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

[Nakosis]

Walking across campus wit this other girl,
we had this nice red autumn leaf fall at our feet.

"Oh, she says, " look, a Sign from God it
represents the Trinity!"

" So why" I ask, "does this (maple leaf) have
five parts?"

" Oh. You are right. It represents the Pentarch."

True story, but as a parable, how might you interpret this
as applied to your statement above?

Yeah, that is my son.
He finds messages not necessarily from God but from the universe to guide him in his path to enlightenment.
Maybe it is most people. Our brain just works that way, finding patterns in what we observe and putting meaning to the patterns.
Can't convince him otherwise, it's just the way his brain works.

Heck, I used to think like that. Not sure exactly when I stopped thinking like that but now it all seems silly.

 

[Audie]

Yeah, that is my son.
He finds messages not necessarily from God but from the universe to guide him in his path to enlightenment.
Maybe it is most people. Our brain just works that way, finding patterns in what we observe and putting meaning to the patterns.
Can't convince him otherwise, it's just the way his brain works.

Heck, I used to think like that. Not sure exactly when I stopped thinking like that but now it all seems silly.

That's how " subjective god- evidence" works.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I cannot answer how it is evidence for a God for you.

You weren't asked to do that.

Given my belief in a God however it is just confirmative evidence that God arranged genetics so that life forms continued on for a fair while without too many mutations building up.

Okay, so you believe that DNA repair is evidence for god, because you already believe that god invented DNA repair?
That's one of the most circular arguments I've ever seen.

 

[sun rise]

Love is the highest virtue for Christians.

And for others as well.

Having what I call subjective evidence for God is not confirmation bias.

To modify a quote about evolution: God is Who; Science is how.

 

[sun rise]

Some people read the Bible and believe it and others do not, that is fine. I

I once had a short debate with a Christian where I asserted "The Bible contains truth" and he countered with "The Bible IS truth". Both are possible for Christians (and non-Christians)

 

[Audie]

It might show why ID theories are not accepted as science, but it has nothing to do with science, it is subjective evidence that there is a creator God.

ID has not been accepted as science for the exact
reason astrology and Atlantis are not,
Zero data.

Bring some in and Presto! It will be science.

 

[Audie]

And for others as well.


To modify a quote about evolution: God is Who; Science is how.

Note I said ****A*** highest value.
Like totally in the top rank.

 

[Audie]

You weren't asked to do that.

Okay, so you believe that DNA repair is evidence for god, because you already believe that god invented DNA repair?
That's one of the most circular arguments I've ever seen.

The quoted post is a fine specimen of the confirmation
bias said poster denies.

 

[Brian2]

If those same chemicals came together without the scientist, the same result would occur. All that the scientists does is provide the conditions for the chemicals to react.

If you looked at the situation, you would see the scientist bring the chemicals together. THEN they would react. So, you would be able to detect the operation of the scientist by the movement of the chemicals *before* the reaction.

In the case of God, are you proposing that the chemicals would NOT have come together otherwise? if so, then the fact that they came together *is* observational evidence of God. On the other hand, if they would have come together naturally anyway, then no God is required.

I'm saying that you presume God was not needed when you do not know that.
You want to try to convince me of that for some reason when you don't know the answer yourself.
If, if, if, is not good enough to convince me, sorry.
It's the same with 1000 other things that science, or skeptical scientists at least and other skeptics, would say, if, if, if, then no God is needed.
So you believe the ifs are true and I believe that God did it and that even if the chemicals came together and did as you say, that would not show that there was no need for God at one or more than one stage.

 

[Brian2]

The term 'subjective evidence' is problematic in and of itself.

I do know what objective evidence is and I know that it does not show that there is no God.
If someone wants to say that objective evidence shows that God does not exist then it just became subjective evidence for that person,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, because it does not objectively show that no God exists.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm saying that you presume God was not needed when you do not know that.
You want to try to convince me of that for some reason when you don't know the answer yourself.
If, if, if, is not good enough to convince me, sorry.

Let me use your analogy. If a scientist brings chemicals together and a reaction occurs, we have evidence of that scientist because the chemicals were brought together in a way that would not happen in nature.

On the other hand, if those same chemicals come together naturally, the exact same chemical reaction would occur. So, the scientist is not necessary for the reaction.

If the chemicals for life were present naturally and came together through natural processes, then no God is necessary for the origin of life.

So, if it is plausible that those chemicals existed and came together naturally, then it is also plausible that no God is required for the origin of life.

It's the same with 1000 other things that science, or skeptical scientists at least and other skeptics, would say, if, if, if, then no God is needed.
So you believe the ifs are true and I believe that God did it and that even if the chemicals came together and did as you say, that would not show that there was no need for God at one or more than one stage.

I do know what objective evidence is and I know that it does not show that there is no God.

Only because the term 'God' is too vague to be tested. If you can give a good test for the existence of a God, then science *could* conduct that test and settle the issue.

If someone wants to say that objective evidence shows that God does not exist then it just became subjective evidence for that person,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, because it does not objectively show that no God exists.

Well, existence means *objective* and that is contrasted from imagination, which is subjective.

So, if there is no objective reason to think God exists, that is quite enough for me to conclude that God does not exist.

 

[Brian2]

You weren't asked to do that.

True, I was asked about DNA repair and the question was, "HOW is it evidence for a God? In what way does it make the existence of a God either more or less likely given what we already know?"
I don't know what we already know, or think we know.
It is evidence for a God because I cannot see it evolving without a God's hand being involved in it. It is a logical fallacy or maybe multiples of them, but that does not mean that I don't see it as evidence for a God.

Okay, so you believe that DNA repair is evidence for god, because you already believe that god invented DNA repair?
That's one of the most circular arguments I've ever seen.

It is not an argument for God because it is so f88kn illogical and circular and etc, but it confirms my belief in a God. Things like DNA repair is probably what we should expect to see if God did it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and there are thousands of things like that which confirm my beliefs.

 

[Brian2]

And for others as well.

Same God over all, same virtue.

To modify a quote about evolution: God is Who; Science is how.

And science is not always how imo, it is just educated guesses based on the assumption that it all happened naturally.

 

[Brian2]

I once had a short debate with a Christian where I asserted "The Bible contains truth" and he countered with "The Bible IS truth". Both are possible for Christians (and non-Christians)

The Bible seems to have problems in various ways imo but God's Word is the truth.

 

[Brian2]

Let me use your analogy. If a scientist brings chemicals together and a reaction occurs, we have evidence of that scientist because the chemicals were brought together in a way that would not happen in nature.

On the other hand, if those same chemicals come together naturally, the exact same chemical reaction would occur. So, the scientist is not necessary for the reaction.

If the chemicals for life were present naturally and came together through natural processes, then no God is necessary for the origin of life.

So, if it is plausible that those chemicals existed and came together naturally, then it is also plausible that no God is required for the origin of life.

Sounds plausible to me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if.
But you also presume a lot of other things about those chemicals and about what life is.

Well, existence means *objective* and that is contrasted from imagination, which is subjective.

So, if there is no objective reason to think God exists, that is quite enough for me to conclude that God does not exist.

So you make a leap of faith into believing no God exists by imagining that the subjective evidence is no real evidence and that only objective evidence is good enough.
You have faith that science is the way to find God and that it can also tell us if God does not exist.
It is good enough for you, it is subjective.

 

[Audie]

I'm saying that you presume God was not needed when you do not know that.
You want to try to convince me of that for some reason when you don't know the answer yourself.
If, if, if, is not good enough to convince me, sorry.
It's the same with 1000 other things that science, or skeptical scientists at least and other skeptics, would say, if, if, if, then no God is needed.
So you believe the ifs are true and I believe that God did it and that even if the chemicals came together and did as you say, that would not show that there was no need for God at one or more than one stage.

Let's try again.

The "presume" on the part of those with
intellectual integrity is to NOT presume.

Neither that there is, or is not some "god".

We like to see dara. Facts.
Your subjective evidence is worse than
worthless for generating data.

On the objective side, there is no ( zero)
data for a "god".

So it's not "presume" as you so belittling
claim, that no god is needed.

It is statement of fact that there is no evidence
that a god is a component of any physical
event on earth.

Fact v presume is pretty strong.
Presume is all you have.

As a rule, objective beats subjective
when it comes to obtainimg factual data.

Don't you think so?

 

[Audie]

Sounds plausible to me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if.
But you also presume a lot of other things about those chemicals and about what life is.



So you make a leap of faith into believing no God exists by imagining that the subjective evidence is no real evidence and that only objective evidence is good enough.
You have faith that science is the way to find God and that it can also tell us if God does not exist.
It is good enough for you, it is subjective.

Your last line is something you made up.
And again, it's gratuitously belittling.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm saying that you presume God was not needed when you do not know that.

The explanation works just fine without inserting god into it.

Again, if you think God is needed in the explanation, then it's on you to show god is needed. It's on you to show there is some god.

You want to try to convince me of that for some reason when you don't know the answer yourself.

When we don't know the answer to something, then the answer is "I don't know."
NOT
"I don't know, so God did it."

If, if, if, is not good enough to convince me, sorry.

Yes, we know you don't adhere to the rules of logic.

It's the same with 1000 other things that science, or skeptical scientists at least and other skeptics, would say, if, if, if, then no God is needed.

If, if if .. what?
If you say a god is needed then DEMONSTRATE that a god is needed. Until then, nobody need take your word for it. Same way you don't accept that Allah did it. Or Apollo did it.

So you believe the ifs are true and I believe that God did it and that even if the chemicals came together and did as you say, that would not show that there was no need for God at one or more than one stage.

Why do you believe god did it? How could you show that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

True, I was asked about DNA repair and the question was, "HOW is it evidence for a God? In what way does it make the existence of a God either more or less likely given what we already know?"
I don't know what we already know, or think we know.
It is evidence for a God because I cannot see it evolving without a God's hand being involved in it. It is a logical fallacy or maybe multiples of them, but that does not mean that I don't see it as evidence for a God.

Okay, so your argument is that you don't understand it, so God must have done it.

Of course it's a logical fallacy. The fact you you even realize that, and still believe it anyway, is utterly baffling to me. Why would anyone do that? Don't you want to believe true things and disbelieve false things?

It is not an argument for God because it is so f88kn illogical and circular and etc, but it confirms my belief in a God. Things like DNA repair is probably what we should expect to see if God did it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and there are thousands of things like that which confirm my beliefs.

So again you display yet another error in logical thinking on your part that you're totally cool with.

I mean, you seriously just said, "I know that's not evidence of god, but I'm pretending that it's evidence for god because it confirms what I want to believe." I'm sorry, but I can't take that seriously as a serious argument, when you are fully aware that it's folly. If the only thing that confirms your belief are logical fallacies, and it appears that is the case, then your beliefs aren't rooted in solid ground. You want to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts at hand. That type of thinking is completely foreign to me, as a person who wants to believe in as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible.

 

[Polymath257]

Sounds plausible to me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if.
But you also presume a lot of other things about those chemicals and about what life is.

Not really. Those 'presumptions' are based on the evidence from chemistry and from our studies of life.

So you make a leap of faith into believing no God exists by imagining that the subjective evidence is no real evidence and that only objective evidence is good enough.

Of course that is the case. My feeling that the moon is made of green cheese is not evidence that it is, in fact, made of green cheese. And neither would my feeling that it is made of anything else.

Those subjective experiences are *feelings* and no, feelings are not evidence.

You have faith that science is the way to find God and that it can also tell us if God does not exist.
It is good enough for you, it is subjective.

No, I base that on general ways to distinguish truth from falsehoods. Those ways are the reason I use the scientific method. if you have another way of separating truth from falsehood that can fix mistakes it makes, please let someone know.

As a different way of saying the same thing: suppose two *theists* disagree about a topic. Say one is a Baptist Christian and the other is a Sunni Moslem. Is there a way to determine, at a minimum, who is wrong? if they disagree, at least one has to be wrong (or incomplete). Is there a way to reliably determine who it is?

If not, then no claims made about theism can even have a truth value. They are ALL simply matters of taste and not matters of truth or falsity.