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

[Polymath257]

Same God over all, same virtue.



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

No, science is educated guesses that have been tested against alternative possibilities and the alternatives shown to not work.

There need be no assumption that everything is 'natural'. In fact, I don't know a good definition of what it means to be 'natural'. All that is required is that the ideas be *testable*.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

So you are fine accepting logical fallacies as long as your beliefs are supported. And you want to claim that is rational and a good thing to do.

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.

So you are perfectly happy being a victim of confirmation bias. And you don't see anything wrong with that?

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.

And what would we expect to see if no God was involved?

Ans: we would expect there to be mutations that lead to DNA repair eventually. Those would then become common in descendant populations.

 

[Audie]

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.


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."

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

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.

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

My ex boyfriend in USA was some sort if gun expert.

He'd call " god" in this context a " Blish device"

 

[Jimmy]

No evidence? Hahahahaha

 

[Brian2]

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?

So you like @Polymath257 say that there is no evidence that God was involved so God was not involved and so God does not exist.
So you also presume that God was not needed when you do not know that to be the case.
You step beyond where science dares to step with skeptic confidence and no evidence.

 

[Brian2]

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

What, pointing out that something that was said shows subjectivity in the decision making is belittling?
What, being subjective is something that is shameful?
Are you saying that you do not see that what @Polymath257 said shows subjectivity?

 

[Brian2]

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 do not know that God is not needed. Not being able to see God or what He might have done does not mean He is not needed.
Nothing is in me to show God is needed. I'm pointing out an error in the claims made by you and others. You make the claims, you prove that there is no need for a God.

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."

That is the sort of logic I am using. If you don't know that God was not needed then that is the answer. The logic I hear is, "We cannot see God so God was not involved so God does not exist"
When I examine that it really says "We don't know if God was involved or not, so we ignore God and that means that God was not involved." Then some people extend that logic a step further and say "So that means that God is not needed and does not exist".

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.

I'm not saying that a God is needed, what gave you that idea. I'm saying some subjective evidence for a God.
I'm saying that you have no rational reason to say that a God is NOT needed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, unless of course that reason is materialism, or scientism or something like that, subjective faiths.
If you say that a God is NOT needed, which you and others do say, then DEMONSTRATE it.
You can't demonstrate a negative, so stop saying that you know that a God is not needed.
Let's just agree that I am right and move on.

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

I could not show that, just as you cannot show that God did not have anything to do with it.
It is a matter of faith on both sides.
I don't mind that but some skeptics want to step into a place of faith also and say that God did not do anything.
Best to stick with the "I don't know" position and leave the faith to those who don't mind being accused of having faith.

 

[Brian2]

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 a logical fallacy but I'm not making an argument out of it, so that does not matter, and being a logical fallacy does not mean that the alternative is true "I don't understand it, so God did not do it".

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.

I did not say that I know it is not evidence for God, you imagined that. It must be because you think that evidence for God has to be totally logical.
I do think it is more reasonable to believe in a creator God than to live life as if there is no God, even while saying that you don't know.

 

[Brian2]

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

Science does not say "We could not find a God in our work on the origin of life, so God was not needed for the origin of life and btw, does not exist".
Science does not use a God hypothesis but that is not the same as saying that God is not needed and does not exist.

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.

Feelings that no God was involved is just feelings, not evidence, and nobody knows if God was involved or not just because science cannot detect God.
Science goes as far as it can, which is, we don't know. Some skeptics want to take it further, to we know God does not exist.

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.

If you stuck to the science it would be OK and you would say "I don't know", but you go past the science with a leap of faith into "God does not exist".

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?

Yes, for them, to die. But as I say, I am not making arguments for the existence of God anyway, it is subjective confirmation evidence and is not trying to go beyond that as a method of proving God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, at least not by me.

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.

And it is the same for atheism.

 

[Brian2]

No, science is educated guesses that have been tested against alternative possibilities and the alternatives shown to not work.

Science can do that best with things that happen now and not things that happened in the past.

There need be no assumption that everything is 'natural'. In fact, I don't know a good definition of what it means to be 'natural'. All that is required is that the ideas be *testable*.

For things that happened in the past there is no way to test if the scientific idea is the way it actually happened. Hence, "educated guesses".

 

[Brian2]

So you are fine accepting logical fallacies as long as your beliefs are supported. And you want to claim that is rational and a good thing to do.

Isn't it the same as what some skeptics might do if they claim that there is no God or no God needed, because science cannot find a God.
As you say it is my taste, personal confirmation, and I see it personally as wonderfully reasonable, just as others in my tribe might,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or they might not, and it would not matter to me.

So you are perfectly happy being a victim of confirmation bias. And you don't see anything wrong with that?

Am I? How am I a victim of that? Who says I don't see evidence to the contrary?

And what would we expect to see if no God was involved?

Ans: we would expect there to be mutations that lead to DNA repair eventually. Those would then become common in descendant populations.

Would we? OK that is fine if you want to believe that. It is however a statement from a place of presuming that no God was involved and so the same thing would happen as has happened.
I don't mind making a presumption that God was involved in everything, that is my faith, but I suppose you don't like to admit that what you are doing is presuming that no God is needed, because a God cannot be found.

 

[Polymath257]

So you like @Polymath257 say that there is no evidence that God was involved so God was not involved and so God does not exist.

There is no evidence, so there is no reason to postulate that a God exists.

So you also presume that God was not needed when you do not know that to be the case.

If we can understand the process and result without a God, then no God was needed to understand what happened.

You step beyond where science dares to step with skeptic confidence and no evidence.

I don't think so. In fact, I am using *exactly* the same reasoning for this as I would in any other situation.

So, suppose a physicist proposes a new subatomic particle, but then notes that this particle cannot be observed in any way and there is no evidence for its existence. Also, its existence isn't required to understand any phenomenon we can observe. Under those conditions, the consensus would be that no such particle exists.

I could say the same thing about a new species of living thing, or a new type of star, etc. If there is no way to detect it and it is not required to explain any observation, then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude it doesn't have the requirements to say it exists.

What you are proposing is a 'special circumstance' for your God (but not any other concept of God, which you also reject for the same reasons). Add to this your inclination and happiness with confirmation bias and you can see why people might not take your God-claims seriously.

 

[Polymath257]

What, pointing out that something that was said shows subjectivity in the decision making is belittling?

No. Decision making, for action, is often required. But 'subjective evidence' isn't the way to determine whether something exists. It is good to determine what you want to do, but not whether or not something is there.

What, being subjective is something that is shameful?

Not when used appropriately. Subjective assessments are not good enough to determine truth in the real world. They are good for determining goals and aesthetics, and tastes. When used correctly, subjective assessments are quite valuable and necessary. When used incorrectly, they lead to nonsense.

Are you saying that you do not see that what @Polymath257 said shows subjectivity?

???

 

[Audie]

So you like @Polymath257 say that there is no evidence that God was involved so God was not involved and so God does not exist.
So you also presume that God was not needed when you do not know that to be the case.
You step beyond where science dares to step with skeptic confidence and no evidence.

You managed to concoct the exact
opposite of what I actually said.

How do you do that?

You don't bother to read and just
presume your "faith" gives you
comprehension?

 

[Polymath257]

You do not know that God is not needed. Not being able to see God or what He might have done does not mean He is not needed.

It means God is not needed to understand what happened. Maybe God was involved in some essentially non-observable way. But in that case, God becomes an unnecessary hypothesis for the explanation.

Nothing is in me to show God is needed. I'm pointing out an error in the claims made by you and others. You make the claims, you prove that there is no need for a God.

As an example. Suppose that we drop a ball and it falls. We can explain the motion of that ball using the laws of physics and gravity and the result matches what is actually observed in the motion. No God is required in those calculations to understand the motion.

You may then say that God set up those laws of motion, but that is simply an extra assumption with no consequences. And, at that point, that extra assumption shoudl be discarded as unnecessary for understanding.

That is the sort of logic I am using. If you don't know that God was not needed then that is the answer. The logic I hear is, "We cannot see God so God was not involved so God does not exist"

No, that is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that there is no evidence for God, so it is an unnecessary assumption that should be discarded.

If evidence is ever presented, that hypothesis could be revived.

This is sort of like the claims that weakly interacting massive particles exist (WIMPs). They are actually a direct conclusion from certain theories in physics (which already means we have far more reason to think they might actually exist than any deity). But, even with many observations in conditions where they are expected to show up, we have seen no such particles. Because of that, the theories that lead to their existence are becoming less and less accepted and the *non-existence* of WIMPs is becoming more and more favored.

But, if a WIMP was discovered tomorrow, that would change and we would find theories describing what we actually see.

When I examine that it really says "We don't know if God was involved or not, so we ignore God and that means that God was not involved." Then some people extend that logic a step further and say "So that means that God is not needed and does not exist".

No, you are misunderstanding the logic. We start with a 'God hypothesis' and ask what observable predictions it can make. If there are none, then we discard it as a useless hypothesis. It becomes an unnecessary hypothesis and the existence 'isn't even false'.

I'm not saying that a God is needed, what gave you that idea. I'm saying some subjective evidence for a God.

Which is a contradiction in terms. Evidence is never subjective.

I'm saying that you have no rational reason to say that a God is NOT needed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, unless of course that reason is materialism, or scientism or something like that, subjective faiths.

The fact that the God hypothesis leads to no observable predictions that differ from the standard theories *means* that the God hypothesis is unnecessary.

If you say that a God is NOT needed, which you and others do say, then DEMONSTRATE it.
You can't demonstrate a negative, so stop saying that you know that a God is not needed.
Let's just agree that I am right and move on.

Suppose that someone claims that pixies are necessary to understand the motion of the planets in the solar system. Those pixies push the planets in precisely the way that the theories of gravity and physics predict and so match all observations.

Then, that someone claims that because you *can't* disprove that pixies are involved, it is unreasonable to assume that pixies are not involved.

I hope you can see they are talking nonsense and that it is *perfectly* reasonable to say that no pixies are involved and that the pixie assumption is unnecessary for understanding the motion of planets.

We are simply using *exactly* the same reasoning, but applying it to the God hypothesis.

I could not show that, just as you cannot show that God did not have anything to do with it.
It is a matter of faith on both sides.

No, one side applies the standard rules of logic and reasoning. The other side is trying to use special pleading and confirmation bias. They are not even close to being equivalent.

I don't mind that but some skeptics want to step into a place of faith also and say that God did not do anything.
Best to stick with the "I don't know" position and leave the faith to those who don't mind being accused of having faith.

All we are saying is that the God hypothesis adds nothing to our understanding. So it is reasonable to eliminate it.

 

[Polymath257]

Science can do that best with things that happen now and not things that happened in the past.

And *that* is clearly false. The same laws of physics apply in the past (maybe under different circumstances) and so we can use evidence collected *now* to understand what happened in the past. This is no different than using forensic science to determine what happened at a criome scene (the crime was in the past).

For things that happened in the past there is no way to test if the scientific idea is the way it actually happened. Hence, "educated guesses".

You have clearly never studied any historical science. There are usually many ways to test what actually happened in the past. There are usually multiple different lines of evidence that must be consistent. That can drastically narrow the possibilities of what happened.

It is true that we often don't have complete evidence and some questions are likely to remain forever unanswered. But to say that science is incapable of determining what happened in the past is clearly wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Would we?

Yes.

OK that is fine if you want to believe that. It is however a statement from a place of presuming that no God was involved and so the same thing would happen as has happened.

No, it is not. It is a statement made that is based on modeling what happens in situations with mutation and natural selection. I would encourage you to look at the computer models of what can happen under very general circumstances where those two conditions are found. I have to admit that I was surprised the first time I looked at these models (and did some myself).

So, yes, we *would* expect that mutations would arise that helped DNA repair and that those mutations would spread through the population quickly.

I don't mind making a presumption that God was involved in everything, that is my faith, but I suppose you don't like to admit that what you are doing is presuming that no God is needed, because a God cannot be found.

No, I am not *assuming* that no God is required. It is my *conclusion* based on finding that the God hypothesis adds nothing to the phenomena.

If you can come up with a phenomena that clearly cannot happen unless there is a God, I am quite willing to change my conclusion. Check out the XKCD comic number 2786.

 

[Audie]

It means God is not needed to understand what happened. Maybe God was involved in some essentially non-observable way. But in that case, God becomes an unnecessary hypothesis for the explanation.

As an example. Suppose that we drop a ball and it falls. We can explain the motion of that ball using the laws of physics and gravity and the result matches what is actually observed in the motion. No God is required in those calculations to understand the motion.

You may then say that God set up those laws of motion, but that is simply an extra assumption with no consequences. And, at that point, that extra assumption shoudl be discarded as unnecessary for understanding.

No, that is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that there is no evidence for God, so it is an unnecessary assumption that should be discarded.

If evidence is ever presented, that hypothesis could be revived.

This is sort of like the claims that weakly interacting massive particles exist (WIMPs). They are actually a direct conclusion from certain theories in physics (which already means we have far more reason to think they might actually exist than any deity). But, even with many observations in conditions where they are expected to show up, we have seen no such particles. Because of that, the theories that lead to their existence are becoming less and less accepted and the *non-existence* of WIMPs is becoming more and more favored.

But, if a WIMP was discovered tomorrow, that would change and we would find theories describing what we actually see.

No, you are misunderstanding the logic. We start with a 'God hypothesis' and ask what observable predictions it can make. If there are none, then we discard it as a useless hypothesis. It becomes an unnecessary hypothesis and the existence 'isn't even false'.

Which is a contradiction in terms. Evidence is never subjective.

The fact that the God hypothesis leads to no observable predictions that differ from the standard theories *means* that the God hypothesis is unnecessary.

Suppose that someone claims that pixies are necessary to understand the motion of the planets in the solar system. Those pixies push the planets in precisely the way that the theories of gravity and physics predict and so match all observations.

Then, that someone claims that because you *can't* disprove that pixies are involved, it is unreasonable to assume that pixies are not involved.

I hope you can see they are talking nonsense and that it is *perfectly* reasonable to say that no pixies are involved and that the pixie assumption is unnecessary for understanding the motion of planets.

We are simply using *exactly* the same reasoning, but applying it to the God hypothesis.

No, one side applies the standard rules of logic and reasoning. The other side is trying to use special pleading and confirmation bias. They are not even close to being equivalent.


All we are saying is that the God hypothesis adds nothing to our understanding. So it is reasonable to eliminate it.

God as Blish device

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, science is educated guesses that have been tested against alternative possibilities and the alternatives shown to not work.

There need be no assumption that everything is 'natural'. In fact, I don't know a good definition of what it means to be 'natural'. All that is required is that the ideas be *testable*.

Now I am going to test something. I am going to test if the cause and effect of this post is objective as independent of my brain and it is so, because I say so, because I can only know that which is not my brain. All knowledge for all cases of cause and effect are objectively independent of brains, as that is the definition of knowledge and thus an objective fact, that can't be tested, because it amounts to the impossible situation that there is a part of the universe, which is not objective and physical. And that can't be that case, that I know I chose to write this post and this post as an effect can't be caused by subjective process in my brain as a cause. All causes in the universe are by definition and as objective facts independent of brains.
Subjectivity doesn't work because I didn't chose to write this. Only the objective can be tested and you can't test for subjective, because that is not real as per the definition that only the objective, physical universe is real and exist and that can't be doubted.

So as we agree on this, it means that if we are to be brain scanned according to cognitive science for which it claims that humans are in part subjective, we wouldn't have those parts of our brains. That is an objective fact and the scans would show that. That is how special we are and how we hold objective authority over the real universe.
Science can't test and describe anything as subjective as only the objectively psychical is real and that can't be doubted as it is a fact.

 

[Audie]

What, pointing out that something that was said shows subjectivity in the decision making is belittling?
What, being subjective is something that is shameful?
Are you saying that you do not see that what @Polymath257 said shows subjectivity?

Not what I said at all