There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[KWED]

My definition of life? You mean the common one?
life
līf
noun

1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

That's too small for an all powerful entity. An all powerful being is beyond the necessity to be subject to the environment because he is not dependent on the environment for survival. But he is certainly alive as in having an intellect and the ability to reproduce. You need to look outside your limited science box to find any complete answers.

So you insist that god is alive (life).
Therefore, by your argument he must have come from other life.
What was that other life?

 

[KWED]

No need for something else or sex.
God fills the entire universe. Certainly he can produce life from his own energy anywhere.

So life does not need to come "from life". It can be remotely caused without any biological transfer of material.

And you still haven't explained where god's life came from. I wonder why?

 

[KWED]

Why? Dawkins said maybe aliens brought life here. ..at least he was getting close to the truth, although unintentionally.

As I explained earlier, that just moves the problem back a step. You still have the same question over the origin of the alien life.

So, once again...
The issue is pretty simple.
1. We know life exists.
2. If it started to exist, it must have come from a state of non-life.
3. That occurred either through natural processes or by magic.
4. We have mountains of evidence for natural processes causing extraordinary and unlikely things, but zero evidence of anything being caused by magic.
5. Therefore, while both explanations are possible, natural processes is the more likely and more reasonable.

If you disagree, you must explain which of those 5 points fails.
Good luck!

 

[KWED]

I guess if you don't count the testimonies of billions of people....

Testimonies of what? Belief in the belief they were brought up to believe?
As for more extraordinary claims, they require evidence before they can be accepted as fact, so you are back to square one. Remember that we know that people can experience events that seem completely real but are actually imaginary, so hallucination, delusion or other psychological event is a better explanation than the supernatural.

Also, why do their experiences of god always match their cultural background? If there really was one god, everyone's experience should be the same.

the supernatural by definition would seem to be untestable by science.

If something is undetectable, has no measurable effect on anything that is detectable, and is not required for any known explanation to work - how is that any different from "nothing"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Testimonies of what? Belief in the belief they were brought up to believe?
As for more extraordinary claims, they require evidence before they can be accepted as fact, so you are back to square one. Remember that we know that people can experience events that seem completely real but are actually imaginary, so hallucination, delusion or other psychological event is a better explanation than the supernatural.

Also, why do their experiences of god always match their cultural background? If there really was one god, everyone's experience should be the same.

If something is undetectable, has no measurable effect on anything that is detectable, and is not required for any known explanation to work - how is that any different from "nothing"?

Nothing is not the same as unknown.

 

[KWED]

That like saying because I can boil water I'm the world's greatest chef and can create any meal. Of if I can add one and one I'm the world's greatest mathematician ever...

A better analogy would be... "We have all the ingredients for an elaborate dish, and we have a finished product, we just don't have the full recipe to make one from the other".

But your analogy is actually still pretty good. If you can boil water, you have the potential to be a great chef. If you can do basic maths, you have the potential to be a great mathematician.

 

[KWED]

What does that really mean? An Eternal God speaks His Word and Creates? It makes perfect sense

How does that make "perfect sense"?
What even is "an eternal god"? The concept itself is incoherent.
Then you ned to explain how simply saying something can lead to the creation of physical matter.
And what do you mean by "speaks his word"? Does god have vocal cords? Does he live in an atmosphere that allows sound? What language does he speak? Why speak if there is no one to hear you?

Your "perfect explanation" merely raises even more problematic questions.

 

[KWED]

Well, you did say the great way I was delivered from my addictions and for the last 35 years has been a complete change was due to a trick of psychology. So if your view was I could think really hard and some trick this miraculous change could happen then an Eternal God who is all powerful could speak His Word and things happen just like He said, words have power even our words, wouldn’t you say?

You seem confused.
We are talking about the creation of matter from nothing, not about changing a lifestyle.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How does that make "perfect sense"?
What even is "an eternal god"? The concept itself is incoherent.
Then you ned to explain how simply saying something can lead to the creation of physical matter.
And what do you mean by "speaks his word"? Does god have vocal cords? Does he live in an atmosphere that allows sound? What language does he speak? Why speak if there is no one to hear you?

Your "perfect explanation" merely raises even more problematic questions.

Here is the psychology of it and it has nothing to do with religion as such.
Some people believe the world must make positive sense and they don't notice that it is an idea in their minds.
What happens then is this: They claim in effect X is Y without noticing that it is a claim, but they treat it as a fact. I then simply say no, They then compare in their mind the 2 and get the result that because X is Y is true, no must be false.
That is cognition or psychology if you like and some non-religious people do it too.

 

[KWED]

I'm skipping past the folks who post multiple times repeatedly.

Indeed. I use the same principle in my studies. I skip any books by authors with multiple publications. They have nothing useful or interesting to say.

 

[KWED]

The Spirit doesn't manifest himself in places he's not welcome, as a general rule. There's lots of dead churches in the world.

Didn't you just say that god "fills the universe"?

 

[KWED]

Nothing is not the same as unknown.

Something that doesn't exist is both "unknown" and "nothing".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Something that doesn't exist is both "unknown" and "nothing".

No, the "is" you use is cognitive and not empirical. It is a rule in your brain, because doesn't exist is cognitive. You can't confirm doesn't exist by observation. In practice you always experience something. You are playing with words just like some religious people do.

 

[KWED]

No, the "is" you use is cognitive and not empirical. It is a rule in your brain, because doesn't exist is cognitive. You can't confirm doesn't exist by observation. In practice you always experience something. You are playing with words just like some religious people do.

If something doesn't exist, it is irrelevant whether I think it does nor not. Same if something does.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If something doesn't exist, it is irrelevant whether I think it does nor not. Same if something does.

Well, that is irrelevant is something you do. Sp it is relevant if you believe in it or not. Both cases are covered here in sociology:
Thomas Theorem: “ If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. ”

 

[KWED]

Well, that is irrelevant is something you do. Sp it is relevant if you believe in it or not. Both cases are covered here in sociology:

You seem confused. The issue isn't what I define as existing or not. If something does not exist, then it does not exist, and vice versa. My position on its existence, or even whether I am aware of the thing at all, is irrelevant.

No one knew Pluto existed for millennia. Did that have any bearing on its actual existence? Obviously not.

Thomas Theorem: “ If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. ”

Well, that's obvious nonsense.
If I define Pluto as not existing, it does not mean the planet ceases to exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You seem confused. The issue isn't what I define as existing or not. If something does not exist, then it does not exist, and vice versa. My position on its existence, or even whether I am aware of the thing at all, is irrelevant.

No one knew Pluto existed before it was discovered. Did that have any bearing on its actual existence? Obviously not.

The problem with existence, is that it is not a property of anything. E.g. a cat doesn't have the property of existence. That idea is philsophy and comes for the playing with these words: Being qua being.
I don't need the word exist to explain how the world works in practice, just as I don't need the word God.

So what makes it true, that something doesn't exist? What is your evidence of that? If you say it is true, then non-existence is true, what does that mean?

 

[KWED]

The problem with existence, is that it is not a property of anything. E.g. a cat doesn't have the property of existence. That idea is philsophy and comes for the playing with these words: Being qua being.
I don't need the word exist to explain how the world works in practice, just as I don't need the word God.

So what makes it true, that something doesn't exist? What is your evidence of that? If you say it is true, then non-existence is true, what does that mean?

A cat either exists or it doesn't. Anyone's perception or knowledge of the cat does not alter that fact.
You seem to be confusing "existence" with "belief/knowledge of existence".
Perhaps you believe that a tree falling in the forest doesn't make a sound if there is no one to hear it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A cat either exists or it doesn't. Anyone's perception or knowledge of the cat does not alter that fact.
You seem to be confusing "existence" with "belief/knowledge of existence".
Perhaps you believe that a tree falling in the forest doesn't make a sound if there is no one to hear it.

Well, a sound requires an ear. You are talking about air movement.
But yes, we are deep into epistemology.
And there are more than yours or the standard religious ones.

 

[KWED]

Well, a sound requires an ear. You are talking about air movement.

Sound isn't "air movement". It is pressure waves travelling through a medium (like air). The sound is still there even without an ear.
So you do believe that sound does not exist without someone to hear it.