If God existed would there be proof?

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
By this rationale a deity would also require a cause, or you will have to use an arbitrary claim involving a special pleading fallacy.

No because we don't have to have a cause for an infinite being. Where as in science there are laws that regulate what is possible.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard.

As I warned, and you immediately fulfilled, you have simply introduced an unevidenced and arbitrary exception. It's bizarre how these fallacies in informal logic have to be explained over and over again.

Firstly that everything we see has a cause cannot be extended beyond Planck time, and applied to no temporal condition, as first cause arguments always do. Secondly in every example we see evidenced, these causes are natural phenomena, so there is no justification, as first cause arguments always do, for making the unevidenced assumption the universe had a supernatural cause that exists outside time and space. Thirdly making unevidenced assumptions about a creator, ( like arbitrarily assigning characteristics like eternal and transcendent for example) in an argument for a creator, is also of course a begging the question fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

Which is what? We don't know. So calling it God is as good a guess as any.

Well this is progress, you accept assigning causation to a deity is a pure guess, and no more compelling than claiming a leprechaun or a wizard did it.

Which rather begs the question...?

 

[Sheldon]

night912 said: ↑
Or you simply just have something that was always there.

That is impossible according to science.

Science has demonstrated no such thing? You can't simply make up claims, and assign them to science.

 

[Sheldon]

That is not really an answer at all though.

So it is an answer it just doesn't make unevidenced assumptions about deities using inexplicable magic.

It simply avoids the issue of "why".

You are simply assuming there is a why, based on what objective evidence exactly?

It implies that all we see has no author, and is all one big coincidence.

False dichotomy fallacy, we are not limited to those two choices, even if we currently have no other understanding of what occurred prior to Planck time. We do know that natural phenomena are at least possible, we have no such evidence for deities.

My inquiring mind cannot accept that.
Each to their own.

Your mind isn't enquiring sorry, it's as closed as any I have seen, it's odd you don't see it, but saying I don't know, and not being prepared to make unevidenced assumptions does not mean one is closed minded or does not value enquiry. Your beliefs don't satisfy any questions at all, as a creator deity is not just entirely unevidenced, it has no explanatory powers whatsoever, only bare assumptions. I could as easily assume a friendly wizard did it all, how is my assumption any less or more explanatory than yours?

 

[Sheldon]

It is my inquiring mind that led me to believe in G-d in the first place.
It is my inquiring mind that led me to consider which creed is closer to the truth.

You have stopped inquiring, at least stopped enquiring objectively, but you don't see it. Closed minded doesn't mean one is sceptical of new ideas, it means one is biased against new ideas that challenge existing ideas or beliefs we hold as true. That describes a great many theists I've encountered, and established religions that for centuries have claimed to possess "absolute revealed truth" that cannot be wrong or even challenged.

Inquiring minds are not confined to one academic discipline.

Nonsense, in the modern era specialising in a particular discipline is quite common, and even essential sometimes, and it does not in any way donate the lack of an enquiring mind, that's absurdly wrong.

Science can be employed for good or bad purposes.
Science cannot in itself distinguish between the two.
..hence, there's more to life than science.

Well something of a tortured straw man tbh, of course there is more to life than science, so what? However I have seen too many theists and apologists try to shamelessly misrepresent science as evidencing their chosen deity, you included, and then decry scientific endeavour or even known scientific facts like evolution. It's too too funny...

Science is a method, or collection of methods that are a tool kit for gaining knowledge and understanding of the natural physical world and universe. The alternative to gaining knowledge is not gaining it, why would anyone want that?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you don't have what you claim to have.

I have exactly what I claimed to have, evidence that God exists.

The thing about proof and evidence, is that you can share it with others to support a certain claim or position.

I have shared the evidence. Too bad some people don't like it.

I would imagine that an all-knowing, omnipotent entity would know exactly how to accomplish that.

He did. I and all the other believers know that it was God providing the proof.

Such an entity would be able to turn me into a believer right here and now, as he would know exactly what would convince me on the spot. Even better then I know myself.

That is true, God would know exactly what you need to become a believer because God is all-knowing, but God does not want to turn you into a believer and that is why He does not do so.

An OMNIPOTENT GOD only does what He chooses to do, not what humans want Him to do.

The fact that he doesn't do so is because of any of the following:
- he doesn't care to, which imo would be neglect (just like when I don't try and prevent my ignorant kids from making the wrong decisions, even if it is with the best intentions)
- he can't (not omnipotent)
- he doesn't know how to (not all knowing)
- he doesn't because he doesn't exist

None of those answer are correct. The reason God does not turn you into a believer is because He CHOOSES NOT TO.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

There is no neglect on God's part because God is under no obligation to turn you into a believer. God wants you to choose to be a believer by your own volition, or not at all.

Given these options, I consider the last one to be the most likely.

The last one is not even in the running.

 

[Sheldon]

You claim that mankind can know everything through their own intellect.

Time and again, this has been proved wrong.
Climste-change is a case in point.

A very poor example, since it is science that has evidenced climate change, cited the causes, and is offering solutions.

It is only religion that can solve this issue, and mankind continues to posit that they can solve it by "carbon-trading" and what have you, and so continue on their blind path to destruction.

Oh really, odd that religions have kept this quiet, what is this solution to climate change that religions have found, care to share it with us. Only breeding ourselves out of existence, while navel gazing and praying doesn't seem like much of a solution to me. An exponentially increasing human population, on a planet with finite resources is a simple maths problem most people should be able to understand.

I recently re-read Aldous Huxley's dystopian masterpiece Brave New World. It's surprising how less horrifying I found it now, than I did previously, though there is of course plenty to object to in it of course. It really does ask some very probing and salient questions about human existence, and what it means to be human. If you genuinely have an enquiring mind, it's a book I would thoroughly recommend. Also W Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage, is as inciteful a look at the human condition as any I've read.

Neither one is the snooze fest that all religious tomes seem to manage.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, you're wrong. Science has not determined that to be impossible.

Lol and they haven't determined that it is. So science is useless to explain it.

 

[Sheldon]

I have exactly what I claimed to have, evidence that God exists.

Well this claim has demonstrated that you have no objective evidence, only subjective claims you are satisfied represent evidence for the deity you choose to believe is extant. I don't think it is intentionally misleading, but when you phrase it as an absolute like that, it is nonetheless very misleading.

Like someone claiming they have evidence of the Loch Ness monster, then simply citing someone else's subjective unevidenced anecdotal claim to have seen it. When pressed on this, that is all you have offered.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well this is progress, you accept assigning causation to a deity is a pure guess, and no more compelling than claiming a leprechaun or a wizard did it.

Which rather negs the question...?

Yes knowing that science is useless in this scenario is progress.

 

[Sheldon]

night912 said: ↑
No, you're wrong. Science has not determined that to be impossible.

Lol and they haven't determined that it is. So science is useless to explain it.

So you deliberately made a claim and assigned it to science knowing it was untrue? The last sentence is also untrue, you can't possibly know that, only that science currently doesn't understand it. Our understanding of the natural physical world and universe, has grown exponentially in a very short duration thanks to the methods of scientific endeavour, it is asinine to make sweeping claims about it's limits without any evidence to support such claims.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Well this is progress, you accept assigning causation to a deity is a pure guess, and no more compelling than claiming a leprechaun or a wizard did it.

Which rather negs the question...?

Yes knowing that science is useless in this scenario is progress.

I know no such thing, nor have I remotely implied I do. I leave such sweeping unevidenced sophistry to you, as it's clearly something you have a gift for.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I could as easily assume a friendly wizard did it all..

Yes, you do that.

..and I'll stick to G-d, thankyou.

 

[muhammad_isa]

A very poor example, since it is science that has evidenced climate change, cited the causes, and is offering solutions
..
An exponentially increasing human population, on a planet with finite resources is a simple maths problem most people should be able to understand.

Ah, so that's the solution.
Get rid of other people rather than share one's wealth?

I tell you .. it won't work.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
I could as easily assume a friendly wizard did it all..

Yes, you do that.

..and I'll stick to G-d, thankyou.

I have no problem with you using flippant hand waving, but what do you imagine it says when you have no credible answer to me pointing out your unevidenced assumptions for a creator deity, are no more compelling than any other unevidenced assumptions anyone might choose to make about the origins of the universe?

 

[Sheldon]

Ah, so that's the solution.
Get rid of other people rather than share one's wealth?

I tell you .. it won't work.

Since it is your claim, and not mine, I will take your word for it. I fail to see that wealth has any direct bearing on climate change. I note you have ignored my request for you to evidence your claim that religion has the solution to climate change, but making sweeping unevidenced claims, you then run away from when challenged, seems to be your MO. Again the inference for the claim is inescapable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I fail to see that wealth has any direct bearing on climate change..

A 2020 study published in Scientific Reports, in which both population growth and deforestation were used as proxies for total resource consumption, warns that if consumption continues at the current rate for the next several decades, it can trigger a full or almost full extinction of humanity.
Overconsumption - Wikipedia

There's your evidence. Do you see the word "science"?
Is that good enough for you, or are you going to now quibble about what is science and what is not?
..like the rest of the 'consequence of economic growth' deniers

..and don't forget..
Fueled by the consumptive lifestyle of wealthy people, the wealthiest 5% of the global population has been responsible for 37% of the absolute increase in greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Almost half of the increase in absolute global emissions has been caused by the richest 10% of the population.
Greenhouse gas emissions - Wikipedia

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe the existence of beings who can ask questions about the existence of God, is proof that God exists.

Then it's also proof that the Loch Ness Monster, yetis, chupacabras, leprechauns, fairies and closet monsters exist as well.
Which is to say it proves nothing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is arrogance.
You claim that mankind can know everything through their own intellect.

Time and again, this has been proved wrong.
Climste-change is a case in point.

It is only religion that can solve this issue, and mankind continues to posit that they can solve it by "carbon-trading" and what have you, and so continue on their blind path to destruction.

Sorry, how does religion solve the climate change problem?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sorry, how does religion solve the climate change problem?

You don't want to know.
All you are looking for is for me to "show you G-d".