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

[ratiocinator]

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).

That's an extremely blinkered view. What about multiple gods? What about other 'supernatural', non-god 'explanations'? Armies of supernatural pixies collaborating in a collective to build the universe? Your fantastical imagination seems very, very limited.

They are also basically in different categories. Inventing a god (or gods, for that matter) doesn't actually answer any of the basic questions about why things exist and are the way they are. You've just shifted the question on to said god or gods. Why do they exist? Why not a different god (or gods) or none at all? Why choose one fantastical, evidence-free 'explanation', rather than another?

Given that existence itself - whether of god(s) or the universe - is unexplained, if you knew anything about probability you would know that the probability that the universe just happens to exist for no known reason, must be greater than that the universe and a creator god just happens to exist for no known reason. The conjunction (and) ensures that.

All that is before we get to the dodgy wording "this did itself"....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Yeah, you gave no evidence as per external sensory experince of a real thing.
You are a true believer, but in real things.

So let us play your game of evidence.
I can't observe that you have a self.
I can't observe that you are worth anything or matter to me.
In fact you are no different than a stone as you are both real things and notthing else with evidence.
You are nothing but a real, materail/physical thing.
BTW there is no we as I can't observe that either.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, you gave no evidence as per external sensory experince of a real thing.
You are a true believer, but in real things.

So let us play your game of evidence.
I can't observe that you have a self.
I can't observe that you are worth anything or matter to me.
In fact you are no different than a stone as you are both real things and notthing else with evidence.
You are nothing but a real, materail/physical thing.
BTW there is no we as I can't observe that either.

Yawn ....

 

[Brian2]

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

So you are talking about the material universe and not an invisible spirit.

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

He does not appear to our sight but speaks to us and does thing imo, so "imaginary" is a claim that you need to show to be true but cannot do if people claim God speaks to them and does things in their life.
This seems to be where the subjective testimony of many people conflicts with the subjective presumption of skeptics and neither can prove what they say except through their faith.

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

The only reason you can call an invisible spirit, non existent, is through your definition of what a real entity is, which is based on your faith that your materialistic world view is correct.

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.

That is the opinion of a materialistic faith which has faith that if God exists we should be able to see or detect God through materialistic means.
You also ignore any other reported evidence for the supernatural and for God from many people.

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?

I am open to more than the physical universe being real and I do not define reality in a way that from the start sees my internal consciousness as purely conceptual/imaginary.
Sounds like you are defining yourself out of existence, as no more than a pile of intricately connected chemicals that work together to produce a non existent you which you cannot know through your senses.
I see the mind as being just as real as the body.

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

Your concept of real is in your imagination.

 

[Brian2]

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

I said this below:
"The possibility that the universe and life happened without a God creator and designer and life giver is one of probably 3 possibilities"
and I used the word probably when I could have used "afaik".
The spectrum of possibilities from "God did it" at one end through "it is all God" to "it happened all by itself" at the other end.

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

What I said, as you can see, has nothing to do with that.

You are incapable of that assessment.

If you have any other possibilities to tell me about then do it.
If you think that there is only one possibility, that it all happened by itself, (no creator) then you are incapable of that assessment.
Can't you see that I am just presenting the alternatives and saying that none of them have been established.
And going on from that I also say that when skeptics say that it has been shown by science that God is not necessary, that has not been established by science.

 

[Brian2]

That's an extremely blinkered view. What about multiple gods? What about other 'supernatural', non-god 'explanations'? Armies of supernatural pixies collaborating in a collective to build the universe? Your fantastical imagination seems very, very limited.

Your fantastical imagination could be fitted into the categories I have suggested or into the spectrum with 'no creator' at one end to 'a creator' at the other end.

They are also basically in different categories. Inventing a god (or gods, for that matter) doesn't actually answer any of the basic questions about why things exist and are the way they are. You've just shifted the question on to said god or gods. Why do they exist? Why not a different god (or gods) or none at all? Why choose one fantastical, evidence-free 'explanation', rather than another?

But you have to understand that I am being very general in what I said and said what I said for the reason of the discussion. I think you also need to understand that I did not set out to answer all the possible questions about origins with my one sentence.

Given that existence itself - whether of god(s) or the universe - is unexplained, if you knew anything about probability you would know that the probability that the universe just happens to exist for no known reason, must be greater than that the universe and a creator god just happens to exist for no known reason. The conjunction (and) ensures that.

All that is before we get to the dodgy wording "this did itself"....

WT#? I am not speaking about probabilities just because I use the words "possibility" and "probably". Try to understand what I was saying and preferably in the context of the discussion I am having.

 

[ppp]

and I used the word probably when I could have used "afaik".
The spectrum of possibilities from "God did it" at one end through "it is all God" to "it happened all by itself" at the other end.

Or any other reason that you haven't thought of. As far as you know, none of your three "possibilities" are even possible. As far as you know, they may all three be impossible..

What I said, as you can see, has nothing to do with that.

AFAIK != probably

If you have any other possibilities to tell me about then do it.

Your use of "other" is an attempt to implicitly assume that the conjectores you have proposed are posibilities.
Your assumptions are rejected.

Go back and start by demonstrating that any of your claims are possibilities in reality.

 

[Brian2]

Your use of "other" is an attempt to implicitly assume that the conjectores you have proposed are posibilities.
Your assumptions are rejected.

Go back and start by demonstrating that any of your claims are possibilities in reality.

So you think that my speculations are not possible.
I could become more general in my speculations and say that the universe was created or was not created.
These are the only 2 possibilities.
One has to be true.
Creator or happened all by itself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yawn ....

Yeah, that is not a part of the external world in regards to you, but you as you actively making a choice to react with yawn...
Thus you show that your model is incomplete, because you are not just a passive observer of only the external world.
Rather you are an active part of the world and act in part based on how you think/feel.

 

[blü 2]

So you are talking about the material universe and not an invisible spirit.

The only way in which "invisible spirits" are known to exist (all jokes about alcohol aside) is as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

He does not appear to our sight but speaks to us and does thing imo, so "imaginary" is a claim that you need to show to be true but cannot do if people claim God speaks to them and does things in their life.

If God is real, has objective existence, then you can show [him] to me. But you can't. As I've said before, you don't even have a definition, a description of God appropriate to a real being, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not.

This seems to be where the subjective testimony of many people conflicts with the subjective presumption of skeptics and neither can prove what they say except through their faith.

If I say something is real I can back my claim with evidence. You assert God is real but can't back your claim with any examinable evidence at all, not even a photo.

The only reason you can call an invisible spirit, non existent, is through your definition of what a real entity is, which is based on your faith that your materialistic world view is correct.

You still haven't stated your definition of "real", and this is at least the third time I've asked you. What is it?

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, that is not a part of the external world in regards to you, but you as you actively making a choice to react with yawn...
Thus you show that your model is incomplete, because you are not just a passive observer of only the external world.
Rather you are an active part of the world and act in part based on how you think/feel.

Zzzzzz.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Zzzzzz.

Yeah, you just confirmed once more that there is more than just a passive self and only experinces as per external sensory experinces.

 

[ratiocinator]

Your fantastical imagination could be fitted into the categories I have suggested or into the spectrum with 'no creator' at one end to 'a creator' at the other end.

But you have to understand that I am being very general in what I said and said what I said for the reason of the discussion. I think you also need to understand that I did not set out to answer all the possible questions about origins with my one sentence.

It becomes a pretty vacuous statement then. What was the point?

I am not speaking about probabilities just because I use the words "possibility" and "probably".

So you're saying things you don't mean. Okay......

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, you just confirmed once more that there is more than just a passive self and only experinces as per external sensory experinces.

Having explained my view, answered your questions, corrected your repeated misunderstandings of what I said, and grown weary of your long-finished-with questions, I now leave it to you to figure out the answers for yourself.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Brian2]

The only way in which "invisible spirits" are known to exist (all jokes about alcohol aside) is as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

Once you start saying that the long history of human experience of the supernatural and the current reports of supernatural happenings is not true because science cannot see or detect the supernatural, that means you have just thrown out probably the main evidence for the supernatural.
From that point on you can say that invisible spirits only exist in the imaginations of people.
You do that and I do not.
Throwing out the evidence is not a good way to find the truth of a matter.
Having a preconception that the truth can be arrived at only through falsifiable evidence as in science also eliminates other ways to find truth.
All this minimalising of evidence that is acceptable to you is a sign of confirmation bias imo.

If God is real, has objective existence, then you can show [him] to me. But you can't. As I've said before, you don't even have a definition, a description of God appropriate to a real being, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not.

God is not a thing that I can show Him to you.
God is an invisible spirit and so I cannot show Him to you so that you can see Him with your physical eyes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the only evidence that you accept.
Your whole argument is based on what you see as real and what you see as not real.
That has been debunked imo but you are ignoring that part of my post.

If I say something is real I can back my claim with evidence. You assert God is real but can't back your claim with any examinable evidence at all, not even a photo.

You still haven't stated your definition of "real", and this is at least the third time I've asked you. What is it?

Real is what I and others have experienced and which you prefer to say we are deluded about,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and that seems to be because of your faith in your materialistic worldview.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Having explained my view, answered your questions, corrected your repeated misunderstandings of what I said, and grown weary of your long-finished-with questions, I now leave it to you to figure out the answers for yourself.

Live long and prosper.

Well, then answer is that the self in practice is not just passive and only observes.
If you go deep on empericism for the actual scholarly articles on that, you will find there are 2 versions and not just one as per you. That is all.

 

[blü 2]

Once you start saying that the long history of human experience of the supernatural and the current reports of supernatural happenings is not true because science cannot see or detect the supernatural, that means you have just thrown out probably the main evidence for the supernatural.

You overlook the modern psychological explorations of religion, as for instance an aspect of the human instinctive creation of a tentative narrative to accommodate a surprising or threatening event. When you don't know about electricity but you know about thunder and lightning, you may well end up with a superbeing who creates thunder and lightning, because that answers the question, 'Why is it so?' and in its place and time makes more sense than the alternatives, given that many people find 'I don't know' is an unsatisfying explanation even to this day.

From that point on you can say that invisible spirits only exist in the imaginations of people.
You do that and I do not.
Throwing out the evidence is not a good way to find the truth of a matter.

There is no evidence that such things are real, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You say, God is real, I say, Then show me ─ but you can't, nor can anyone else.

Having a preconception that the truth can be arrived at only through falsifiable evidence as in science also eliminates other ways to find truth.

But your argument is that this particular assertion is a truth about reality that can be arrived at through no examinable evidence whatsoever.

So again I reply, Show me.

All this minimalising of evidence that is acceptable to you is a sign of confirmation bias imo.

There is no such evidence, only personal accounts which are for psychology to explain. At no point is anything real demonstrated, despite your claim that God is real.

God is an invisible spirit and so I cannot show Him to you so that you can see Him with your physical eyes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the only evidence that you accept.

But God never appears, never says, never does. Only people do that, meanwhile no sign of a real God anywhere in objective reality.

Real is what I and others have experienced

If that's your test for what is real then you're claiming (for example) that your dreams are real. That the visions some people get from taking particular drugs are real. That hallucinations and illusions are real, that the magician really has sawn the girl in half, that there really is a bogey man ─ sorry, bogey person ─ in the cellar.

I respectfully suggest that's nonsense and that your definition of what is real is entirely inadequate. I think it's important in this conversation that you can state clearly your test to determine whether X has objective reality, failing which it exists only as a concept / thing imagined.

 

[ppp]

So you think that my speculations are not possible.

I think your speculations range between sloppy thinking and incoherent.

As for instance:

I could become more general in my speculations and say that the universe was created or was not created.
These are the only 2 possibilities.
One has to be true.
Creator or happened all by itself.

Very sloppy thinking, or intentionally deceptive.
Don't really care which. Either way, your assumptions are rejected.

 

[ppp]

I don't thi

Pot, meet kettle.

Hi, Kettle!