PureX
Veteran Member
Mostly, yes. But there IS evidence. Just not "scientific" evidence, or logically convincing evidence. So it does remain a choice, either way.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Lack of Evidence
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
Not necessarily. There are very acceptable philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The problem with empiricists is that they would look for empirical/scientific evidences to a metaphysical subject. These two are not the same. One is a repeatedly spoken of absurdity, that is to ask for scientific evidence for a God, and the other is a philosophical argument for God which is valid at least theoretically.
Thus the point is, it is not only a personal choice.
That's irrelevant.They wouldn't for you. You weren't the one having the experience.
Attributing an experience to a god is a four-step process (even if the person doesn't dwell on any of the steps too much):
1. A person has an experience, and that experience had some set of characteristics.
2. The best explanation for that experience is an external cause, not an internal cause (e.g. chemical imbalance, mental illness, other physiological effects).
3. The best external cause to explain the experience is a deity.
4. The best deity to explain the experience is (insert deity) as opposed to all the other proposed deities.
The person having the experience is definitely the best judge of step 1, sure. The other steps can be judged by anyone as long as we know what to take as a given in step 1.
And in fact, the person with the experience often isn't the best judge of step 2. We're often not in the best position to evaluate our own mental health.
... which you're keeping to yourself, apparently.
Science as in what peer review authorities say, yes, it has no stance. Then there are fringe scientists who perhaps speak truth for all you know and they present books and are claiming to have proved God through science whether it's physics and stand-still universe possibilities proving infinite time and infinite universes would still never get here with infinite past, because of standstill. All of them would be void by now and at a standstill. I don't know the physics to verify but they claim that.
Also some people who study DNA believe it's impossible to come about by theories of how they came about for many reasons.
Also some people who study biology believe irreducible complexity and there is different versions of them, but to me, the mind is a proof of the first proposed version.
There also math models of evolution showing through programming and constraints it's impossible by just random mutations and natural selection to change the way evolutionist propose. I am not too aware of the details of these and only read a couple books on it but forgotten the details.
I do believe "fringe" or "non-verified by peers" scientists have potential proven the Creator from science. That's just me.
The fact is people should read both and not use appeal to authority is my view. Not saying one is definitely correct in science.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
These questions always bothered me because it assumes using the term God everyone's in agreement to what it is.
So, people's answered will reflect their version of god both atheist and theist alike.
There's no evidence for any god defined as a being or some sort of physicality or person that controls and created the universe but from many abrahamics that's just not the god they believe in.
Hence why they have messangers,incarnations, manifestations, etc. God can't be defined.
I have evidence but I do not care to share that, nor do I want to prove, but when I think my 2 cents will help others solve the puzzle I contribute.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
OK, but that is not what the OP asked, I don't know how else to explain this? And personal experience isn't evidence you can demonstrate objectively. If I said I had a pet invisible dragon, that's just a bare subjective claim, and not objective evidence for an invisible dragon?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
That makes no sense sorry, and the endless pile of discarded religious beliefs, and abandoned deities rather destroys the subjective idea that something must be true in order to "get something from it". I imagine the ancient Romans "got something from believing in their deities, does this mean they must be real? How about the Aztec god of gluttony, I'd bet I could get something from that belief.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Spiritual practice or religious belief is not relying on physical "evidence" it is based on faith in the teaching, and person experience in our own practice, no need to prove to others that it is scientific proof.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
From the outside though, these just seem like claims for mystical experiences, and even were they compelling, a mystery means we can't make any objective assertions about it surely? I can't assert they didn't happen, but I can and must withhold belief.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Is any of this "evidence" amounting to anything more than subjective claims?
It is a personal choice in such a situation. Moreover, since both lack evidence I would judge the choice of Joe as evil and the choice of John as good. In this hypothetical you've presented that is.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Is that how science works now? Sorry but that is an appeal to authority fallacy is ever there was one. When science validates such work, then I'll pay attention. Scientist is also too broad a title not be suspicious, when you precede it with the word fringe, it has alarm bells ringing loudly.
If there were accepted scientific evidence for any deity, it's reasonable to think we'd know about it, and no offence, but it's inconceivable it would be divulged in an internet chatroom.
You are appealing by authority, you trust it.
The thing to me, the only "authority" I trust when it comes to expertise of normal people, is when it's knowledge that has to work for things to work. A mechanic can't have a reputation of being one if cars always fall apart.
If a medical doctor has all his patients dying, then, you know I would not trust them either.
The science that doesn't fall in verification mode in real world, where their expertise can be witnessed to work, to me is just like Art or philosophy I can't verify unless I know it myself.
First question is defining God. Secondly, I think the universe does give us evidence to consider in judging its nature.
Which god does Joe believe in? Thor? Zeus? Poseidon? Or perhaps my favorite, FSM?
Or is it a different god that Joe believes in? And if so, why not the others I mentioned?
Atheists don't believe in God. That is not the same as believing that there is no God. To believe that there is no God, they would have to have proof that God doesn't exist. To not believe that there is a God, they would have to lack proof that there is a good. Let me reiterate: It is a matter of having proof of existence vs. lacking proof of non-existence.
An axiom of logic says that you can't prove a negative. So, it is illogical to assert that something doesn't exist. For example, you cannot prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist because you would have to prove that right now he doesn't exist, a minute from now he doesn't exist, he doesn't exist in California, he doesn't exist in Nevada, etc.
So, an atheist can claim to not believe in God without having the proof that God doesn't exist. This is because there is no proof that God does exist.
Atheists require proof before they believe.
There are an infinite number of things that you could believe in if you didn't require proof. Leprechauns, the tooth fairy, and even a made up cartoon character, like Fred Flintstone. Surely you don't want to believe in absolutely everything?
Theists believe without proof.
But atheists believe in other things without proof, too. For example, an atheist doesn't have proof that his wife isn't cheating on him. An atheist doesn't have proof that a car on the road will stop at a stop light and not run over him. If it wasn't for some level of belief, it would be very difficult for one to leave the safety of their home. Even then, they'd have to have some belief that someone would bring them food.
Belief could be strengthened by building trust by doing trustworthy things in the past. For example, cars have always stopped without running you over in the past, so they will likely stop in the future. What if they do run you over (accidents happen). To some, those are random events, and won't happen again. To others, such events cause them to lose faith.
Often it is better to trust someone until they give you reason for you not to trust them.
Defining God is very difficult, since many cultures around the world have different religions. Is God the volcano that we toss virgins into? Is God in the trees and the waters and in us? Is God in the heavens? Does God hear prayers or give relief? Is the bible right? Does God know all? Is God all-powerful?