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

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

The problem is that the bold part is subjective and have no objective referent.
We always end here for the limit of science:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Honestly, I feel like you didn't even read what I typed and just went into default mode again.

What I said was, "The explanation works just fine without inserting god into it."
If you think that the explanations require gods intervention, then it's on you to show that. It's not on everyone else to just believe that until it's shown to be false.

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.

If you're claiming that god is needed, then it is indeed on you to show that God is needed.

There is no error on my part here. The error is in your lack of understanding of how the rules of logic and reason operate.

That is the sort of logic I am using.

You are not using logic here. All of the arguments you've given rest upon logical fallacies, which means you are not exercising logic.

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".

Except that I haven't said that. And I even took the time just the other day to go over this with you again. And here you are still repeating this.

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

You are saying that though. You claimed that "DNA repair" is evidence for god. Wouldn't that mean that god is involved in the process of DNA repair?

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.

In scientific explanations that work just fine without needing to insert god into them.

Have you ever shown that a god is required for our explanations of the things we observe in the universe to make sense? If not, why should anyone even bother considering god(s) in the first place? For the same reason we don't assume universe-vomiting tortoises are required to explain how the universe works - our explanations work just fine without them.

If you say that a God is NOT needed, which you and others do say, then DEMONSTRATE it.

I really, really need you to understand how logic works. I really do.
You need to show some reason that we would need to consider god(s) in the first place. You seem to think the default position is "there is a god" when it is not. Perhaps because you're starting from a place where you already believe in god, and a very specific god, at that.

You can't demonstrate a negative, so stop saying that you know that a God is not needed.

I haven't ever said that.

Let's just agree that I am right and move on.

You are wrong. Sorry. And what's worse, you don't seem to be very familiar with the rules of logic and reason.

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. Again, as I've said countless times, I have no use for faith. I utterly reject faith as useless, as an unreliable pathway to truth. Anything can be believed on faith.

You've thoroughly demonstrated that you rely almost solely on faith, in your belief in god. You are definitely not relying on logic, as your arguments rest on several different logical fallacies. Fallacies that you appear to realize you're making, and yet seem to be fine with. I'm sorry, but you don't get to pretend that you're being logical, when you are not.

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.

I say, "it doesn't appear that god has done anything. Have you got some evidence that god(s) exist and have something to do with the workings of the universe?' Does that sound like a position of faith to you?

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.

Since you don't mind being accused of having faith, then why try making the arguments you've made here about atheists using faith as though it's a bad thing? I mean, you're apparently a-ok with relying on faith. You think it's a reliable pathway to truth, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't be relying on it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is a logical fallacy but I'm not making an argument out of it,

That's exactly what you have done.

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".

Who has made such an argument???

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.

You didn't have to say those exact words for you to have said it. Those are the implications of your arguments and claims here.

Yes, I think evidence for anything should be "totally logical." You don't?

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.

Which one? Why? Please explain how that is reasonable.

Is it also reasonable to believe in a universe-vomiting tortoise that vomited the universe into existence? Why, or why not?
What makes the a god belief more reasonable than a belief in a universe-vomiting tortoise, in your opinion?

 

[Audie]

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).


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.

Not only, but that the present is kind of a
thin slice between past and future.

Leaving us only the past to study.

 

[Brian2]

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.


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.

You seem to think that I am arguing that God exists because science has not found a mechanism for the evolution of repairing DNA mechanisms.
An argument from ignorance and another God of the gaps argument.
But it does not matter if science has or has not found a possible mechanism for the evolution of DNA repair. It is just the existence of DNA repair that is my subjective evidence for God having a hand in it.

 

[Brian2]

Honestly, I feel like you didn't even read what I typed and just went into default mode again.

What I said was, "The explanation works just fine without inserting god into it."
If you think that the explanations require gods intervention, then it's on you to show that. It's not on everyone else to just believe that until it's shown to be false.

You can believe whatever you want, you can believe atoms and molecules formed naturally with no input and you can believe they came together naturally to do all the things in the formation of bodies etc you can believe all that without evidence and I'll believe God was involved. They are both subjective beliefs which it seems we will believe until it shows to be false.
I don't know how that is going to happen.
So you have subjective beliefs about God and how science shows God is not needed and I suppose you want them to be objective, because you see them as somehow having been shown by science,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but they have not.

If you're claiming that god is needed, then it is indeed on you to show that God is needed.

There is no error on my part here. The error is in your lack of understanding of how the rules of logic and reason operate.

You are not using logic here. All of the arguments you've given rest upon logical fallacies, which means you are not exercising logic.

I'm not making any claims about anything showing God exists. I'm just showing my subjective evidence for God.
If you want to say that you have objective evidence that God is not needed, then you need to show that. You can't because it is just subjective as mine is.
You can explain how something may have happened, so you have a subjective understanding of a mechanism, but you cannot show that God was not needed.

Except that I haven't said that. And I even took the time just the other day to go over this with you again. And here you are still repeating this.

If you don't say that God is not needed and I don't say that objectively God is needed then there is no debate.

You are saying that though. You claimed that "DNA repair" is evidence for god. Wouldn't that mean that god is involved in the process of DNA repair?

Yes in some way.

In scientific explanations that work just fine without needing to insert god into them.

Have you ever shown that a god is required for our explanations of the things we observe in the universe to make sense? If not, why should anyone even bother considering god(s) in the first place? For the same reason we don't assume universe-vomiting tortoises are required to explain how the universe works - our explanations work just fine without them.

You don't know a God is not needed, all you know is that a scientific possible explanation of a physical process could work. It is like saying that science knows that friction produces head and eventually might start a fire in the right circumstances, so God is not needed.
You don't know God is not needed for the design of things so that happened.
But you are talking about science and explanations in science and science says nothing about God, but you seem to be making out that I am against science and what science has found and that you are for science.
However we both seem to be going past what science says and into the realm of faith when I say I believe God made and designed it all to happen as it does, and you say that God is not needed.

I really, really need you to understand how logic works. I really do.
You need to show some reason that we would need to consider god(s) in the first place. You seem to think the default position is "there is a god" when it is not. Perhaps because you're starting from a place where you already believe in god, and a very specific god, at that.

Yes I start from a position of faith and end up there when I give my subjective evidence for God.
And since science does NOT show that God was NOT needed, you are in the same boat.
Skeptics (not science) saya "Ah look, we have shown God is not needed", but what science has done is come up with a possible explanation of what happened without showing God is not needed.
I don't need to show anything for my subjective evidence for God, but you need to show that you have objective evidence that God is not needed. And if you don't say that then you have subjective evidence like I have.
Why should I even consider the idea that the universe developed all by itself and life came about all by itself, that is so ridiculous. BUT that IS what you claim and I do NOT say anything about Universe vomiting tortoises or Spaghetti monsters, the things skeptics use to mock the idea of God.

I haven't ever said that.

Good, you have not said that God is not needed. "Universe vomiting tortoises are not needed, but maybe God is", is that what you are saying?
Maybe skeptics get confused about what science shows and does not show.

No. Again, as I've said countless times, I have no use for faith. I utterly reject faith as useless, as an unreliable pathway to truth. Anything can be believed on faith.

You've thoroughly demonstrated that you rely almost solely on faith, in your belief in god. You are definitely not relying on logic, as your arguments rest on several different logical fallacies. Fallacies that you appear to realize you're making, and yet seem to be fine with. I'm sorry, but you don't get to pretend that you're being logical, when you are not.

You don't think you have any use for faith, but saying God is not needed is a statement of faith.
And I don't mind using logical fallacies in my subjective evidence for God, if that is what I am doing, but if I am doing that then you also are using them in your subjective evidence for God not being needed.

I say, "it doesn't appear that god has done anything. Have you got some evidence that god(s) exist and have something to do with the workings of the universe?' Does that sound like a position of faith to you?

No.
It is a subjective opinion that God is therefore not needed.
All you have is a possible explanation for things, and that is the limits of science.
Anything beyond that is faith except "I don't know anything beyond that" I suppose.
Do you think it is reasonable for skeptics to think that science should be able to find spirit when all science can do is work with physical testing devices?
I suppose you don't think that, you just say, I don't know, and I say I believe spirit and God exist. I don't claim objectively that they exist, so I have no obligation to show you are anyone else anything, sorry.

Since you don't mind being accused of having faith, then why try making the arguments you've made here about atheists using faith as though it's a bad thing? I mean, you're apparently a-ok with relying on faith. You think it's a reliable pathway to truth, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't be relying on it.

I don't make faith a bad thing, that is your take on it and on faith I guess.
I'm just trying to show that some, not all, skeptics and atheists, use faith, and may not even realise it.
I can't really argue with people who say "I don't know"

 

[Brian2]

That's exactly what you have done.

No I haven't, whether I can accept or understand that it evolved has nothing to do with my seeing it as evidence for God. I just see DNA repair mechanisms as evidence for God.

Who has made such an argument???

So we agree.

You didn't have to say those exact words for you to have said it. Those are the implications of your arguments and claims here.

Subjective evidence is what I am talking about.

Which one? Why? Please explain how that is reasonable.

Is it also reasonable to believe in a universe-vomiting tortoise that vomited the universe into existence? Why, or why not?
What makes the a god belief more reasonable than a belief in a universe-vomiting tortoise, in your opinion?

It is reasonable to believe the evidence for the God of the Bible. People in the past experienced God according to that and I believe that. So I believe in that God and I even imagine that I see evidence in fulfilled prophecy etc.
I don't know about a universe-vomiting tortoise. Is there other evidence for this or is it just the universe?
Is that what you imagine an intelligent life giving God might be like or is it just a step going back to the first cause, God?

 

[Polymath257]

You seem to think that I am arguing that God exists because science has not found a mechanism for the evolution of repairing DNA mechanisms.
An argument from ignorance and another God of the gaps argument.
But it does not matter if science has or has not found a possible mechanism for the evolution of DNA repair. It is just the existence of DNA repair that is my subjective evidence for God having a hand in it.

So you have 'gut feeling'. Do you really consider that to be evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

To me NOW there's more proof of God's existence and productivity than there is for evolution happening by "natural selection" and/or mutations taking hold and continuing incrementally for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, going from a few cells popping up. The scales tip for me in favor of God's existence. Very much so, including the description of Babylon the Great. Yup.when I read that I am certain that there is a Divine Power over all who will "win out."

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me NOW there's more proof of God's existence and productivity than there is for evolution happening by "natural selection" and/or mutations taking hold and continuing incrementally for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, going from a few cells popping up. The scales tip for me in favor of God's existence. Very much so, including the description of Babylon the Great. Yup.when I read that I am certain that there is a Divine Power over all who will "win out."

Really? What "proof"? Claims are worse than worthless if one makes them but cannot support them.

 

[blü 2]

But it does not matter if science has or has not found a possible mechanism for the evolution of DNA repair. It is just the existence of DNA repair that is my subjective evidence for God having a hand in it.

Your argument doesn't work for me ─

P1: Science has described a possible evolutionary path for the manner in which DNA is repaired.​

C: Therefore God exists.​

For a start ─ and I think I've asked you this before ─ what real entity do you intend to denote when you say 'God', such that if we find a real suspect we'll be able to determine whether it's God or not?

 

[Brian2]

So you have 'gut feeling'. Do you really consider that to be evidence?

No, the evidence is the existence of mechanisms to fix broken DNA.

 

[Audie]

No, the evidence is the existence of mechanisms to fix broken DNA.

And you deny confirmation bias.

 

[Yerda]

To me NOW there's more proof of God's existence and productivity than there is for evolution happening by "natural selection" and/or mutations taking hold and continuing incrementally for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, going from a few cells popping up. The scales tip for me in favor of God's existence. Very much so, including the description of Babylon the Great. Yup.when I read that I am certain that there is a Divine Power over all who will "win out."

I hope that your beliefs bring you joy and comfort. However, please don't discard the mountains of evidence for evolution and common descent - it is really very compelling to everyone who understands it whether they are atheists, theists, deists, polytheists etc etc.

 

[Brian2]

Your argument doesn't work for me ─

P1: Science has described a possible evolutionary path for the manner in which DNA is repaired.​

C: Therefore God exists.​

For a start ─ and I think I've asked you this before ─ what real entity do you intend to denote when you say 'God', such that if we find a real suspect we'll be able to determine whether it's God or not?

Your P1 and C don't describe what I said.
But God is an omniscient, omnipresent (in time and space), all powerful spirit.

 

[Audie]

I hope that your beliefs bring you joy and comfort. However, please don't discard the mountains of evidence for evolution and common descent - it is really very compelling to everyone who understands it whether they are atheists, theists, deists, polytheists etc etc.

Beliefs like "my husband isn't an alcoholic"
are a poor basis for a happy life.

 

[Brian2]

And you deny confirmation bias.

Are you saying that since science has found a way that DNA repair could have happened through evolution then that shows that God was not needed?

 

[Yerda]

Are you saying that since science has found a way that DNA repair could have happened through evolution then that shows that God was not needed?

If I demonstrate that I can reach the cereal at the top of the cupboard, all by myself, would you propose that God helped me when I brought you a bowl of Coco-pops?

 

[blü 2]

Your P1 and C don't describe what I said.

Perhaps you could set it out correctly for me?

But God is an omniscient, omnipresent (in time and space), all powerful spirit.

No, you can't adequately describe a real being using only imaginary qualities. What real creature are we looking for? Height? Coloration? How many limbs, eyes, digits? Hair? If so what color? Distinguishing marks?

 

[Brian2]

Perhaps you could set it out correctly for me?

It is as I said:
But it does not matter if science has or has not found a possible mechanism for the evolution of DNA repair. It is just the existence of DNA repair that is my subjective evidence for God having a hand in it.

No, you can't adequately describe a real being using only imaginary qualities. What real creature are we looking for? Height? Coloration? How many limbs, eyes, digits? Hair? If so what color? Distinguishing marks?

I have not seen God so cannot describe God in the terms you want.