes a god from a not-god. As I said, no one seems to have one, no one seems to know just what they're talking about.

[And from now on this is what I will tell people who evangelize/proselytize. Provide definition of God first. agreed by all]

Good luck with them evangelists, by golly!

 

[blü 2]

My Definition:
God = The cause of Creation

Period.

So you'd be happy if the cause of Creation turns out to be physics, then? Physics would be God?

 

[Willamena]

So you'd be happy if the cause of Creation turns out to be physics, then? Physics would be God?

You know that it can't be physics, right? We (humans) aren't that clever, that one of our scientific disciplines gets to be creator. Especially of itself.

 

[Audie]

Aminoacids are not alive



But even the most simple form of life requires thousands of these components assembled in a very specific way. The odds that these components randomly assemble themselves into something resembling life are minuscule.

The smallest independent life likely needs at least 1500 gene products to survive. Evolutionary biologist Colin Patterson estimated 1700 as “perhaps close to the minimum necessary for independent life.” (Evolution, 2nd ed. [Ithica: Comstock, 1999], 23.



Virus can't reproduce if there are no other living forms around, so they could not have been the first form of life.



Still, there is a minimum of complexity required for a molecule to self replicate.

You seem to be inconsistent.

We give you the building blocks
,you asked for self assembled, and
all you can say is the obvious,
that they are not alive, as if
anyone said they were.

I asked you to define the
bright line distinction
between life and non-life.
You declined to even try,
tho now you are asserting
things as if you know.

Being "unable to reproduce
unless other life forms
are around" is not a criterion,
you simply invented that.
And nobody suggested virus
as a first life form,
no need to defeat an argument
not made, and obviousto all.

Of COURSE there is a minimum
complexity for a molecule to
reproduce. A two-atom molecule wont do.

You seem to simultaneously assert
that the simplest life must
be immensely complex, or just a s
ingle molecule of undetermined
size (complexity).


Also, the thing about "randomly...".
First, I pointed out that given the
rather large numbrr of reactions In
a few hundred millions cubic miles
of water and a few hundred million years...
.did that go into the
calculations you made?

Second, the picture of random assembly
as per the creationist canard
(See "tornado in junkyard make 747")
is helpful as asort of facile
slogan to keep the convinced to stay convinced.

It is not an accurate picture either of what "random"
means or howchemistry or evolution works.

Do you think the random movements
of tiny blind creaturescould build one of these
air conditioned structures with gardens,
humidity control,

Randomly? Statistically imposdible?

Yes, and, to the second , no.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ter...6cHcAhUQLa0KHVDiCBkQ_AUIESgB&biw=1280&bih=800

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151210-why-termites-build-such-enormous-skyscrapers

I wonder why, if god you must have,
you dont want to give him credit for
thr skill to make a universe that he does
not have to meddle with
to get it to produce life?

 

[stvdv]

My Definition:
God = The cause of Creation
Period.
I don't fill this in:"Can be Real" OR "Can be Imagination" OR .... I use my Common Sense and don't debate, knowing:"People who talk never were able to convey the Truth about God"
This seems to be a valuable Koan. And I am fine with that.

So you'd be happy if the cause of Creation turns out to be physics, then? Physics would be God?

I am a scientist. So "yes". But being a scientist it seems unlikely. Scientist would have been fools not figuring out that simple solution in all these centuries.

 

[PureX]

Agreed. All we can explain is mechanism and function. Those are within the purview of science. Once you attempt to insert intentionality, with questions about purpose, you've left the reservation. You've created a straw man.

By what reasoning do you assume that to ask any question that science cannot answer is a "straw man"? Because that sounds like an enormous and glaring bias, to me.

"How" can be studied. "Who" could potentially be studied, but, as yet, there's no evidence to work with.

That does not negate the question by any reasoning that I am aware of.

Also, there are other methodologies through which we can explore the "why" questions besides science.

"Why," on the other hand, is an extraneous, artificial requirement that presupposes intention -- and an intender. It's a priori. It's an unnecessary, stealth injection of God into the equation as a premise.

Please explain by what reasoning you have made this determination. I understand that it does not "fit' into your strictly materialist view of existence, but that does not make the question illegitimate. If anything, it exposes the severe limitation of the materialist view of existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

But that design feature, like bipedalism and an opposable thumb, is functional and selective, there's nothing special about it.

The fact that there is "nothing special about it" is why we seek more and different kinds of resolutions. As an information set it does not inform us of much.

So you're 'defining' yourself out of the logical requirement you place on everything else?

I don't know what that even means.

I'm still waiting for any real evidence of a God, other than a desire for purpose and meaning.

Your idea of "real" (strictly material) precludes any possibility of such evidence, in advance. It's a bias so complete that it becomes invisible to itself.

 

[PureX]

I'm okay with answering how, and we are answering more of the "hows" all the time. How do you know that there is a "why"?

Because we ask, and we are not separate from existence, we are part of existence. So existence, itself, is asking the 'why' question, through us. And it's even using "natural means" to do it.

 

[PureX]

Yes, god does need an explanation as to why the "first cause" begins with "god." For all we know, if something/one did create this universe, this creator is just as mortal and wonked in the heads as humans.
And "god, by definition" tells us nothing. Hindu gods? Norse gods? Pantheism? Zeus or Ra? God defines nothing more than a vague concept of a hypothetical supernatural entity.

You're jumping all over the place.

The term "God" refers to a mystery. The most profound mystery of all. It refers to the ultimate mystery of source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. Theology and religion try to clarify this profound mystery through the use of logic, artifice, ritual, and faith. But ultimately the mystery remains unresolved. However, the fact that it remains unresolved from the human perspective does not negate it's validity, nor it's importance to humanity. And if you think it does, then I challenge you to explain how so.

Yeah, it's very unreal. Such as, believing they are king of the world, have a million kids, their dad is coming to kill them, fighting with angels while in jail, they seem real to the person with schizophrenia, but they aren't real. No more than Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

Why are you arguing about artifice? Artifice is artifice. It's representational. Which means it's not what it is representing, because it's a representation of what it's representing. Santa Claus in not the Christmas ideal. Santa Claus is a representation of the Christmas ideal. So are the rituals we engage in as we enact the Christmas ideal. You seem to be imaging that if you can negate the artifice and the rituals that you have somehow negated the ideal. And that's just not so.

There is no evidence. Sure, people claim Josephus, but many scholars believe that what he allegedly wrote about Jesus was a forgery added in later by Christians. With Tacitus, that was over a century after Jesus.
Thus, I stand by my statement that "there is none."

Stories require no "evidence". They are STORIES. They are artificial representations of an ideal. Attacking the representations as being invalid because they are "unreal" is just idiocy. I'm sorry, but that's what it is.

 

[viole]

We can't go backwards to infinity, so a first cause must be postulated.

Why not? Prove it to me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[blü 2]

You know that it can't be physics, right? We (humans) aren't that clever, that one of our scientific disciplines gets to be creator. Especially of itself.

The hypothesis would be, not that physics created itself, but that physics created the universe. In my intuitive monist mode, contemplating what might have been in the Big Bang at Time Zero, I reduce the universe to mass-energy and the properties of mass-energy; and it occurs to me that if time is a property of mass-energy rather than a container of it, then the problem of beginnings disappears, since time exists only because mass-energy does. A pity I can't demonstrate that it's correct, but so far I'm not aware of anything we know that rules it out.

I should clarify that a Church of Mass-Energy is not on my agenda.

 

[blü 2]

Why not? Prove it to me.

Ciao

- viole

Chuck Norris has counted to infinity.

Twice.

(Trad.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're clearly out of touch with the overwhelming consensus on the historical Jesus studies which affirms without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was a very real historical figure with his baptism by John the Baptist and death by crucifixion being almost universally accepted by modern scholarship.

Those two qualifications do not really pinpoint on specific individual. And, no, I'm not out of touch, but rather I can't accept the existence of someone who is supposedly the son of god and savior of humanity without heavy scrutiny. Sure, someone probably did fill the role to inspire the character that Christians developed, but that doesn't make this person (who most certainly would not have been named Jesus) anyone special.

Except the Bible is not just one book but a compilation of dozens of books, letters and other writings that vary greatly in their nature and context.

That doesn't change anything. And it's not just inconsistencies and internal contradictions, but a number of things such as a "righteous man" offering his daughters for gang raping and god punishing people that Abraham lied to. Those are pretty sick behaviors, and very far removed from being called "holy."