Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Willamena]

No, it's fine to have your beliefs but if you make a claim and someone points out that the claim is obviously false and provides you with evidence and reason to show that your claim is false than you should stop pushing that claim as truth or even implying that it could be.

If you make a claim and a person points out that the claim is obviously (to them) false (to them) and provides you with evidence and reason to show that your claim is (to them) false, and it has no impact, then that person should probably suspect that the evidence and reason presented isn't sufficient.

This would be a good time for the person to start asking questions of you, to gain more information, improve their working hypothesis that is having no impact, and try again.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

If you make a claim and a person points out that the claim is obviously (to them) false (to them) and provides you with evidence and reason to show that your claim is (to them) false, and it has no impact, then that person should probably suspect that the evidence and reason presented isn't sufficient.

This would be a good time for the person to start asking questions of you, to gain more information, improve their working hypothesis that is having no impact, and try again.

No a flase claim is a flase claim. PureX has not presented any evidence, and has refused to actually do so.

 

[Willamena]

No a flase claim is a flase claim. PureX has not presented any evidence, and has refused to actually do so.

And that's absolutism.

 

[Commoner]

Oh, come on now, we're getting off-topic again!

So...where's this evidence?

 

[PureX]

I agree that we currently have no objective proof in the matter, either for or against. I don't think, however, that we must be omniscient in order for this proof to exist. If God came down in a cloud of thunder and made it very clear that he was God, I would consider that solid proof of God's existence, even though I still might not know the number of sand grains in the world.

I have thought about this a lot, as I had a "God" experience when I was a child. And at the time, I was thoroughly convinced that what I was experiencing was "God". Yet as an adult, I still have to wonder. Could I have somehow hypnotized myself? Could I have has some sort of brain aberration? And if this "God were standing before you and I, how could we be sure that it wasn't some sort of space alien with advanced technology, or a really good magician's trick?

In the end, I can think of no way that "God" could prove to me that he's God. I can always find a reason to be skeptical.

Religion "works" for many people. Belief in God "works" for many people. I do not contest these facts, and I do think they attest to the fact that religion can be, in fact, a good thing for humans. But those statements are saying something different than "God works for people." God could be the reason religion works for people, but the simple fact that it does work, does not point exclusively to God's existence.

"God" is an idea. The question at hand is, does the idea we hold of God in our minds have any corresponding existence in actuality. Our experience and knowledge of actuality is very limited, and so we can't really know the answer to that question, I don't believe. But we can test the idea against actuality as we experience it, to see if the idea at least holds water in that small arena of reality that we can know and experience. And this is exactly what that religious prescription I posted, does. And that's why when we discover that it does work, we can use this discovery as evidence in support of the reality of the idea of God that we hold.

I feel it's similar to the theory of evolution. We invented this theory, but we didn't know if it corresponded to actuality or not. So we tested it against whatever small aspects of actuality we could, and we have discovered that the theory "works" (in that actuality responds consistently and predictably according to the theory).

There are still more questions about these theories to be answered, and more "tests" to be done. But so far, the theory of 'God" works for most people, which is why most people hold on to it. And it works beyond that of mere chance, suggestion, and superstition.

Religion is a powerful motivator. Strongly held beliefs tend to be equally as strongly acted upon.

Around Christmas time, kids tend to be on their best behavior. Why? Because Santa might not bring them that particular present if they aren't good. Their (erroneous) belief in Santa Claus causes a very real change in behavior.

But "Santa" is a symbolic conceptualization, over-simplified for children. We give gifts to those we love. We love those (children) who behave the way we want them to behave. So if children want gifts, they must please us with their behavior. This is the idea embodied in the whole Santa-concept.

There are several ways in which the Santa concept differs from a God concept. One is that it is disprovable. Second is that it's over-simplistic, and third is that it's based on humans manipulating other humans. I will admit that such over-simplistic and manipulative god concepts exists, and unfortunately they do work (manipulate) the weaker-minded among us. These are examples of people using lies and fear and rewards to control and manipulate other people. I don't believe this is legitimate religion. As it 's an abuse of theology.

Heaven's Gate cult members all committed suicide in a belief that the Earth was soon to be destroyed and leaving it through death was the only way to assure survival in the next "level". Here is another erroneous belief shown to effect behavior.

Well, we don't actually know that it's erroneous, do we? Maybe Jesus really was waiting for them on that space ship hiding behind the Hale-Bop Comet. This is an example of religious extremism, or perhaps group psychosis. I don't know what to say about it except that it is extreme, and rare. It is not the norm, and therefor does not inform us about the norm, I don't believe.

In the Bob example, you claim that if you can show it is possible for Bob to have killed his wife, then that possibility is evidence that Bob killed his wife, even if Bob did not in fact kill his wife. It's that last bit that gets me: can you call something evidence if it does not in fact support actuality?

Certainly. "Evidence" is really just a collection of facts that support a hypothesis. It is not proof, and therefor the hypothesis could still be wrong. But in most cases evidence is all we're ever going to get. We can't have proof. And because evidence is all we have to work with, we have to take it seriously, but with skepticism, too.
Bob may not have killed his wife, but it's important that we know that he could have.

 

[PureX]

If you answer the latter question as "inherrent in nature", then the answer to the former follows: "no".

I don't follow that logic. It presumes that anything inherent to nature can't have a purpose. Why not?

I agree that the mystery is real, insomuch as it has been created by our minds, and is likely a natural expression of an iniquisitive nature.

I'm not so sure why, however, that simple ignorance (of answers to those traditional existential questions) should be deified or worshipped.

I never understood why a God would want to be deified and worshipped. I have always suspected that God does not, and that may be one reason for God's apparent "invisibility".

I praise and thank "God" all the time, but I don't necessarily do it for "God" so much as for myself. I have found that it important to my mental health to keep myself in a grateful state of mind. And I have also found that I enjoy it.

 

[PureX]

If you make a claim and a person points out that the claim is obviously (to them) false (to them) and provides you with evidence and reason to show that your claim is (to them) false, and it has no impact, then that person should probably suspect that the evidence and reason presented isn't sufficient.

This would be a good time for the person to start asking questions of you, to gain more information, improve their working hypothesis that is having no impact, and try again.

I tried that until it became apparent to me that nothing I presented would be accepted as evidence, because the other person/s have already made up their mind that there is none. At that point the conversation is at an impasse.

 

[Vile Atheist]

It is poorly worded. The "energy" that "changes form" does not actually change form at all. The more current wording is:
"The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."

Fair enough. Then what about evolution? We're "changing" constantly and gradually. Is each genetic mutation an individual "creation" then?

 

[Willamena]

Fair enough. Then what about evolution? We're "changing" constantly and gradually. Is each genetic mutation an individual "creation" then?

Speciation is the creation of a new species. (Evolution deals with species, not individuals.)

Each pregnancy/cell reproduction is the creation of a new biological life-form.
Each invention is a creation of the mind.
Each conscious moment is the creation of the world.

 

[themadhair]

Creation, as used in this context, isn’t the same as how Fatihah is using it. And you surely know this.

 

[Willamena]

Creation, as used in this context, isn’t the same as how Fatihah is using it. And you surely know this.

I know no such thing. What I know is what's there, in his words.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Speciation is the creation of a new species. (Evolution deals with species, not individuals.)

Each pregnancy/cell reproduction is the creation of a new biological life-form.
Each invention is a creation of the mind.
Each conscious moment is the creation of the world.

Individuals mutate, populations evolve.

I get how changing forms can be creation. But my issue is the baggage that comes with Fatihah's usage of it.

 

[themadhair]

I know no such thing. What I know is what's there, in his words.

I have no idea why you doing this. Free world I guess.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have no idea why you doing this. Free world I guess.

It's kind of her online version of taking in stray cats.

 

[Copernicus]

I know no such thing. What I know is what's there, in his words.

I think that the rest of us do understand your point. The complaint is that you are engaged in a semantic debate. The question is whether physical reality sprang into existence out of nothing (i.e. was 'created') with the help of Allah/God or whether it was just a transformation of something that always existed in some material form.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I tend to believe it was something natural that always existed that was not always in "material" form as we know it, but it transformed into something material. It materialized. Perhaps something like Dark Matter or Dark Energy (but not necessarily) that changed form into what we know as physical matter or physical energy that can be weighed and measured. I don't know that much about Dark Matter or Dark Energy so could anyone please tell me if either of those forms could be weighed or measured, whether or not they actually exist, or are they just theoretical?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't know that much about Dark Matter or Dark Energy so could anyone please tell me if either of those forms could be weighed or measured, whether or not they actually exist, or are they just theoretical?

They are essentially hypothetical placeholders used to account for variables which are necessary to make current cosmological models work. They don't actually describe known phenomenon, but rather observable effects of unknown phenomenon.

 

[Willamena]

I tend to believe it was something natural that always existed that was not always in "material" form as we know it, but it transformed into something material. It materialized.

Or, perhaps, real-ized?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

And that's absolutism.

Not really, it only seems like so because PureX claim was that he had evidence of god and yet he didn't present anything. His claim was completely false, If there had been a degree of non-falsity (Not a word right?) I would've address it but he represented glorified opinions as examples of evidence Instead of objective facts.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I tried that until it became apparent to me that nothing I presented would be accepted as evidence, because the other person/s have already made up their mind that there is none. At that point the conversation is at an impasse.

No, there may be evidence for god, though I haven't seen any. You claimed to have evidence and guess what? You haven't provided any.