Evidence

[ChristineM]

Your paper doesn't say what you claim.
Life doesn't need entropy to increase.
Nay, an open system that's life-friendly
can even have decreasing entropy.
For example....
Imagine a planet that's experiencing net
energy input, ie, what's radiated into space
is less than what it receives from its sun.
Entropy is decreasing.
All it needs is the right chemistry & plenty
of available energy (eg, sunlight, geothermal)
for life to arise.

The planet's entropy state change is irrelevant.
It's enthalpy state is irrelevant. Those are just
values that happen in a thermodynamic system.
What matters to life?
Chemistry & energy input.

Ok you stick to your outdated view, I'll stick to the modern understanding. I see no point in continuing

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok you stick to your outdated view, I'll stick to the modern understanding. I see no point in continuing

I recommend your continuing...but reading
about basic thermodynamics. It will help
you avoid misreading articles about entropy.

 

[ChristineM]

I recommend your continuing...but reading
about basic thermodynamics. It will help
you avoid misreading articles about entropy.

As i said, no point. Particularly when the evidence is ignored

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, people are not making that assumption. Most atheists lack a belief in God because there is a lack of evidence for any God. That is not the same as assuming that God does not exist.

And no, we are not the evidence since it appears that there is no need for a God that anyone as demonstrated for us to be here. You are making the error of assuming the antecedent.

Which means there is a possibility if you come across evidence. Ok

 

[loverofhumanity]

In such a scenario, the people within the painting would therefore have no rational reason to believe in the existence of a painter. Even if their beliefs are true, they are not justified.

Since we do not have access to the full picture like the people in the painting, then, whether there is a God or not, it is still unjustified to believe in one or claim that it exists. All we can do is form our beliefs with proper justification and be willing to change them when a contradictory belief demonstrates itself to be more justified.

I get that that's frustrating, but we simply can't tell the difference between a true unfalsifiable claim and a false one. It's not justified to assume that our unfalsifiable beliefs are correct.

That’s the journey. Until we find a clue we are left empty handed. Doesn’t mean there is no God just that some have discovered Him while others still haven’t.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, it csnnot be testedin the heart of anyone. The heart is a muscle without the capacity to form opinions about the validity of evidence. And a person's say so does not count as evidence



Tricky eh!



So where is the painting assumed to be painted by god? I've seen plenty of paintings of what human artists assume to be god, but never any produced by god

The metaphor of the painting is simply saying that it did not paint itself. That there must have been a painter.

I’ve got plenty of evidence for myself but what is evidence for you is not the result of my search. On your journey only you can determine for yourself through your own investigation what is true or not for yourself.

 

[ChristineM]

The metaphor of the painting is simply saying that it did not paint itself. That there must have been a painter.

I’ve got plenty of evidence for myself but what is evidence for you is not the result of my search. On your journey only you can determine for yourself through your own investigation what is true or not for yourself.

Ahh, there is the crux. The definition of truth i use is "that which is true in accordance with fact or reality"
Most people claiming religious truth seem to use an alternative definition "a belief that is accepted as true."

 

[Revoltingest]

As i said, no point. Particularly when the evidence is ignored

I read your "evidence".
The difference is that I understood it.

 

[ChristineM]

I read your "evidence".
The difference is that I understood it.

Oh, and thats why i didn't didn't want to tax you with more

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, and thats why i didn't didn't want to tax you with more

I appreciate not being taxed.
You're a wonderful person...for a froggie.

 

[F1fan]

This OP has established that evidence does include the Person, the Revelation and the Message.

What you present is an assumption that these are evidence, but they aren't. You are making claims that they are what you claim they are, and as I have explained to you you need to present evidence that each one of these IS what you claim it is, and you don't. You have the same owerlessness as any other theist, and that is not having evidence to show your religious claims are true. Your defaul and appeal is the same as any other religion, and that is plead for others to have faith. The critical thinker knows this isn't rational.

So it is about getting beyond the constant accusations that it is not evidence.

If you were honest you would acknowledge that what you present isn't evidence, just claims. You would also make some genuine effort to come up with something that can be considered as evidence. That you resist suggests you don't dare attempt this as it would indicate you don't have truth, but belief.

It does not concern me what people think of that evidence, but there are entire conversations that are just a pure waste of time, ones that demand evidence, that has already been provided.

I think it does bother you. You have a pattern of aggressive posting about your beliefs, which to my mind are little more than proselytizing since you don't debate, but then you get frustrated dealing with critique and you disappear for a while. Then you come back, rinse, repeat. I don't understand why you think you won't attract critique when you post unverifiable claims. I suspect you are using propaganda tactics, that if you keep repeating something untrue or unverifiable other s will eventually think it's true. I can't think of any other reason you behave as you do.

 

[ChristineM]

I appreciate not being taxed.
You're a wonderful person...for a froggie.

And i could say the same about you, for a revoltistanian...

But i don't want to tax you

 

[F1fan]

Human nature being what it is, if we found undisputable evidence for God then we would likely stop searching. God isn't lost, he is so obvious its blinding!

It is obvious to the socially indoctrinated who are blind to reason.

And no matter how far the finite goes in discovering the infinite, there will always be more to discover!

Science is our best methoc to determine what is real and true about the universe. Religion and superstition has a history of fraud, deception, and dishonesty in its irrational approach.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Religion and superstition has a history of fraud, deception, and dishonesty in its irrational approach.

It is not limited to religion..

Furthermore the fact that dishonesty exists, does not mean that somebody who comes along with a "sweeping brush" to defame belief in God, is not being dishonest themselves.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The whole idea for me is a friendly discussion on a topic that interests me. However I get a tad peeved when someone starts claiming they are posting indisputable fact. Not to mention the snide comments directed at those who don't agree with them.

I've seen the same debate strategy used by evangelical Christians and Muslims. I'm ashamed to admit that when I was a Christian, I was as assertive and pompous about my Christian beliefs as the OP appears to be with his. I couldn't be reasoned with either because I was absolutely certain that my beliefs about God were correct and the Bible was infallible, inerrant, and above reproach. I will admit that renouncing my Christian faith was extremely hard for me. It was difficult for me to free myself from all of the indoctrination that I had been subjected to during my life, but it was worth it. In fact, giving up my faith and belief in God was the best thing I've ever done for my mental health. And, while I don't regret giving up my devout faith and belief in God, I do regret not having done so years ago.

 

[F1fan]

It is not limited to religion..

Thanks for being honest that religion is flawed and marked with corruption. Now what are you going to do about when you argue for your religious beliefs? Will you be sure to have the highest integrity regarding evidence, objectivity, reason, and truth? If you say yes, and then are caught posting irrational and misleading claims, you will continue the corruption of religion in debate.

Furthermore the fact that dishonesty exists, does not mean that somebody who comes along with a "sweeping brush" to defame belief in God, is not being dishonest themselves.

Reason is a process that begins with skepticism. If theists are going to engage in debate then they need to follow the rules of logic and debate, not the rules of religion, which are deceptive and misleading. If anyone defames the many ideas of God it is theists who are not credible, who are deceptive, who make claims they can't or won't defend, and pretend their beliefs are true and have an authority that doesn't exist.

I don't care what a theist believes. You can put underwear on your head and dance naked under a full moon if you think that gets you closer to God, knock yourself out. But when you engage in debate about your beliefs, rituals, your history, your assumptions you begin at zero, and you need to show every part of your religion and belief is true, or likley true. You get no freebies. You have to earn respect for your ideas and beliefs in debate. If you don't respect the process, then you don't respect others.

 

[Colt]

It is obvious to the socially indoctrinated who are blind to reason.


Science is our best methoc to determine what is real and true about the universe. Religion and superstition has a history of fraud, deception, and dishonesty in its irrational approach.

Buddhism, a religion without a God seems to be an irrational indoctrination to me. IMOP

 

[muhammad_isa]

Thanks for being honest that religion is flawed and marked with corruption..

G'day .. you are welcome.

Reason is a process that begins with skepticism..

It is involved, yes .. but reason is not purely based on skepticism.

I don't care what a theist believes..

I do .. and I believe that God does too.

..you need to show every part of your religion and belief is true, or likley true..

It depends on the nature of debate.
I believe the OP is about evidence..

"This OP is to finalise once and for all what is Evidence of God. After this OP there will be no need for anyone to demand evidence, as it will have been provided."

 

[John53]

It depends on the nature of debate.
I believe the OP is about evidence..

"This OP is to finalise once and for all what is Evidence of God. After this OP there will be no need for anyone to demand evidence, as it will have been provided."

And he intends to do that by refusing to debate unless you agree with him.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And he intends to do that by refusing to debate unless you agree with him..

This is not in line with the "Christmas spirit"