Proof for the existence of the Abrahamic god?

[occams.rzr]

so we're back to subjectivity, what do you consider as evidence for your beliefs?

How am I being subjective? Evidence is objective.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How am I being subjective? Evidence is objective.

In general, scientists at least treat evidence as objective. But even graduate researchers generally realize that what constitutes evidence, and in particular what this evidence indicates and how, is generally highly subjective. What is probably the most commonly used scientific methodology across sciences (null hypothesis significance testing or NHST) is inherently flawed and has been criticized since before it began. The most successful scientific theory of all time, quantum mechanics, is not only founded upon contrary evidence, but itself presents a chief source of disagreement over what empirical testing is evidence of. Thus, unlike with classical physics, we have a plethora of "interpretations" of quantum mechanics and quantum physics more generally in which scientists can't even agree what our most successful scientific theory actually is a theory of. In relativistic theories, it is understood formally that we live in a four-dimensional cosmos. This was confirmed empirically before Einstein published his 1905 paper founding special relativity by e.g., the constancy of the velocity of light in classical electromagnetism and the Michelson–Morley experiment which attempted (and failed) to show that light traveled in a medium (the "luminiferous aether"). The observational support for general relativity, from the bending of light or much more recently the observation of gravitational waves all serve to support this notion that reality is 4D. Yet whether or not time is another axis/dimension of a fundamentally 4D reality or simply a mathematical convenience is highly contested.
I could marshal many more examples (not to mention work from the philosophy of science and history of science), but the result will be the same: evidence is external (and in this sense objective), but to make sense of it requires subjective interpretations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How am I being subjective? Evidence is objective.

We both see the evidence as pointing in opposite directions don't we? i.e. I guess I'd agree with Legion:

Perhaps technically the 'evidence' itself can be objective- be it the world we see around us, the cosmos, genetics and the fossil record yes? we are all looking at the same stuff and generally agree on what that stuff is- superficially right?

But the further conclusions we draw from them are entirely different depending on the person, most conclude it all points to God, some to naturalism

That's why I acknowledge faith, I can't prove my beliefs, none of us can-
even though it's fun to try- hence this forum!

 

[occams.rzr]

We both see the evidence as pointing in opposite directions don't we? i.e. I guess I'd agree with Legion:

Perhaps technically the 'evidence' itself can be objective- be it the world we see around us, the cosmos, genetics and the fossil record yes? we are all looking at the same stuff and generally agree on what that stuff is- superficially right?

But the further conclusions we draw from them are entirely different depending on the person, most conclude it all points to God, some to naturalism

That's why I acknowledge faith, I can't prove my beliefs, none of us can

You have yet to come up with any evidence. The world around us does not prove that the biblical god exists. If you used it to, then you would also have to account for Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Jupiter, Bondye, etc...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You have yet to come up with any evidence. The world around us does not prove that the biblical god exists. If you used it to, then you would also have to account for Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Jupiter, Bondye, etc...

We have no proof, empirical evidence for any explanation for the world around us

But we have other forms of scientific evidence; predictive ability for instance;

The Bible predicted that the universe began in a specific creation event
Atheists overwhelmingly preferred static/ eternal/ steady state models explicitly for the exact opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

They mocked the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory as 'religious psuedoscience' and 'big bang'

which prediction was scientifically validated?

 

[occams.rzr]

We have no proof, empirical evidence for any explanation for the world around us

But we have other forms of scientific evidence; predictive ability for instance;

The Bible predicted that the universe began in a specific creation event
Atheists overwhelmingly preferred static/ eternal/ steady state models explicitly for the exact opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

They mocked the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory as 'religious psuedoscience' and 'big bang'

which prediction was scientifically validated?

First of all, the religion of a scientist has nothing to do with me. I could care less if Einstein was a Jewish pantheist, it does not make it true just because he believed it and made the theory of relativity. I bet there were Muslim and Hindu scientists that have made amazing discoveries. That does not prove their religion true.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you used it to, then you would also have to account for Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Jupiter, Bondye, etc...

Why?

 

[occams.rzr]

Why?

If you say reality is proof for an intelligent designer, you then have to conclude which one he is. You cannot just assume it is the one you prefer or the one that you grew up believing.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

First of all, the religion of a scientist has nothing to do with me. I could care less if Einstein was a Jewish pantheist, it does not make it true just because he believed it and made the theory of relativity. I bet there were Muslim and Hindu scientists that have made amazing discoveries. That does not prove their religion true.

No it doesn't prove Christianity, but it proves the Bible's fundamental prediction about the universe was true. it wasn't Lemaitre's Christianity that allowed science to progress, he could have been Muslim as you say

it was his skepticism of atheism, which explicitly rejected the concept because of the overt religious implications of a specific creation event

subjectivity, two perspectives, science v atheism in this case, and it's not the only glaring example

 

[occams.rzr]

No it doesn't prove Christianity, but it proves the Bible's fundamental prediction about the universe was true. it wasn't Lemaitre's Christianity that allowed science to progress, he could have been Muslim as you say

it was his skepticism of atheism, which explicitly rejected the concept because of the overt religious implications of a specific creation event

subjectivity, two perspectives, science v atheism in this case, and it's not the only glaring example

The Bible did not predict the universe. It says it was made by god. You cannot prove god by saying the Bible predicted how the universe was made when it says it was made by god. That is circular reasoning.

 

[Quintessence]

If you say reality is proof for an intelligent designer, you then have to conclude which one he is. You cannot just assume it is the one you prefer or the one that you grew up believing.

The notion of "intelligent design" is only relevant to certain theologies - specifically the ones that posit that "god" is defined as a transcendent creator that is external to the universe. If that is how one is defining god, one doesn't have to account for other theological perspectives beyond "that isn't how we define god, and we don't recognize those as gods." Nobody has to rationalize anything about their worldview to anyone - it's their way of life, not yours or mine. Why do you feel that others owe you an explanation?

 

[occams.rzr]

The notion of "intelligent design" is only relevant to certain theologies - specifically the ones that posit that "god" is defined as a transcendent creator that is external to the universe. If that is how one is defining god, one doesn't have to account for other theological perspectives beyond "that isn't how we define god, and we don't recognize those as gods." Nobody has to rationalize anything about their worldview to anyone - it's their way of life, not yours or mine. Why do you feel that others owe you an explanation?

I started the thread, if you do not want to answer then you don't have to. I am simply asking a question. I am sorry you are butt-hurt, but nobody had to come on this thread. If you came on, you obviously would need to be on topic and answer my question.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Really? Because for thousands of years after Aristotle it was assumed that gravity was impossible, Newton himself hated the idea and resigned himself to this magical, nonlocal force only because he couldn't do otherwise, and Einstein showed it doesn't exist (general relativity). Gravitation in the "science" you don't need to show it exists doesn't hold it does exist. In quantum physics (apart from quantum mechanics, i.e., quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, particle physics, etc.) what would be explained by gravity is in fact a particle field (gravitons), while in general relativity gravity is neither a particle nor a force but spacetime curvature. What you "know" exists is simply an observation about how things fall on Earth that you have labelled gravity thanks to an education based on an outdated mechanics taught for its relative accuracy and comparative simplicity, not truth.

Um. Like the space example, it exist a part from our knowledge.

We are not the center of the universe.

In Arostotle day, if you let go of a pencil, it still dropped. We dont need to test it for it to exist.

I think thats common sense?

 

[occams.rzr]

Um. Like the space example, it exist a part from our knowledge.

We are not the center of the universe.

In Arostle day, if you let go of a pencil, it still dropped. We dont need to test it for it to exist.

I think thats common sense?

Good explanation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The Bible did not predict the universe. It says it was made by god. You cannot prove god by saying the Bible predicted how the universe was made when it says it was made by god. That is circular reasoning.

It predicted the creation event atheists thought impossible, unscientific.

predictive ability... scientific method... not proof, just supporting evidence. And if you disagree, you could have argued with atheists at the time, they are the ones who complained that the theory supported the Bible too much

 

[Quintessence]

I started the thread, if you do not want to answer then you don't have to. I am simply asking a question. I am sorry you are butt-hurt, but nobody had to come on this thread.

It's interesting that you interpret someone pointing out the flaws with your opening post and then asking what you really want to get out of this discussion to be "butt-hurt." Could you please try responding with something substantive rather than making erroneous assumptions about other people?

Again: why do you feel others owe you an explanation for their way of life and their worldview? What is your personal interest in this topic? Are you interested in converting to a classical monotheist religion? Do you have academic interest in theology? Did you read the last post I made explaining why the OP is not reasonable?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's interesting that you interpret someone pointing out the flaws with your opening post and then asking what you really want to get out of this discussion to be "butt-hurt." Could you please try responding with something substantive rather than making erroneous assumptions about other people?

Again: why do you feel others owe you an explanation for their way of life and their worldview? What is your personal interest in this topic? Are you interested in converting to a classical monotheist religion? Do you have academic interest in theology? Did you read the last post I made explaining why the OP is not reasonable?

Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat, in a very short time this case, congrats!

 

[occams.rzr]

It's interesting that you interpret someone pointing out the flaws with your opening post and then asking what you really want to get out of this discussion to be "butt-hurt." Could you please try responding with something substantive rather than making erroneous assumptions about other people?

Again: why do you feel others owe you an explanation for their way of life and their worldview? What is your personal interest in this topic? Are you interested in converting to a classical monotheist religion? Do you have academic interest in theology? Did you read the last post I made explaining why the OP is not reasonable?

I have already told you... this thread was made for people to post why they believe what they believe about the biblical god. I am not trying to insult you, I am simply annoyed because you keep on asking the same type of questions. I did read your last post and it was quite irrelevant.

 

[Quintessence]

Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat, in a very short time this case, congrats!

I don't agree with this assessment, but communication strategies like accusing the other party of being "butt-hurt" certainly do not impress me.

 

[occams.rzr]

Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat, in a very short time this case, congrats!

Defeat in what respect? Why are you here if you are not going to answer the question? The whole point was to have a logical and rational discussion on why someone believes in the biblical god if they have evidence for him.