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

[SkepticThinker]

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. Science does not know if God is needed or not and it does not claim one way or the other. In that respect it seems you don't know the limits of what science can claim and what it cannot claim. Science does not claim that God is not needed but you seem to be claiming that God was not needed.
All science can do (in the situation under discussion) is say that in the right circumstances and with all the chemicals in place, we can expect a certain outcome, and you want to take that further and say that God was not needed to set up circumstances or bring all the chemicals together or even create chemicals so they would react in certain ways for the outcome that science shows could happen.
I am not saying that the explanation requires God's intervention but what I am saying is that neither you nor science knows that God is not needed. Science acknowledges that.

This was in response to, "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."

I don't see how this is a response to that. You're just saying the same thing all over again.

I mean, unless you're now claiming some kind of deistic god that set everything in place at the beginning of the universe and then just sat there and let it all unfold without further intervention. But the God of the Bible certainly isn't that god so ...

I claim that I believe God exists and that I look at things through those eyes and see subjective evidence that confirms that for me.

You see what you want to see. You've made that quite clear.

This is not anything to do with science (which it seems you want an explanation in terms of) and is not even a scientific hypothesis about God's existence.

You're right. It's about the most unscientific thing you could come up with.

I'm not even saying God is needed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but as above I'm saying that neither science nor you know that God is not needed and science admits that and it seems that you, like other skeptics, want to take what science can claim just a step further than what it can claim.

Science is a tool we use to investigate how things work. It' doesn't "say" anything.

You should be saying, as science does, that it does not know if God is needed and that you do not know. I should not have to try to explain why to you.
If you want to go with science then you agree with me also.

Science as a tool, doesn't "say" God is not needed for this or that.

Science, not we, it is science that does not assume universe-vomiting tortoises or God. You are implying that I am against science and that you are for science.
Science does not know if any universe-vomiting tortoises are involved however and neither do we.

Right. So we don't insert universe-vomiting tortoises into our explanations of the workings of the universe. Why? Because our explanations work just fine without the assumption Our scientific explanations make sense, without having to assume the existence of universe-creating gods that nobody has shown to exist in the first place. Just like universe-vomiting tortoises. I mean, they could exist, just like anything else our minds can think up could exist, but nobody has shown that they actually do exist.

You don't seem to realize that your assumption that god exists comes with all kinds of baggage and other assumptions attached to it. And they are a whole bunch of assumptions that you have not demonstrated. You're not just claiming that "some" god exists - you're claiming that a very specific god exists. A god that comes with a lot of other assumptions that are not in evidence. Like the existence of spirits, which you also claim without any evidence. You even claim that spirits are undetectable while at the same time claiming that you've somehow detected them. Which makes no sense.

I don't need to scientifically show God to exist to be in agreement with science. You seem to be implying that I need to do that and need to show that this God is needed in all things that happen in the universe or it is irrelevant. And yes it is irrelevant in science.

You need to show that god exists if you are claiming that god created the universe.

Explanations of how chemicals react etc etc don't need a God and God would be superfluous to the discussion. I suppose we are in agreement.
IMO God created things to do certain things, for a purpose, and they work as designed, but neither of us, nor science, know if God set up an environment where things could happen as planned by Him. I believe that is what happened and it seems you do not, and in that we both go beyond what science says about God or universe-vomiting tortoises.

Just in this paragraph alone, you assume a god exists, and that this god is a "he." How do you know that?
And now you seem to be arguing in favour of some sort of deistic god that set everything into motion at the start of the universe and then just sat back and let it unfold. In other words, you're all over the place trying to justify your faith in this god.

You also show that anything can be believed on faith. On faith you believe that God is not needed, but that is in your imagination and not in anything that science has shown.

Nope, again, I have no faith. Faith is unjustified belief. I reject faith.

My belief is based on the evidence that our explanations of the universe work just fine without having to assume the existence of god(s). It's the same amount of "faith" required to not belief that fairies created the universe. Or universe-vomiting tortoises.

Do you think it takes faith to say "I lack belief in the claim that universe-vomiting tortoises brought the universe into existence. Do you have some evidence that universe-vomiting tortoises exist?"

If you cannot see that then it is confirmation bias I guess.

Nope.

If you claim that no God was involved in the origins of the universe then you are claiming "" that the universe developed all by itself and life came about all by itself,""
You do see this I hope.

No. I say, "I don't know how the universe came to be."

Do I need to bring up the gumball example again?

Really? You really think that spaghetti monsters etc have any evidence at all but claim that the Bible God has no evidence?

This was in response to, "You've tried this one already and I already pointed out that I've used those as examples to help illustrate my point. I actually took the universe-vomiting tortoise from a Stephen King novel. Why don't you consider universe-vomiting tortoises? Why don't you consider the great juju at the bottom of the sea? They are just as likely as any other creationism claim out there. Instead of assuming I'm trying to mock and offend you, why not consider that other people have, and do, believe all kinds of claims about how the universe got here? You're so sure yours is the right one ... why? You can't seem to present any evidence for it."

Can you explain how this is a response to that?

If you think science shows God is not needed then you are confused.

You are the confused one here, and I'd really, really love to know how we can sort this out in a way that you understand the rules of logic and reason.

Saying that you don't know about that is not a statement of faith but saying that don't require the input of any god is a statement of faith.

Please explain how.

But you added "seem" to it and really that is like saying that you don't know, and if you say that, it is not a statement of faith.
Expecting science to be able to tell us of the doings of a spirit God is a belief of faith.

Expecting science to do what it has always done, which has helped us understand the world around us in an independently demonstrable and verifiable way is not a faith belief, because science has shown itself to be a reliable methodology.

Again here, you claim that existence of undetectable "spirits" while not being able to provide any demonstration of their existence. While claiming to be able to detect spirits. You are making a very bizarre claim here and you don't seem to realize it.

The Bible God has shown Himself to exist imo, but that is a matter of faith and something I cannot prove even if I believe I see fulfilled prophecies there.



What I said in this post is logical to me even if you pretend that it is not. That to me is gas lighting if done on purpose but I presume you just did not understand what I was saying and now that you do we agree.

There is no "logical to me" or "logical to you." There's just logic. And you've demonstrated repeatedly that you are not being logical when it comes to these claims. In fact, most of your arguments rest upon logical fallacies. And you've even seemed to realize that, but yet still believe them anyway.

God reveals Himself to people of faith. It's not me detecting God it is God revealing Himself.

Huh?

If you say god has "revealed himself" to you, then you are saying you've detected this god in some way. How did you do that?

Yes there are lies and truth out there and one lie is that science shows that God is not needed.

But you don't know if God is needed or not. I presume that is what you are saying.

I will believe that god(s) are needed, when someone is able to demonstrate that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible is the claim and the evidence.

It's just claims. What part(s) do you think contain the evidence? Or is the book true because the book says it's true?

I believe they may have experienced something.

Was it Apollo they experienced?

I take it you don't see evidence in fulfilled prophecies.

Not in the ones claimed to be prophecy in the Bible. I don't think something "coming true" like, a thousand years after someone allegedly foretold it is a particularly good prophecy either. Plus, you have to ignore all the failed prophecies, which itself is a problem.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I intend to denote the Bible God.



Science deals with the material universe, but if there are things beyond that and different in nature to that then how would science find out?

How did you find out?

 

[shunyadragon]

How about enough to answer the basic question: what would be the difference if you actually saw a deity intervene vs not?

The problem here is the interpretation of what people witness and what is Divine intervention I seriously doubt that anyone has witnessed Divine intervention that could not be described as a natural cause and effect event.

 

[shunyadragon]

Having what I call subjective evidence for God is not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias does not see other evidence which does not find a God in nature but physical mechanisms instead. I see that but also see my subjective evidence. It is not science that is the problem, it is skeptics who refuse to see any evidence for God, that sounds like confirmation bias to me.

I believe scientists are justified to reach the conclusion 'to refuse to see any evidence for God, which would not be confirmation bias. I am a Theist and scientist and 'do not see any evidence for God whatsoever..

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.



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.

You are though, because that's what those words mean. Perhaps you should choose your wording more carefully, in the future so as to avoid confusion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

What are these "other ways to find truth" ... ? You haven't provided anything rational on that front. Nor have you even provided definitions for the things you're talking about (gods and spirits).

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.

What on earth is an "invisible spirit" and how do we know they exist?

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.

Oh okay. Well, my schizophrenic friend says he speaks with the spirit of Napoleon Bonaparte on a regular basis. How can we verify this, using your methodology? Do we just have to take his word for it?

 

[lukethethird]

I believe scientists are justified to reach the conclusion 'to refuse to see any evidence for God, which would not be confirmation bias. I am a Theist and scientist and 'do not see any evidence for God whatsoever..

Since there is no science behind the claim that God or gods exist, we are therefore dealing with a persistent fantasy claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

Since there is no science behind the claim that God or gods exist, we are therefore dealing with a persistent fantasy claim.

This of course is the assumption atheists, but not all scientists are atheists and do not base their confirmation bias ether way. I am a Theist and a scientist.

 

[ppp]

This of course is the assumption atheists, but not all scientists are atheists and do not base their confirmation bias ether way. I am a Theist and a scientist.

Unless you are proposing a god that is natural, or using something that is not methodological naturalism (and merely calling it science,) @lukethethird is correct. There is no science [methodological naturalism] behind the claim that God or gods [non-natural beings] exist.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

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.

In my experience, diehard skeptics won't believe in the supernatural or believe anyone else who talks about their experiences with the supernatural until they have had a personal experience with something supernatural that they can't rationally explain and logically debunk (as I explained in another thread here). In other words, you can talk to them or argue with them until you're blue in the face about the supernatural, but they won't believe you because they haven't personally witnessed anything themselves. Having had years of personal experience myself, I've come to believe in the adage "seeing is believing" when it concerns diehard skeptics believing in supernatural phenomena. However, I also believe that some supernatural phenomena occur in the physical world that neither modern science nor sacred religious texts (such as the Bible) or any religious dogma can rationally explain or logically refute.

 

[shunyadragon]

Unless you are proposing a god that is natural, or using something that is not methodological naturalism (and merely calling it science,) @lukethethird is correct. There is no science [methodological naturalism] behind the claim that God or gods [non-natural beings] exist.

Never said there was any support for the existence of God through Methodological Naturalism. Please reread my posts and respond to what I said.

Fundamentally it remains a fact that Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify any hypothesis concerning the existence of or nonexistence of God.

 

[ppp]

In my experience, diehard skeptics won't believe in the supernatural or believe anyone else who talks about their experiences with the supernatural until they have had a personal experience with something supernatural that they can't rationally explain and logically debunk (as I explained in another thread here)

If you're actually talking to "diehard" skeptics then you misunderstood completely. Not having a rational explanation means that one does not have an explanation. Just something that someone uncomfortable with "I don't know" made up.

 

[ppp]

Never said there was any support for the existence of God through Methodological Naturalism. Please reread my posts and respond to what I said.

Apologies. I went back further and saw that I had assumed context. You're quite right.

Fundamentally it remains a fact that Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify any hypothesis concerning the existence of or nonexistence of God.

True, but that is irrelevant. No one starts by accepting all hypotheses until they are proven false. The god hypothesis gets no special treatment. Or at least, it shouldn't.

 

[lukethethird]

In my experience, diehard skeptics won't believe in the supernatural or believe anyone else who talks about their experiences with the supernatural until they have had a personal experience with something supernatural that they can't rationally explain and logically debunk (as I explained in another thread here). In other words, you can talk to them or argue with them until you're blue in the face about the supernatural, but they won't believe you because they haven't personally witnessed anything themselves. Having had years of personal experience myself, I've come to believe in the adage "seeing is believing" when it concerns diehard skeptics believing in supernatural phenomena. However, I also believe that some supernatural phenomena occur in the physical world that neither modern science nor sacred religious texts (such as the Bible) or any religious dogma can rationally explain or logically refute.

I am a so called die hard skeptic and I most certainly have had some anomalous experiences that some would describe as supernatural. There is no valid reason to assume the supernatural merely because I don't know what the causes were. I have no problem saying I don't know even though I would like to know.

 

[shunyadragon]

Apologies. I went back further and saw that I had assumed context. You're quite right.



True, but that is irrelevant. No one starts by accepting all hypotheses until they are proven false. The god hypothesis gets no special treatment. Or at least, it shouldn't.

No special treatment. As far as the existence or nonexistence of God the subject is off the science radar.

I will add, Yes I believe in a Universal God that the attributes of God are reflected in the Natural existence we see through science. The severe problem is the ancient Gods of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These Gods cannot be falsified to not exist but set in the ancient tribal scripture they and their nature and scriptures are totally irrational and off the scale of what we know of the world and the nature of our physical existence. Christian and Islamic scriptures in one way or another endorse Genesis and Exodus as history.

 

[ppp]

No special treatment. As far as the existence or nonexistence of God the subject is off the science radar.

Do you agree that we should reject the proposition of the existence of X until it has been demonstrated to be true or likely true?

I will add, Yes I believe in a universal God that the attributes of God are reflected in Natural existence we see through science.

I do not know what that means. The term "universal God" is used in a lot of different traditions with conflicting meanings.

The severe problem is the ancient Gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These Gods cannot be falsified to not exist, but set in the ancient tribal scripture they and their nature and scriptures are totally irrational and off the scale of what we know of the world and the nature of our physical existence. Christian and Islamic scriptures in one way or another endorse Genesis and Exodus as history.

I would include Baha'i on that list. But yes. I agree.

 

[Trailblazer]

I would include Baha'i on that list.

I would not include the Baha'i Faith on the list because the Baha'i scripture is not totally irrational and off the scale of what we know of the world and the nature of our physical existence and it does not endorse Genesis and Exodus as history.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you agree that we should reject the proposition of the existence of X until it has been demonstrated to be true or likely true?

No, not clear, 'true or likely true'' is too vague and subjective.

I do not know what that means. The term "universal God" is used in a lot of different traditions with conflicting meanings.

I would include Baha'i on that list. But yes. I agree.

Of course, every Theistic religion or division thereof claims to worship the Universal God, but their belief is in the context of their ancient scriptures and beliefs, and that is in contradiction with the concept of a Universal God. The concept of a Universal God is beyond the beliefs of any one religious belief including my own, and cannot be limited to anyone's religious belief.

I would include Baha'i only on the list of Abrahamic religions because it believes in an unknowable God not definable by any religious belief including Baha'i. The Baha'i Faith does not define God and religion in terms of any absolute sense as the ancient religions doexcluding other religions as not Revelations from God.

The concept of a Universal God is beyond the Baha'i Revelation or any human belief or scripture.

Universalism Philosophy is what I advocate as a foundation for my fallibly human beliefs., and this philosophy does not assume God exists.

I believe, but everything is in pencil and I keep a big eraser handy.

 

[ppp]

No, not clear, 'true or likely true'' is too vague and subjective.

Is it? Aren't all accepted scientific findings only likely true? I cannot think of anyone that would rate as "absolutely" true.
What am I missing? I suspect you are straining at a gnat.

Of course, every Theistic religion or division thereof claims to worship the Universal God, but their belief is in the context of their ancient scriptures and beliefs, and that is in contradiction with the concept of a Universal God. The concept of a Universal God is beyond the beliefs of any one religious belief including my own, and cannot be limited to anyone's religious belief.

Neither this, nor anything that comes after, tells me what you think a universal god is. Enumerating the gods of religions that you do not think have auniversal god will never elucidate your position.

I would include Baha'i only on the list of Abrahamic religions because it believes in an unknowable God not definable by any religious belief including Baha'i. The Baha'i Faith does not define God and religion in terms of any absolute sense as the ancient religions doexcluding other religions as not Revelations from God.

I would disagree. The Baha'i still declare absolutes. They just toss an absolute intermediary in the mix. Also, they do exclude other religions via appropriaton and shameless revision of those other religions. Much like Christianity does with Judaism. .