If evidence for god is in abundance, why is faith necessary?

[Mister Silver]

I'm getting tired. I'll respond to @Carlita and @sayak83 tomorrow.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The fact that I can look at a rock on the ground and know that it exists there for me as it does for anyone else who would come along to witness the same rock.

The same cannot be stated for god.

Neither does harm to anyone; they aren't morally wrong. Telling others what you believe is reality to get them from delusion is the same as christians tell you, you are delusions or blind because you haven't seen god.

I see no logic in telling someone whose delusioned what you see as reality. Delusions aren't imaginary. The voices are there and the response from these things are EEG detectable just as our thoughts. The experiences exist. The responses to stimuli exist and detectable. Just because you don't see the cause doesn't mean the cause does not exist. Reality isn't all what you can experience with all five senses and be tested.

Just society tends to see it that way.

Cliff notes from my other post.

 

[Repox]

Is that so?



100%, since they did.

That is how probability works. Once something is known to have happened, the probability of it happening is 100%.

Unless you are questioning how certain we are of the Big Bang?



From all available evidence, yes, that is exactly right. Natural selection is a real thing.


Uh, no, that is just not at all accurate.

You are in error.

If you use points of origin for expected outcomes, you can calculate probabilities for logical outcomes. We have information concerning forms of matter and energy following the big bang which allows one to calculate probability outcomes. As for the big bang, it is not subject to laws of probability inasmuch as there is no data or information of preceding conditions or circumstances of the event.

 

[Repox]

You would need a foundation upon which the basis for the laws of probability are built.

You would need to see multiple rolls of the " dice" if you're going to predict through laws of probability, the second or third towards Infinity rolls.

We do know the laws of probability will give us "one in x". What's established compared that with an unknown which makes probability as a pertains to the universe improbable and useless.

Probability in order for it to be accurate only deals with known values if predictions are to be effective.

If I throw a bunch of rice into a pan and try to use probability for a second identical handfull thrown into another pan. You cannot calculate probability of throws of the rice until duplicate results occur.

Since we've never seen the roll of the universe aside from what we see now as being "1", calculating probability will be useless unless we've seen the additional universes.

It's why probability arguments used by theists are so ineffective.

Knowing the laws of physics you can calculate probable outcomes of matter and energy as it evolved from the Big Bang. I don't believe it has been attempted. Based on mathematical computations, it is possible.

The most interesting possibility would be calculating probabilities for laws of physics.

 

[Jumi]

The basis of convincing through evidence is basically impossible for anyone with enough understanding of modern science, unless they take it on faith. Faith is an either or proposition. Either you believe some god is there, or evidence is there and you see it or you don't. Why I never got into faith-based religions is this.

It is safe to say that scientific evidence of God is not in abundance, but there is enough in the experience itself which is open to all. The experience won't lead us to believe anything on faith or make us fight science...

 

[allfoak]

OK... So what is the proper research modality?

The search is an internal search.
Know Thyself.
The focus is on what is not seen rather than what is seen.

 

[Sanzbir]

But this is the sense in which current religious apologists are using the term.

Some of 'em, sure. And as we agree, it's a pretty poor usage of the term.

I suspect the people who believe "evidence for god is in abundance" are not the same as the people who think "faith" should mean "baseless belief".

After all it is, by definition, impossible for those who believe the former to have any "faith" by the definition of the latter. So logically they must be using a different definition, or suffering from massive cognitive dissonance.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are in error.

If you use points of origin for expected outcomes, you can calculate probabilities for logical outcomes. We have information concerning forms of matter and energy following the big bang which allows one to calculate probability outcomes. As for the big bang, it is not subject to laws of probability inasmuch as there is no data or information of preceding conditions or circumstances of the event.

With all due respect, you would need a lot more care, effort and credentials to begin to have a case to present here.

 

[Mister Silver]

How do you know it looks the same for the other person?

Because the rock is not going to appear to be a living, breathing kitten to the other person, unless that person is experiencing hallucinations. Empirical studies can be done to show that two or more people experience a rock for precisely what it is; which proves the rock's existence. No one can empirically experience god with any of the five senses, because god can only be experienced as a concept born of the imagination.

 

[sayak83]

Because the rock is not going to appear to be a living, breathing kitten to the other person, unless that person is experiencing hallucinations. Empirical studies can be done to show that two or more people experience a rock for precisely what it is; which proves the rock's existence. No one can empirically experience god with any of the five senses, because god can only be experienced as a concept born of the imagination.

Just because the rock can't be correctly perceived as a kitten does not imply that the rock can't be perceived as orange and square by one person and round and black by another person in terms of how they experience it in their respective consciousness.
You will have to show why sensory information are the only ones that count as knowledge producing. Mathematics and logical relations are not tied to sensory experience, nor is knowledge based on reading tied to how the squiggles look on paper (otherwise there couldn't have been so many languages). It can easily be argued that spiritual experiences is a third independent stream of knowledge and it is More reliable as the information is directly accessed in suitably tuned consciousness states rather than going through the indirect route of the nerves and all the transcriptions required for information about the world to reach our mind.

 

[Mister Silver]

Just because the rock can't be correctly perceived as a kitten does not imply that the rock can't be perceived as orange and square by one person and round and black by another person in terms of how they experience it in their respective consciousness.
You will have to show why sensory information are the only ones that count as knowledge producing. Mathematics and logical relations are not tied to sensory experience, nor is knowledge based on reading tied to how the squiggles look on paper (otherwise there couldn't have been so many languages). It can easily be argued that spiritual experiences is a third independent stream of knowledge and it is More reliable as the information is directly accessed in suitably tuned consciousness states rather than going through the indirect route of the nerves and all the transcriptions required for information about the world to reach our mind.

The empirical studies, as I have already mentioned, would prove that the two or more people view the rock as being the same. You seem to be going off on an illogical tangent merely to make your point seem more valid than it has any reason to be.

The fact that we have names, labels, for everything in existence that people across the globe can agree on simultaneously as being those things which the words describe proves that what we empirically perceive counts as evidential knowledge of that which realistically resides in existence.

Anything, and that is a problem in itself, can be easily argued, but without empirical evidence to back the claim it remains just that; an unproven claim based on an imaginative concept.

 

[Repox]

You would need a foundation upon which the basis for the laws of probability are built.

You would need to see multiple rolls of the " dice" if you're going to predict through laws of probability, the second or third towards Infinity rolls.

We do know the laws of probability will give us "one in x". What's established compared that with an unknown which makes probability as a pertains to the universe improbable and useless.

Probability in order for it to be accurate only deals with known values if predictions are to be effective.

If I throw a bunch of rice into a pan and try to use probability for a second identical handfull thrown into another pan. You cannot calculate probability of throws of the rice until duplicate results occur.

Since we've never seen the roll of the universe aside from what we see now as being "1", calculating probability will be useless unless we've seen the additional universes.

It's why probability arguments used by theists are so ineffective.

Knowing the laws of physics you can calculate probable outcomes of matter and energy as it evolved from the Big Bang. I don't believe it has been attempted. Based on mathematical calculations, it is possible.

With all due respect, you would need a lot more care, effort and credentials to begin to have a case to present here.

It would be better if you addressed the argument. Basic principles of probability theory allow one to calculate expected outcomes when variables have quantitative measures. As an example, science has determined net outcomes for positive and negative charges as consequence of subatomic particle collisions during initial phases of the Big bang. Therefore, depending on the model, we can calculate expected outcomes for the formation of matter and energy. It allows one to project various outcomes and therefore calculate laws of probability for those outcomes, the net effect being how probable it is for the design of the universe.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, @Repox

You are simply nowhere close to presenting a case worth replying to.

 

[Mister Silver]

Sorry, @Repox

You are simply nowhere close to presenting a case worth replying to.

I find myself in the same predicament many times during a debate in a thread. Not everything the person posts is worth responding to so I will ignore parts of it as illogical and only respond to that which has any rational merit. Sometimes, however, I will ignore someone's entire post, because I cannot find anything intellectually redeeming in there or anything worthy of a response.

 

[Repox]

Sorry, @Repox

You are simply nowhere close to presenting a case worth replying to.

You show no understanding of my propositions. If you disagree, post a reply based on what I have proposed. You must, however, address basic laws of probability. I suggest you do some research on what science has discovered about subatomic collisions during initial phases of the big bang.

Here is a reference for your use.

https://www.quora.com/How-was-the-mass-of-subatomic-particles-defined-after-the-big-bang

 

[LuisDantas]

You show no understanding of my propositions.

I have little or no understanding of what you proposed, indeed.

Truth be told, I stand unconvinced that there is much there to pursue, either.

 

[Repox]

I have little or no understanding of what you proposed, indeed.

Truth be told, I stand unconvinced that there is much there to pursue, either.

In case you still lack an understanding of subatomic particles and the big bang related to issues I proposed, here is another scientific reference.

UCSB Science Line

If you refute my argument, it must be based on propositions I propose as related to science. Evidently science disagrees with you. Scientists, including Stephen Hawking, believe it is an important matter.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Are we also supposed to see all the times it went wrong?

Natural disasters like Earthquakes go exactly as planned. They are reminders for us, that this life is a short temporary one and these things are sent to test us.

How does the existence of God tie in to beliefs in the hereafter and any return trips? Afterlives or "other realms of being" or whatever are irrelevant to the existence of a deity.

I mentioned it because GOD tells us about the afterlife, it forms part of our 'beliefs'. I can't prove GOD exists, but I have good reasons for accepting He does indeed exist, and as such accept everything He has revealed to mankind.

We can also fix things. Where does God fit in?

That's good to know we can fix things. It's about time we used our freewill to preserve and protect the Planet, rather than letting future generations have to deal with it.

But ancient people used to believe the afterlife took place on earth, another dimension on earth, a few miles above the atmosphere, etc. It just seems like the sky versions of the afterlife keep getting pushed back and back until now we have to leave the universe to get there. I personally prefer the "alternate dimension of earth" idea. Less travel.

Afterlife is on a Earth of sorts, so they were correct. GOD also tells us this life is a illusion, and there are parallel Worlds to ours.

Perhaps you can explain stupidity that comes from adults?

Stupidity is no barrier for some..

People having to live subsistence living won't have that kind of free time. Not everyone wants exploration and those who do are wired to do that because when resources are limited, it behooves you to move to another place. If you destroy your living space, you will suffer and die.

Every human wants to know the meaning of life, why we're here, and no other animal seeks to drill down into the Earth or build rocket ships to explore the Heavens.

Every social species has some sort of set of "rules" to go by that will be rewarded or punished depending on how well the member of that species kowtows to the rules. Moses didn't give the law to my dogs, but even my dogs know that stealing is wrong (unless they do it, LOL), lying is wrong (unless they do it), etc.

Logically from a Darwinian naturalistic worldview, Atheists can not say there is a right and wrong, as everything is purely subjective. If this life is all there is, there's no reason to say, theft, rape, murder is objectively wrong. Nothing wrong with the 'selfish gene' which is about survival of the fittest, the brightest with nothing else mattering. I recall this being a central theme in 40's Germany.

Dogs behave on instinct and yours likely know it's wrong to steal because you've taught them so.

I don't feel this is supported by evidence.

Aboriginal Australians are Earth's oldest civilization: DNA study

Indigenous Australians are Earth's oldest civilization: DNA study - CNN

They believed in a Supreme Sky Entity. The Concept of God among the Aborigines of Australia

 

[Katzpur]

Scientology and Mormonism, two religions clearly created by men. One in the early 1800s by a con man and the other recently by a science "fiction" writer.

That's not nice. Not to mention the fact that it's an illogical thing for a non-theist to say. Which religions do you personally believe were not created by men?

 

[Quintessence]

I find myself in the same predicament many times during a debate in a thread. Not everything the person posts is worth responding to so I will ignore parts of it as illogical and only respond to that which has any rational merit. Sometimes, however, I will ignore someone's entire post, because I cannot find anything intellectually redeeming in there or anything worthy of a response.

I take it that's why you've chosen not to respond to my earlier question asking you to clarify some things?

That aside, your approach here is... odd to me. And it makes me wonder why you are here and why you created this thread.