How to prove God.

[leroy]

As a juror, I find that the theists have not proven their case to within a reasonable doubt.

Ok bad analogy, maybe you are not the juror, but just the guy who is following the case in the news, in a court you need proof beyond reasonable doubt which obviously no theist can fulfill such a high standard of evidence.

My point is that one has the intend to honestly and sincerely find the truth one shouldn’t act like a lawyer that protects atheism at all cost with wise debate tactics, but rather one should be like the guy who is following the case in the news or something, like the guy who heard both sides of the evidence and makes his best guess on which view is more likely to be correct.

Just to let you know that I am aware of your previous post, I´ll reply to it when I have the time

They have given, at best, circumstantial evidence with no clear connection to the defendant. I also find that they have the burden of proof (like the state in a court proceeding), so the only judgement can be not guilty (of existing).

Avoiding the burden proof might be a good debate tactic, but if you are honestly searching for the evidence, then the “burden proof” stuff becomes useless rethoric.

When you want to decide if you should to sale your Apple stocks and buy Gold, you don’t say “ohh well the burden proof if on the guy who sales Gold” I won’t sale my stocks until he meets his burden proof, and you wont say “I won’t buy Gold unless you prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that Gold is the best option …..you would rather say hey I will look for arguments on both sides and make the best description based on the evidence I have.

 

[leroy]

and as I pointed out (which you completely ignored) unless you are using a definition of "fine tuning" that you are the only one who accepts...



No matter how many times you repeat this falsehood, it is still not confirmation bias.

Affirming that the universe is not FT, without knowing what is meant by FT, is confirmation bias by definition.

You are presupposing that the opposite is wrong before knowing his argument; this is the very definition of confirmation bias.

 

[McBell]

Affirming that the universe is not FT, without knowing what is meant by FT, is confirmation bias by definition.

You are presupposing that the opposite is wrong before knowing his argument; this is the very definition of confirmation bias.

You will need to present your off the wall definition of "confirmation bias".
Cause you are most certainly NOT using this one:

 

[leroy]

You will need to present your off the wall definition of "confirmation bias".
Cause you are most certainly NOT using this one:

View attachment 51909​

Ok my mistake (see how easy it is to admit a mistake?)

If “confirmation bias” is not the correct term, what term should I use to describe someone who presupposes that an claim is wrong, ?

 

[RestlessSoul]

So you quite drinking. Ok.



Why?

A cousin of mine, on the muslim side of the family, was a long time junkie and petty criminal. He took it all. Coke, speed, xtc, heroine, mushrooms, lsd,... Then he found Allah and stopped doing drugs, smoking, drinking, partying,... and he did it cold turkey from one day to the next.

He too considers this a miracle of "allah".
You can't both be right.

But you can both be wrong.

And considering how mega mundane and common it is for people to quite drugs / drinking, I'ld say chances are rather mega huge that you indeed are both wrong.

I know folks who were inspired by Luke Skywalker to better their lives.

A story sure can motivate or inspire or give strength. That doesn't mean the stories are true.

And in your case, I'ld figure that the placebo effect comes into it as well.


Surely you understand how from my perspective, this doesn't mean anything?

Good for you that you quite drinking and bettered your life though. No matter where you found the strength and motivation to do so. All the more power to you.

But this, off course, isn't proof. It's not even evidence.

Sorry, I really don’t see why your Moslem cousin and I can’t both be right?

Because we come from different faith traditions, have different names for God, perhaps read different scriptures, doesn’t imo make one of us right and the other wrong. I think of different religions as being like different languages; And I’m inclined to believe that God understands all languages equally, and that we are each free to form a relationship with our creator that is intimate and personal, and at the same time universal.

I don’t claim to offer proof of anything, all I have is my experience. You asked what happened to me, so I answered honestly. I’m completely powerless over how you receive or interpret my words.

As for strength and motivation, I had none at all; I was utterly defeated. My strength and motivation has to come in that moment, from a power greater than myself.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok bad analogy, maybe you are not the juror, but just the guy who is following the case in the news, in a court you need proof beyond reasonable doubt which obviously no theist can fulfill such a high standard of evidence.

And that I find both telling and compelling. Why can't a theist expect that standard of evidence?

The only reason I can figure out is that they *know* they cannot actually prove their case and want to hedge their bets. That, to me, is dishonest.

My point is that one has the intend to honestly and sincerely find the truth one shouldn’t act like a lawyer that protects atheism at all cost with wise debate tactics, but rather one should be like the guy who is following the case in the news or something, like the guy who heard both sides of the evidence and makes his best guess on which view is more likely to be correct.

I actually think the analogy is quite apt. As a juror, I am supposed to fairly look at the evidence presented by the government and determine if they have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Or, we could go to civil proceedings and ask for 'a preponderance of the evidence'.

I would point out that this standard is far less than that required in the science, for which doubts need to be actively sought out and judgement withheld until they have been met.

I also note that you seem to agree that an objective juror would decide against the existence of a deity based on the evidence.

Just to let you know that I am aware of your previous post, I´ll reply to it when I have the time

Avoiding the burden proof might be a good debate tactic, but if you are honestly searching for the evidence, then the “burden proof” stuff becomes useless rethoric.

I disagree. In a search for the truth, it is important to withhold belief until the issues have been sufficiently resolved. This is unlike a court case, where there is often a time constraint on the decision.

In this case, if the burden of proof is not met, then the argument fails. If both sides fail in their argument, the issue is either considered unresolved or unresolvable (and then meaningless).

When you want to decide if you should to sale your Apple stocks and buy Gold, you don’t say “ohh well the burden proof if on the guy who sales Gold” I won’t sale my stocks until he meets his burden proof, and you wont say “I won’t buy Gold unless you prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that Gold is the best option …..you would rather say hey I will look for arguments on both sides and make the best description based on the evidence I have.

Sounds to me that you have already decided one or the other is the best option. Maybe that assumption is what needs to be questioned?

I would certainly hope that the standard of proof for something like a deity is far, far more than the standard required to decide what financial decisions to make.

 

[McBell]

If “confirmation bias” is not the correct term, what term should I use to describe someone who presupposes that an claim is wrong, ?

The same term you should use for someone who presupposes that you are using the terminology correctly?

 

[Trailblazer]

Tried it. Nothing happened.

You have to yell or cry out in desperation. I have discovered that is the only thing that ever gets God's attention. To heck with the prayers.

Some evidence that this works is two former atheists who are now avid believers. I know them personally.
But you cannot fake it, you have to be sincere. You have to humble yourself towards God and cry out for His help.
Otherwise it won't work because God knows our hearts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ask your God how tall I am and what weight, if your god answers without fail you should be able to tell me in 24 hours.

I'm thinking 5'9" and 13.16 stone.

 

[F1fan]

This would mean God is dependent on us to exist, no?

From what we can assess from the testimonies and evidence, it's as much as Micky Mouse depends on humans to exist.

If god exist before us, it wouldn't need our belief and experience for it to be real.

Right, apples and oranges exist independently of our imagination. Nothing suggests any of the 4-5000 gods do.

It would also have traits that are not projected on by believers. Humans have desires and wants. If god exist in that one can pray to it, what aien characteristics does it have that humans find foreign?

And what we observe of the universe is one that exists without any sort of popular gods. Those who claim a loving and personal God exists, well, we certainly don't see evidence of that. It's more likely that a Devil exists if we have to explain why children die of deadly illness.

If you need to experience it to know it, it's not an external being or thing but quite a human experience anyone can have per being human.

Well we can experience relationships with pets and other people by engaging with them. Having these relationships we understand these are actual beings who exist independently of our minds. This isn't the case when we have an imaginary friend.

 

[F1fan]

The reason why it is ironic you ask, is because Satan told Jesus Christ to jump off a cliff to prove that he was God. Jesus said that would be inappropriate, so I assume it would be inappropriate for me as well.

I'm only asking you to demonstrate your claims are true as you've given us examples already where you were saved. I'm not Satan and you're not Jesus, but you claim to have a God that will protect you. So show us, unless you have reason to doubt your claim is accurate.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

From what we can assess from the testimonies and evidence, it's as much as Micky Mouse depends on humans to exist.

I don't see how the two compare. We can see micky mouse, know its characteristics, read him in a book, and kids and family can talk to "him." People know he is not real but we are tied to him nonetheless. In this case, I guess you can say he's alive via our imaginations.

God-believers its totally different-not imaginary. But what is god that you would assume he's imaginary? We know Micki mouse exists insofar we can determine if he's an actual mouse or a guy with a costume. We have criteria to know if he's real or not, but god? How can you make a determination that it is?

Right, apples and oranges exist independently of our imagination. Nothing suggests any of the 4-5000 gods do.

What are you expecting if they shown up?

And what we observe of the universe is one that exists without any sort of popular gods. Those who claim a loving and personal God exists, well, we certainly don't see evidence of that. It's more likely that a Devil exists if we have to explain why children die of deadly illness.

Educate the savage. What god are you speaking of, though?

What evidence should we look for if it shows up?

Well we can experience relationships with pets and other people by engaging with them. Having these relationships we understand these are actual beings who exist independently of our minds. This isn't the case when we have an imaginary friend.

How do you know god "is" an imaginary friend?

 

[F1fan]

If God exists and you are openly and honestly looking for God, he will guide you to the evidence that would convince you.

If this was true then the most objective people would be concluding a god exists, but it isn't. The only people who think a god exists are those who don't have evidence or a rational conclusion.

But if you have a mind set of “I already made up my mind and nothing will ever convince that God exists, then not even God can do anything about it.

You can set your mind to the notion that dogs don't exist, but eventually the fact of it will overwhelm you. This doesn't happen with any sort of God. And let's note that the logical default to any claim is that it's not true, and claimants have to demonstrate their claim is true with facts and true premises. Theists don't do this.

 

[F1fan]

I don't see how the two compare. We can see micky mouse, know its characteristics, read him in a book, and kids and family can talk to "him." People know he is not real but we are tied to him nonetheless. In this case, I guess you can say he's alive via our imaginations.

The same for Yahweh, or Brahma, or Vishnu, etc. But none are known to exist outside of human imagination. And don't confuse your Mickey Mouse Club hat as Mickey's actual skull.

God-believers its totally different-not imaginary.

Right, they pretend the imaginary isn't imaginary. This is what they learn from other theists. Children learn that Santa and the Tooth Fairy exists, until the truth is told to them. But until then they are certain Santa exists, as they get presents from Santa. The Tooth Fairy leaves them real money. Pretty good evidence.

But what is god that you would assume he's imaginary? We know Micki mouse exists insofar we can determine if he's an actual mouse or a guy with a costume. We have criteria to know if he's real or not, but god? How can you make a determination that it is?

You are working hard to conflate the real icons of a fictional character like Mickey Mouse to suggest it's real "in a sense", so then you can apply that weak definition to any god that isn't known to exist outside of human imagination.

What are you expecting if they shown up?

I'm not expecting any gods to show up. They have certainly been clever in hiding thus far.

Educate the savage. What god are you speaking of, though?

What evidence should we look for if it shows up?

Are you admitting they aren't here? If any god exists in reality you should be explaining what it does, looks like, etc.

How do you know god "is" an imaginary friend?

First, no one knows if gods exist or don't. If a theists wants to describe their god well enough that we can test whether it exists, then that'll be one case. But theists are very good at being vague in the details. But we can conclude gods are imaginary because even theists are confused and disagree with what any common god is. Their ideas of the same god are inconsistent and suggests they are framing their God the way they want it to be.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok my mistake (see how easy it is to admit a mistake?)

If “confirmation bias” is not the correct term, what term should I use to describe someone who presupposes that an claim is wrong, ?

Creationist. cdesign proponentsist. You pick.

 

[Bear Wild]

That is exactly what I mean, you already made your mind, you already have a barrier .

But I´ll give you the benefit of the doubt

What is wrong with say the FT argument?

p1:Science ows that the universe is fine tuned for life.

P2: its either due to chance, necessity or design.

p3 its not due to chance or necessity.

C: Therefore its due to design.


Formulating the Fine-Tuning Argument | Reasonable Faith


You hit the nail in the coffin , that is exactly my point.

You are not supposed to be in “defensive mode” you are supposed to be open and with a genuine interest in finding the truth.

Avoiding the burden proof might be a good debate tactic, but is useless whent it comes to finding the truth.

What you are supposed to do is look at all (or some) of the explanations that have been offered for the FT of the universe and determine the one that you consider the best based on criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, consistency with previous}us knowledge etc.

Now on another thread you accepted that evolution is natural. There is no intended design, just the progressive complexity creating more beneficial adaptations trough multiple means to alter genetic structure and presentation. You sighted evidence for this. Now you through in some absolutely ridiculous argument about design.

p1:Science shows that the universe is fine tuned for life.
This statement is false. Life has adapted complex ways to survive in our world not the other way around. Most of the universe is completely inhospitable for life.

P2: its either due to chance, necessity or design.
The evolution of life is obviously part chance, part opportunity, part necessity and adaptation. There was no design by anything so second statements

p3 its not due to chance or necessity.
The is a statement of ignorance. Of course there is chance and other factors the only thing it is not is designed.

C: Therefore its due to design.
This is fantasy. From some of your arguments you seem to be trying not to present fantasy so why present this?

 

[F1fan]

You have to yell or cry out in desperation. I have discovered that is the only thing that ever gets God's attention. To heck with the prayers.

Well damn. I'm never in a case of desperation.

So perhaps those in such dire straits that have hit bottom have nowhere to go but up, and as things improve in life it is attributed to God.

Some evidence that this works is two former atheists who are now avid believers. I know them personally.

As I recall your examples are of people who were simply not religious, nor atheists.

But you cannot fake it, you have to be sincere. You have to humble yourself towards God and cry out for His help.
Otherwise it won't work because God knows our hearts.

You seem to be describing fragile people who need some sort of external "parent" figure to answer to.

 

[Bear Wild]

I believe there is a simple way to prove God. It may seem too simplistic at first, but that's not the intention.
Throughout my life, there have been times when I have called out to God whilst being in mortal danger, and He saved me. When I pray, He answers without fail and shows me that He is listening. When I was younger, I required evidence (Christian apologetics) to reinforce my faith in God. Now, I don't need that to know that my God is real, He has proven Himself to me.
To those who are skeptical of the idea of God, the way to prove God is this. Allow yourself to suspend your skepticism momentarily and ask God (however you understand God) to reveal Himself to you. My God answers without fail.
To both the skeptic and the believer, this methodology may seem silly. The believer might say "God has revealed Himself completely through the Bible! We are not to test Him, He does not reveal Himself in the present day."
If a skeptic is on the fence as to whether God is real or not, let them do this. Simply ask God to reveal Himself. God will prove Himself to you.

Very good point. Yesterday I got home too late to water the yard. I called out to Thor asking for rain. I then left an offering to Thor showing my faith. Shortly after leaving the offering Thor responded and revealed himself.

Shortly after that it rained and my plants were very happy and thankful.
Thanks Thor!

 

[Bear Wild]

I believe there is a simple way to prove God. It may seem too simplistic at first, but that's not the intention.
Throughout my life, there have been times when I have called out to God whilst being in mortal danger, and He saved me. When I pray, He answers without fail and shows me that He is listening. When I was younger, I required evidence (Christian apologetics) to reinforce my faith in God. Now, I don't need that to know that my God is real, He has proven Himself to me.
To those who are skeptical of the idea of God, the way to prove God is this. Allow yourself to suspend your skepticism momentarily and ask God (however you understand God) to reveal Himself to you. My God answers without fail.
To both the skeptic and the believer, this methodology may seem silly. The believer might say "God has revealed Himself completely through the Bible! We are not to test Him, He does not reveal Himself in the present day."
If a skeptic is on the fence as to whether God is real or not, let them do this. Simply ask God to reveal Himself. God will prove Himself to you.

Thor is no more funny that the god you believe in or your claims. It is not nice to laugh at another's beliefs.

Funny how people who are not saved from danger despite praying to god are ignored by god. People seeing their children who were baptized watch them die even though they pray to that same god.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well damn. I'm never in a case of desperation.

Well then, I guess you'll just have to wait until you are.
Must be nice. I have never had that problem for more than 5 minutes.

So perhaps those in such dire straits that have hit bottom have nowhere to go but up, and as things improve in life it is attributed to God.

No, that is not what happened to these people. They were just made aware that God exists after their experiences.

As I recall your examples are of people who were simply not religious, nor atheists.

They were nonbelievers before their experiences but they never became religious afterward, they just believed in God.

You seem to be describing fragile people who need some sort of external "parent" figure to answer to.

People who turn to God and humble themselves before God in a crisis are not fragile. They just intuitively know where the help comes from. To say they are fragile would be to commit be the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.