Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Alceste]

I haven't proposed anything about the supernatural. All I said was that existence is ordered. And that fact leads us to have to ask ourselves what is the origin of that order, and does it mean something. The nature of our own being forces us to consider the existence of "God".

I missed this one: Anyone who has ever read any Stuart Kauffman is not forced to consider the existence of God as an explanation for complexity. Kauffman's hypothesis is superior, as it is based on empirically accessible facts, and requires no "God of the Gaps".

I've never once in my life been "forced" to consider God as the source of order, simply because order exists. I'm not an irrational person. I can't make great, imaginative leaps like that. When a thing is unknown, I simply wait for it to be known.

 

[Copernicus]

What if that which I consider to be "God" or Spirit is everything that actually exists? Can you still say that my God does not exist?

Only insofar as you identify your concept of "God" with the conventional one that thinks, plans, experiences, and acts like a volitional being. You can, of course, define any word in any way that you like. You could define "God" as a coke bottle. What you can't do is then pretend that your word is the same as the conventionally understood "God". The fact that you use the word "God" to be synonymous with "everything" suggests that you are trying to do just that. We already have the word everything, but people do not pray to, lavish praise on, carry on mental conversations with, make sacrifices to, and ask forgiveness from everything.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Only insofar as you identify your concept of "God" with the conventional one that thinks, plans, experiences, and acts like a volitional being. You can, of course, define any word in any way that you like. You could define "God" as a coke bottle. What you can't do is then pretend that your word is the same as the conventionally understood "God". The fact that you use the word "God" to be synonymous with "everything" suggests that you are trying to do just that. We already have the word everything, but people do not pray to, lavish praise on, carry on mental conversations with, make sacrifices to, and ask forgiveness from everything.

I don't believe in the conventional sense of a "God"( as in manlike supernatural, omnipotent deities and such). I choose to call everything that exists Spirit, but I do so for a good reason, not just because. The words people use for everything, does not in my mind address the fundamental nature of existence, that is that this so-called everything is also very animate. It changes form, is vibrational, etc...

 

[PureX]

I missed this one: Anyone who has ever read any Stuart Kauffman is not forced to consider the existence of God as an explanation for complexity. Kauffman's hypothesis is superior, as it is based on empirically accessible facts, and requires no "God of the Gaps".

I'm not talking about that kind of order. I'm talking about the inherent limitations governing the way energy behaves.

I've never once in my life been "forced" to consider God as the source of order, simply because order exists. I'm not an irrational person. I can't make great, imaginative leaps like that. When a thing is unknown, I simply wait for it to be known.

What I mean is that when confronted with; "two plus two equals ..." our minds tend to automatically think "four". When we contemplate these inherent limitations in the medium of existence (energy) which have in turn designed the way existence exists, most of us automatically wonder at the origin of this order. And we wonder if it indicates purpose. And what might that purpose be.

 

[Freelancer7]

Energy does not express itself in any way. Conciousness, as best we can tell so far, is an experience. Therefore, it is not correct to say that conciousness can express itself as energy. That's tantamount to saying sadness can express itself and tears. They are connected in the sens that they are human trait that often occur in tandem, but it's not correct to say that one is the other.

Energy does not express itself in anyway?????????????????? Energy, life, items, just vibrating matter, chemical elements in there atomic numbers, whether spent energy or biological energy, it breathes, becuase it exists, it exist because it vibrates, no different from your keyboard you type on, to the burger you swallow, your ear drum vibrates due to the disturbance in radio waves where vibrating atoms push against each other, just waves ov vibration, energy that is life, but does not contain the light element of the soul, but coexist with each other, want me to prove it, perhaps I could, perhaps those that say they love you don't want me to!! Why, because I still hope i am full of ****e!!!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When we contemplate these inherent limitations in the medium of existence (energy) which have in turn designed the way existence exists, most of us automatically wonder at the origin of this order. And we wonder if it indicates purpose. And what might that purpose be.

This says considerably more about human psychology than the universe itself.

 

[PureX]

I've just told you what the problem is, and I doubt you'll find any atheist anywhere on RF who disagrees with what I said. You're doing that thing again: "No, your own thoughts and opinions aren't what you say they are, they're what I say they are", and if you disagree with me on that, you are simply ignorant as to what "atheism" really means.

I'm just telling you what I'm seeing from this side of the discussion. And if you weren't so biased, you'd see it, too.

So far, every time someone claims I haven't posted any evidence, their reasoning, on the rare occasions that they actually offered any, was that I haven't "proven it empirically". And I keep repeating over and over that evidence is not proof. I don't need to prove it empirically. But they aren't listening, because they CAN'T ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE. Their position is based on there being none, and by god none is what they're going to have.

It is only evidence that belief in God has some psychological effects. It is NOT evidence of the existence of God.

Well you're just wrong. For the vast majority of people, the fact that a belief in God "works" out in their lives just as it claims it will, is evidence that the belief is likely based on some truth. And in fact most people think this way about all kinds of ideas. But of course YOU aren't going to accept that. You can't. So you have to demand greater correlation. Then more correlation.

 

[Freelancer7]

Energy does not express itself in any way. Conciousness, as best we can tell so far, is an experience. Therefore, it is not correct to say that conciousness can express itself as energy. That's tantamount to saying sadness can express itself and tears. They are connected in the sens that they are human trait that often occur in tandem, but it's not correct to say that one is the other.

Oh and another thing from a personal note is that Conciousness is a state of mind due knowledge gained by experience?!Which means the concious mind breathes due to its experiences that would become stored and breathing mental energy, if their were no tears I am so sure there would be a 1000 fold in murders, tears and the soul, an emotion that is unified, as a form of, letting you know, you are a highly loved and designed Intelligenty evolving chunk of creation

 

[themadhair]

So far, every time someone claims I haven't posted any evidence, their reasoning, on the rare occasions that they actually offered any, was that I haven't "proven empiracally". And I keep repeating over and over that evidence is not proof. But they aren't listening, because they CAN'T ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE. Their position is based on there being none, and by god none is what they're going to have.

Could you direct me to the thread you are describing here?

 

[themadhair]

Well you're just wrong. For the vast majority of people, the fact that a belief in God "works" out in their lives just as it claims it will, is evidence that the belief is likely based on some truth. And in fact most people think this way about all kinds of ideas.

Excellent example of the vacuous evidence being offered in this thread. You are right that people think this way about all kinds of ideas – and it is precisely why this is a recognised fallacy with its own name “appeal to consequences”.

Consider the example of the snake stone. This is piece of flint that has snake-repellent qualities. Rubbing it every day is believed to keep the snakes away. Since it cleary works it is likely based on some truth.

While the above example is clearly laughable – it is using exactly the same reasoning you are using.

 

[Alceste]

I'm just telling you what I'm seeing from this side of the discussion. And if you weren't so biased, you'd see it, too.

:biglaugh: oh, that's rich. When you tell somebody else what they think, and they explain, "no I actually don't think that at all", they're biased????

So far, every time someone claims I haven't posted any evidence, their reasoning, on the rare occasions that they actually offered any, was that I haven't "proven empiracally". And I keep repeating over and over that evidence is not proof. But they aren't listening, because they CAN'T ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE. Their position is based on there being none, and by god none is what they're going to have.

No, they keep stating over and over again that things that are not empirically accessible to other people at all, such as your own personal thoughts and suppositions, do not conform to the definition of the word "evidence". It has nothing to do with "proof". You said you had evidence, but you failed to deliver. If you had presented actual evidence, and not just your personal opinion, and any of us atheists had found it convincing, we would have had to reconsider our disbelief in your personal definition of "God".

Well you're just wrong. For the vast majority of people, the fact that a belief in God "works" out in their lives just as it claims it will, is evidence that the belief is likely based on some truth.

People are illogical? That's your evidence? You've got to be joking.

 

[PureX]

This says considerably more about human psychology than the universe itself.

We have to work with what we've got.

 

[PureX]

Excellent example of the vacuous evidence being offered in this thread. You are right that people think this way about all kinds of ideas – and it is precisely why this is a recognised fallacy with its own name “appeal to consequences”.

Consider the example of the snake stone. This is piece of flint that has snake-repellent qualities. Rubbing it every day is believed to keep the snakes away. Since it cleary works it is likely based on some truth.

While the above example is clearly laughable – it is using exactly the same reasoning you are using.

This analogy is ridiculously biased. I've clearly posted many times an example of a religious/theological based prescription that does clearly work for people. Aren't you embarrassed to post such blatantly biased nonsense? Or are you really that blind to it?

 

[PureX]

:biglaugh: oh, that's rich. When you tell somebody else what they think, and they explain, "no I actually don't think that at all", they're biased????

So you figure that because YOU think it, it can't be biased?

 

[Alceste]

So you figure that because YOU think it, it can't be biased?

I figure that if I'm the one who thunk it, I'm the one who knows what it was. And I figure that strutting around insisting that you know what other people think better than they do is arrogant.

 

[Alceste]

So you figure that because YOU think it, it can't be biased?

I figure that if I'm the one who thunk it, I'm the one who knows what it was. And I figure that strutting around insisting that you know what other people think better than they do is arrogant and deluded. Bias doesn't even enter into it.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

no evidence yet...? just checking in...

 

[Alceste]

no evidence yet...? just checking in...

Actually, yes - we have extracted PureX's personal opinions and suspended them in a vial of distilled water. We're just sending it off to the lab now to find out if god is in there.

 

[Commoner]

no evidence yet...? just checking in...

Nope, nothing yet.

But do check back, we're all very excited about this "evidence" we're supposed to be presented with shortly.

EDIT: btw, I've just been told we are avaiting some shocking lab results as well! Fingers crossed!

 

[Copernicus]

So far, every time someone claims I haven't posted any evidence, their reasoning, on the rare occasions that they actually offered any, was that I haven't "proven it empirically". And I keep repeating over and over that evidence is not proof. I don't need to prove it empirically. But they aren't listening, because they CAN'T ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE. Their position is based on there being none, and by god none is what they're going to have.

The argument is not that you haven't posted any evidence but that the things you have posted as evidence have not really qualified as such. That is, they are not sufficient to license belief in gods or any sort. I personally do not like to claim that believers have no evidence of the existence of their god(s). Almost every believer that I know feels very strongly that their faith is grounded in evidence, and not always just from personal experience.

But it is important to remember that many, if not most, atheists started out as theists and rejected theistic belief for what they also regarded as reasonable and credible evidence for rejection of theism. Each side spends a lot of time discounting or ignoring what the other side offers as "evidence" for its case.

Ultimately, belief and skepticism do not hang on any specific arguments of the sort that we see in these forums. We tend to hold a great many beliefs that shore up or sustain the general belief in theism or rejection of theism. There is no silver bullet argument or piece of "evidence" that is going to suddenly turn an atheist into a theist or vice versa. Such changes in fundamental belief come gradually after one considers many arguments that bear on a broad range of interlocking and mutually supporting beliefs about the nature of reality and gods.