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

[ppp]

So?

So, nothing you are saying supports your position.

 

[Brian2]

So, nothing you are saying supports your position.

I suppose you think that what I say could support the existence of spirit kumkwat. Maybe for those who believe in a spirit kumkwat that is so. A spirit kumkwat or spaghetti monster etc are confirmed by life being so complex and having DNA fixing mechanisms for those who believe such things.
I don't know many people who believe in such things however.

 

[Brian2]

What real thing am I actually looking for?

What objective test will tell me whether any real suspect is the bible God or not?

That is up to science or you to determine.
But isn't what you want a belief for yourself.

If they're real then they don't depend on human imagination or conceptualization to exist.

They're out there somewhere in the universe, and since they're real they must interact with the part of the universe that isn't them. If they do that in a distinct way, such as an anomalous way, then they're detectable.

If they're not out there in the universe then the only way they exist is as a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain.

If you disagree, please

(a) describe to me the manner in which they exist independently of other living things, and

(b) what real quality distinguishes them as "gods", and

(c) how your answers can be tested empirically, which is the way one deals with propositions about real things.

So you believe in science's ability to determine if a spirit God exists.
Does that mean that science has shown that God does not exist?

 

[ppp]

I suppose you think that what I say could support the existence of spirit kumkwat.

Well, you suppose poorly. The phrase "...does not eliminate the possible necessity of..." is vacuous. It doesn't suppot the existence of anything.

 

[blü 2]

That is up to science or you to determine.
But isn't what you want a belief for yourself.

You say God is real. That means God is an entity to be found in reality. But you seem unable to describe in real terms what I'm supposed to be looking for. If that's wrong, and you have a photo, please post or link the photo, and point out what features of the entity in the photo demonstrate that it's God. If you don't have a photo, describe to me what real thing I'm supposed to be looking for so that I can determine whether any real suspect is God or not.

If God is not real, merely conceptual / imaginary, just say so and save us both a lot of time.

So you believe in science's ability to determine if a spirit God exists.

You haven't argued with my definition of 'real' and you've said God is real, so spirit doesn't come into. Spirit refers either to a particular emotional state of an individual, or to an entity only known to exist in imagination or as a concept

Does that mean that science has shown that God does not exist?

Before I can answer that, you have to define 'God' for me as I've set out above.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, you suppose poorly. The phrase "...does not eliminate the possible necessity of..." is vacuous. It doesn't suppot the existence of anything.

Well, the problem with word existence is that it is not needed to do science and in effect belongs to philosophy as it has no objective referent.

 

[Brian2]

Well, you suppose poorly. The phrase "...does not eliminate the possible necessity of..." is vacuous. It doesn't suppot the existence of anything.

Nevertheless many seem to think that discoveries (both real and imaginary) have eliminated the need for God. Just correcting a misconception which many skeptics seem to have these days, (and which many don't want to see as a misconception) and which is a lie that gets passed on to the general public.

 

[ppp]

Nevertheless many seem to think that discoveries (both real and imaginary) have eliminated the need for God.

The possible necessity for a god has never been established. There is no possible necessity to be eliminated. That possible necessity is entirely imaginary, irrespective of the existence (or lack) of any actual necessity.

Just correcting a misconception which many skeptics seem to have these days

Seems to me that is a strawman that you have created to make dealing wih skeptics easier for yourself. It also served you as a distraction to void acknowledging the vacuous nature of your "...does not eliminate the possible necessity of God."

and which is a lie that gets passed on to the general public.

I only hear such things as one of the many calumnies, little and big, that theists pass around o each other.

 

[blü 2]

Nevertheless many seem to think that discoveries (both real and imaginary) have eliminated the need for God. Just correcting a misconception which many skeptics seem to have these days, (and which many don't want to see as a misconception) and which is a lie that gets passed on to the general public.

Sorry, what need for God?

We don't even have a satisfactory definition of a real God on table, so we still don't know what we're talking about.

 

[Brian2]

The possible necessity for a god has never been established. There is no possible necessity to be eliminated. That possible necessity is entirely imaginary, irrespective of the existence (or lack) of any actual necessity.

The possibility that the universe and life happened without a God creator and designer and life giver is one of probably 3 possibilities. (God did it, this is God, this did itself). One of these is necessary. None of these has been established but skeptics seem to want to eliminate anything except the idea that this all came about by itself.
But it has not been eliminated.

Seems to me that is a strawman that you have created to make dealing wih skeptics easier for yourself. It also served you as a distraction to void acknowledging the vacuous nature of your "...does not eliminate the possible necessity of God."

As I pointed out, it is no more vacuous than one of the other possibilities.
2 of the 3 are theistic but with the advances of science some people think that science has shown that the God possibilities are not necessary and that science would know if a God exists. Science has not shown this and would not know if a God exists or not. Science in fact says that it does not know, it has nothing to say about that.

I only hear such things as one of the many calumnies, little and big, that theists pass around o each other.

I hope you can now see that it is a lie to say that science has shown that God is not necessary, and that to say that the universe and life just happened is just as much imaginary as it is to say that God did it.
So all this imaginary stuff is not evidence of anything but imo God has show us that He is real.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry, what need for God?

We don't even have a satisfactory definition of a real God on table, so we still don't know what we're talking about.

Yes I know you want to say that God is not real because science cannot even check it out.
God is not even a wrong answer in science, God is just irrelevant.
Yes science has limits even if many skeptics have a faith in science which is unjustified.
I heard someone the other day (an apologist, so take it with a grain of salt) say that everything, including our brains and rationality, coming about by chance, tends to tear down our rationality as something we can trust to be correct. So the whole idea of trusting science is destroyed if all this happened by chance. Self defeating philosophy I think it is called.

 

[ppp]

The possibility that the universe and life happened without a God creator and designer and life giver is one of probably 3 possibilities

You are incapableof knowing what the probabilities are. You are lincapable of knowing the range of possibilies. Allthat you know is what you are capable of conceiving within the tiny bounds of your imagination. Have some humility. Nothing of your "calculations"" that you claiming to know, or have a grasp upon, is something that you actually know. Or have a grasp upon.

 

[Brian2]

You are incapableof knowing what the probabilities are. You are lincapable of knowing the range of possibilies. Allthat you know is what you are capable of conceiving within the tiny bounds of your imagination. Have some humility. Nothing of your "calculations"" that you claiming to know, or have a grasp upon, is something that you actually know. Or have a grasp upon.

Since I have not claimed to know anything about probability calculations of other calculations, I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are incapableof knowing what the probabilities are. You are lincapable of knowing the range of possibilies. Allthat you know is what you are capable of conceiving within the tiny bounds of your imagination. Have some humility. Nothing of your "calculations"" that you claiming to know, or have a grasp upon, is something that you actually know. Or have a grasp upon.

There is no known actually propability for what objective reality is in itself.
You seems to be in effect a realist for knowledge of what the objective reality is. If that is so, I would like to know how you justifify that.

 

[blü 2]

Yes I know you want to say that God is not real because science cannot even check it out.

You're the one saying God has objective existence.

I'm the one pointing out that God doesn't even have a description appropriate to a being with objective existence. Not hair color, number of limbs, height, odor, reproductive processes, diet ─ nothing.

God is not even a wrong answer in science, God is just irrelevant.

Just like the gummu, which has no definition or description appropriate to a real entity either.

Yes science has limits even if many skeptics have a faith in science which is unjustified.

But science is very good with real things, and you're not offering one,

I heard someone the other day (an apologist, so take it with a grain of salt) say that everything, including our brains and rationality, coming about by chance, tends to tear down our rationality as something we can trust to be correct. So the whole idea of trusting science is destroyed if all this happened by chance.

The fact that animal brains have developed various degrees of reasoning is to be expected, because reasoning is very helpful to survival and breeding.

Science is based on reasoning using empiricism and induction, and maximizing objectivity, well aware that there are no absolute statements. The justification of reasoned enquiry, including science, is that it works better than any known alternative system when it comes to exploring, describing and seeking to explain reality, the world external to the self.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're the one saying God has objective existence.

I'm the one pointing out that God doesn't even have a description appropriate to a being with objective existence. Not hair color, number of limbs, height, odor, reproductive processes, diet ─ nothing.

Just like the gummu, which has no definition or description appropriate to a real entity either.

But science is very good with real things, and you're not offering one,

The fact that animal brains have developed various degrees of reasoning is to be expected, because reasoning is very helpful to survival and breeding.

Science is based on reasoning using empiricism and induction, and maximizing objectivity, well aware that there are no absolute statements. The justification of reasoned enquiry, including science, is that it works better than any known alternative system when it comes to exploring, describing and seeking to explain reality, the world external to the self.

Now using your external senses just as with God do the same with a real thing as a real thing. I.e. how do you see a real thing?

 

[Brian2]

You're the one saying God has objective existence.

I'm the one pointing out that God doesn't even have a description appropriate to a being with objective existence. Not hair color, number of limbs, height, odor, reproductive processes, diet ─ nothing.

"Objective existence"? What do you mean by that?
I do believe God exists however and I have my reasoning and subjective evidence for that.
But yes there is not physical description, like there might be for bigfoot. God of course is an invisible spirit.

Just like the gummu, which has no definition or description appropriate to a real entity either.

That is just making an assumption that a real entity is a physical entity. So you look for God with clear preconceptions and I guess that is why you think God (an invisible spirit) should be able to be detected by science.

But science is very good with real things, and you're not offering one,

Again your presuppositions of what reality is. That surely means you are not even open to the possibility of an invisible spirit. Only something in the material realm is a possibility for God for you I imagine because that would be the only God that could be detectable by science. So you only see evidence that science can investigate and deny anything else. That sounds like confirmation bias to me.

The fact that animal brains have developed various degrees of reasoning is to be expected, because reasoning is very helpful to survival and breeding.

Human reasoning goes way beyond what we need for survival and breeding of course.
But human reasoning has come up with a God, which in evolution terms might mean that belief in a God is a survival thing.
Certainly scientific studies show that human score better on a wellbeing scale if they believe in God.

Science is based on reasoning using empiricism and induction, and maximizing objectivity, well aware that there are no absolute statements. The justification of reasoned enquiry, including science, is that it works better than any known alternative system when it comes to exploring, describing and seeking to explain reality, the world external to the self.

I'm not saying that our reasoning ability is not good, but was wondering how we can trust it to give us true answers if it is really a product of blind chance.
After a long time of scientific enquiry we can see that it works and that is a good thing. But I hear it is in the West with the Christian God who made everything, that humans began to trust that this God made things to be understood by us. Other parts of the world, with no creator God, did not do this.
I hear that most, if not all gods from other religions are not the creators of the universe but are in the realm of the universe.

 

[blü 2]

Now using your external senses just as with God do the same with a real thing as a real thing. I.e. how do you see a real thing?

You already know the answer to that, because I've told you so often. There is a world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

But we find no entity in the world external to the self which can be identified as "God", not least because "God" has no description appropriate to a real entity.

And as you know, God never appears, says, does, and the world behaves exactly as if God existed only as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains.

 

[blü 2]

"Objective existence"? What do you mean by that?

I mean existing in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

I do believe God exists however and I have my reasoning and subjective evidence for that.
But yes there is not physical description, like there might be for bigfoot. God of course is an invisible spirit.

An imaginary invisible spirit, who accordingly never appears, says or does.

That is just making an assumption that a real entity is a physical entity.

That to be real , the entity must exist in the world external to the self. Your answers all demonstrate that God does not,

So you look for God with clear preconceptions and I guess that is why you think God (an invisible spirit) should be able to be detected by science.

I note that (like me) neither you nor God's other fans have a definition of God appropriate to a real entity; and it's not a preconception, but a conclusion from the available evidence, that the only manner in which God is known to exist is a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain.

Again your presuppositions of what reality is.

You know I define reality as the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

How do you define reality? What test do you use to distinguish the real from the purely conceptual / imaginary?

Only something in the material realm is a possibility for God for you I imagine because that would be the only God that could be detectable by science. So you only see evidence that science can investigate and deny anything else. That sounds like confirmation bias to me.

It's not a question of science, It's a question of being objectively real versus being purely conceptual / imaginary.

 

[ppp]

Since I have not claimed to know anything about probability calculations of other calculations, I don't know what you are talking about.

I know you haven't done any calculations. And that's why the word was in quotes.. you're using the word probably

Since I have not claimed to know anything about probability calculations of other calculations, I don't know what you are talking about.

Sure you are. When you claim that something is probable, you are claiming to have done some sort of assessment for likelihood.

The possibility that the universe and life happened without a God creator and designer and life giver is one of probably 3 possibilities

You are incapable of that assessment.