The myriad proofs for the exsitence of God

[cottage]

Which 3?

Judeo-Christian, Islam, Hinduism (ex the polytheistic aspect)

 

[dorsk188]

Judeo-Christian, Islam, Hinduism (ex the polytheistic aspect)

Who's gonna tell the Jews that they've been merged into Christianity? Not it.

 

[sandandfoam]

If you want to think that fairies make the garden grow, then feel free. Just admit that it's not actually necessary and has no real effect on reality.

lol.
Staying with the point, using logic please, and parsimony, please explain to me how fairies making the garden grow isn't a simpler explanation than... I dunno what's your explanation?

 

[Adso]

There is also logical evidence. It's been my experience that, when religious people actually define their god, they often create logical contradictions.

I know there are a variety of other types of evidence. I was simply (perhaps wrongly) assuming that cottage meant evidence arrived at by the scientific method. It's quite reasonable in my opinion for one to say that they have never seen any existence for God, but to state that no such evidence exists is rather stretching it. (That's a very shortened version of what I mean to say exactly, so if you care for me to elucidate, I'd be more than happy.)

It doesn't surprise me that people make logical contradictions when describing their view of God(s)...It's a rather large topic. That, however, is exactly why people study and aim to understand Him/Her/They better.

 

[dorsk188]

lol.
Staying with the point, using logic please, and parsimony please explain to me how fairies making the garden grow isn't a simpler explanation than... I dunno what's your explanation?

We're both reasonable people, and we agree that we should study the flowers to see how they grow, right? We both agree that the flowers need soil with certain nutrients, the proper temperatures, water, sunlight, etc. We agree that the leaves use sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide to make food. We can study the flowers and determine exactly how it grows, and we agree on that.

But then at the end, if you add: "And fairies helped out", you've not added anything to our understanding of the flower. You've added a whole series of questions that can't be answered. How did the fairies help? Why are the fairies doing it? Where did they come from? How do we know they are helping? Etc.

If fairies are actually helping out, then by all means, let's figure out how. But there's no expanatory need for fairies, and no evidence they are helping at all.

 

[Adso]

No it does not. If I told you I have a diamond in my basement the size of a tractor trailer, but that I couldn't let you into my house, would you believe me? If you can't get into my house, you can't prove it doesn't exist, but the fact that it is extremely improbable, and that I can provide no evidence for it, means that by far the most rational thing for you to conclude is that there is no such diamond in my basement. The fact that you can't disprove it doesn't make it rational to believe my claim. The fact that I can't prove and that I can produce no evidence means that it is rational for you to disbelieve me. God is a tractor trailer sized diamond in your neighbor's basement my friend.

This situation already assumes you have all the knowledge/evidence necessary from the beginning. How exactly is this analogous?

 

[dorsk188]

I know there are a variety of other types of evidence. I was simply (perhaps wrongly) assuming that cottage meant evidence arrived at by the scientific method. It's quite reasonable in my opinion for one to say that they have never seen any existence for God, but to state that no such evidence exists is rather stretching it. (That's a very shortened version of what I mean to say exactly, so if you care for me to elucidate, I'd be more than happy.)

I've been asking for evidence for a long time, and no one has ever come through for me. I'd genuinely love to hear yours.

 

[sandandfoam]

We're both reasonable people, and we agree that we should study the flowers to see how they grow, right? We both agree that the flowers need soil with certain nutrients, the proper temperatures, water, sunlight, etc. We agree that the leaves use sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide to make food. We can study the flowers and determine exactly how it grows, and we agree on that.

But then at the end, if you add: "And fairies helped out", you've not added anything to our understanding of the flower. You've added a whole series of questions that can't be answered. How did the fairies help? Why are the fairies doing it? Where did they come from? How do we know they are helping? Etc.

If fairies are actually helping out, then by all means, let's figure out how. But there's no expanatory need for fairies, and no evidence they are helping at all.

I know the flowers need soil and sun. But where did their seeds come from if not the fairies?

 

[Willamena]

I see your point, but can you think of any situation when adding unnecessary variables is logical?

I can see many situations in which excluding variables considered unnecessary leads to ill-logic. Is that the same?

Wouldn't that aesthetic ideal (of lack of clutter) be less likely to cause confusion, and thus be logical?

Less clutter doesn't necessailry mean more logic. The similie "Bill = a deer" can be made to be logical, but in its essence seems nonsensical.

 

[dorsk188]

This situation already assumes you have all the knowledge/evidence necessary from the beginning. How exactly is this analogous?

I'd tweak what MSizer said in this way. The diamond, whether it exists or not, is immaterial. If no one ever sees the diamond, then why does it matter if it exists or not? Existence of the diamond is very unlikely, so its best to remain skeptical.

The only God that may exist in our Universe is a deist "hands-off" type that doesn't get involved in our affairs. By all appearances, he doesn't exist. He's immaterial.

 

[Willamena]

I'd tweak what MSizer said in this way. The diamond, whether it exists or not, is immaterial. If no one ever sees the diamond, then why does it matter if it exists or not? Existence of the diamond is very unlikely, so its best to remain skeptical.

The only God that may exist in our Universe is a deist "hands-off" type that doesn't get involved in our affairs. By all appearances, he doesn't exist. He's immaterial.

Or entirely "hands-on", as in the "god" that is everything (omnipresence).

 

[dorsk188]

I can see many situations in which excluding variables considered unnecessary leads to ill-logic. Is that the same?


Less clutter doesn't necessailry mean more logic. The similie "Bill = a deer" can be made to be logical, but in its essence seems nonsensical.

Let me be clear: I'm not advocating removing variables that have explanatory power. I'm saying that adding variables like "God did it" often creates more questions, and complicates an otherwise clear process.

Ray Comfort had a "debate" with a YouTuber a while back, and he explained that "God makes every rainbow" and "God crafts every snowflake". What does that add to the explanation of what makes a rainbow or a snowflake? It only adds further questions and offers no new information. Does it mean that if God doesn't decide to make a rainbow, then light ceases to refract?

 

[Thief]

It is correct to say He is 'hands-off', and immaterial, but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

 

[dorsk188]

Or entirely "hands-on", as in the "god" that is everything (omnipresence).

Conceivably, but how is that "god" not just another word for universe? We're arguing semantics at that point.

 

[dorsk188]

I know the flowers need soil and sun. But where did their seeds come from if not the fairies?

The seeds came from the flower's parents. And their parents, and their parents. On back until they weren't flowers yet.

We still don't need fairies to explain it. There was a time when we didn't know why flowers grew and where seeds came from, and people claimed that the fairies did it because it was the "best" idea anyone had at the time. But as we learn about the garden, it seems like the fairies have less and less to do...

 

[Willamena]

Let me be clear: I'm not advocating removing variables that have explanatory power. I'm saying that adding variables like "God did it" often creates more questions, and complicates an otherwise clear process.

This is true. "God dunnit" has as much aesthetic appeal as Occam's Razor. (By the way, what is the "clear process" for how existence exists?)

 

[dorsk188]

It is correct to say He is 'hands-off', and immaterial, but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

Of course it doesn't. But why does anyone suppose he exists at all?

We all know why. Because our ancestors believed in them (and ascribed them all sorts of very material qualities). That's the only reason anyone even ponders about a God that has no effect on the world.

 

[sandandfoam]

Conceivably, but how is that "god" not just another word for universe? We're arguing semantics at that point.

Isn't 'God' all about semantics?
I contend that there are as many meanings attaching to the word 'God' as there are people.
That's why, in my view, there are as many proofs for against and in-between God as there are people.
For us humans, saying that God does(not) exist is meaningless without the ability to agree on the concept we're talking about - and that has to be done on a case by case basis.

 

[Willamena]

Conceivably, but how is that "god" not just another word for universe? We're arguing semantics at that point.

I guess it's the distinction between universe and what makes universe.

 

[TheGodless1]

It woud be useful if you define 'God' so that we know what we are proving or disproving.

What definition of "God" do you use? A God is a God is a God...
dont be so simple