• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

firedragon

Veteran Member
So because metaphysical concepts may not be observable or measurable, it is harder to call them 'real'
It's based on your opinion.

Using a new term like "real" does not get away from the false understanding of metaphysics being "imaginary". It's a huge lack of understanding and the intention of doing a bit of research.

Do you think they are still real, even though you can't measure or observe them?
You are doing the same category error.

See, you don't have to believe what I believe. But one could respect logic and not commit fallacies which is human responsibility. In philosophy one would call it epistemic responsibility.

I hope one day down the track we will be able to observe and measure them but now its just speculation.............just like god
That's an unscientific, illogical statement. Never in the future will anyone be able to "measure them". You just reworded the same fallacy of category error.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We can talk about religion all you like. Nothing will make me doubt. Nothing you say, nothing you do, nothing anyone says or does will make me doubt that God is real and that He loves me.
That's the definition of closed-mindedness, and it's characteristic of faith-based thought.

Here are several examples of religious people telling you that their minds are shut off to evidence (closed):

[1] The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

[2] "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

[3] “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

[4] “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist Henry Morris

None of these people can correct errors that they have made even when there is evidence to confirm that, because the evidence can't enter their minds, which are closed for business in these areas.

Here's what open-mindedness looks like in addition to Nye's comment above:

“The difference between my beliefs and having a religious faith is that I am prepared to change my views in light of new evidence, but someone of a religious faith will just stick their fingers in the ears and say: 'I'm not listening, there's nothing you can say that will make me change my mind.” - anon

Isn't that your position? It's Ham's, Craig's, laRuffa's, and Morris' They were quite clear that nothing can change their minds - proud of it even, like it was a virtue. 'Our minds are sealed':

It doesn't matter what they say
No one's listening anyway
Our [minds] are sealed​

You are assuming that I will always believe a certain way. That's the part that's wrong.
He's assuming that you know your own mind, and that when you say it is closed (you didn't used that word, but you described it perfectly), that you mean it.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I do know my own mind, and I also know that if God was proven not to exist, I would probably believe God does not exist. However, no one has ever been able to disprove the existence of God to me.

They can show me evidence that God may not be necessary or whatever, but they've never been able to disprove the existence of God to me, so there's that.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I do know my own mind, and I also know that if God was proven not to exist, I would probably believe God does not exist. However, no one has ever been able to disprove the existence of God to me.

They can show me evidence that God may not be necessary or whatever, but they've never been able to disprove the existence of God to me, so there's that.


I dont see any intellectual dishonesty in that
position.
All the above examples tho are of gross intellectual dishinesty.
 

Madsaac

Active Member
It's based on your opinion.

Using a new term like "real" does not get away from the false understanding of metaphysics being "imaginary". It's a huge lack of understanding and the intention of doing a bit of research.
Opinion? Don't we all agree that having evidence to back up a claim makes something more 'real' or true.
You are doing the same category error.

See, you don't have to believe what I believe. But one could respect logic and not commit fallacies which is human responsibility. In philosophy one would call it epistemic responsibility.
Isn't epistemic responsibility stronger if it's supported with evidence? Otherwise your judgement is purely subjective? For example, is it going to rain tomorrow?
That's an unscientific, illogical statement. Never in the future will anyone be able to "measure them". You just reworded the same fallacy of category error.
How do you know we won't be able to measure them? When you consider how far science has some, I think there is fair chance we will be able to measure more of the metaphysical world.
 

Madsaac

Active Member
For myself, I experience reality comprised equally of mind, body and spirit. Physicalism alone cannot account for the world; it can't, for a start, account for the mind. And the mind alone, is prone to self deception, egotism, solipsism and despair. Ultimately, nothing makes sense and no balance can be achieved without spirit, but the spirit cannot be apprehended with a microscope.

Well we don't really know how far physicalism can or will account for the world, I've been listening to a few podcast with Daniel Dennett and he seems thinks it goes a long way.

It possible, as time moves on science will be able to account for more. Doesn't mean we still won't have wonder, imagination, choices and so on but we may know why we have these experiences.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Well we don't really know how far physicalism can or will account for the world, I've been listening to a few podcast with Daniel Dennett and he seems thinks it goes a long way.

It possible, as time moves on science will be able to account for more. Doesn't mean we still won't have wonder, imagination, choices and so on but we may know why we have these experiences.


Yeah, Dennett believes physicalism can account for all of existence; that if it can’t be measured, it can’t be called real. But whilst you can weigh the brain, which is an organ of the body, how do you measure the mind? What is consciousness composed of, what are the fundamental elements of awareness?

As things currently stand, and notwithstanding the progress made by neuroscience in mapping correlations between areas of the brain and aspects of thought, physicalism cannot account for conscious experience. Nor can the latter be entirely reduced to electro-chemical activity in the brain, without it’s qualitative elements being lost. Why is it that there is something it is like, to experience the colour blue?
 

Madsaac

Active Member
No, we don't. And if that is your standard then if we all agreed on God, God would be real and true. You are doing the fallacy of populism.

??? Don't you believe something is more real or true, if there is evidence to support it? Yes or No?

And if you asked the population of the world, what % of yes' compared to no's would there be?

And it's important to know the reasons behind the result? And what could they be on this occasion?
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
??? Don't you believe something is more real or true, if there is evidence to support it? Yes or No?

And if you asked the population of the world, what % of yes' compared to no's would there be?

And it's important to know the reasons behind the result? And what could they be on this occasion?

No, I don't understand evidence, true and real like you do, as far as I can tell.

But please explain what evidence, real and true are, other that you using the words as such.
 

Madsaac

Active Member
Oh yes. But, that's where again you should reveal your epistemology.

What is evidence to you?
This can down the proverbial a rabbit hole, I'll try and answer

Intuition or experience are the ways ways that I know something or going to know something.

And there are two types of knowledge, one that require evidence and one that doesn't

So knowing can be subjective, that is what I think I know to be real or true, no evidence required. For example god or I blue is the best colour.

And there can be objective knowledge, which has been proven to be real or true and is supported by 'evidence'. (As best can can be because nothing can be 100% real or true) For example, laws of physics
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Maybe you didn't listen to that small still voice. :D

But no fair changing the subject from
"disprove" to " prove".
OK. Batboy also never went out of his way to disprove himself to me.

Why do you say I might not have listened to that small, still voice?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
OK. Batboy also never went out of his way to disprove himself to me.

Why do you say I might not have listened to that small, still voice?
No nonexistent being will go out of its way.

My first talk with a missionary in China was
with a Mormon.

Having read " Joseph Smith tells his own story"
and a few pages of BoM, I asked him how he could
believe such a ridiculous story.

In brief, he said he doubted, so he prayed.
A lot. For days!

The it came to him out of nowhere, with unmistaleable
power and clarity, the " small still voice", assuring him
it's all true.

Of course if he'd not been an easy sell and kept praying,
eventually he'd have gotten the opposite answer.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
This can down the proverbial a rabbit hole, I'll try and answer

Intuition or experience are the ways ways that I know something or going to know something.

And there are two types of knowledge, one that require evidence and one that doesn't

So knowing can be subjective, that is what I think I know to be real or true, no evidence required. For example god or I blue is the best colour.

And there can be objective knowledge, which has been proven to be real or true and is supported by 'evidence'. (As best can can be because nothing can be 100% real or true) For example, laws of physics
Cheers.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I believe in God because of;



error correcting codes in nature
What do you mean and how is that evidence for god(s)?
Higher dimensional topology of the brain, it exists in higher than atleast 4 dimensions (higher dimensional sand castles)
What do you mean and how is that evidence for god(s)?
NDEs, DMT and Mystical experience, which points to something external to us
How are these things evidence of "something external to us" and how did you determine that is a god(s)?
Ghosts, spirits et cetera which points to something unknown
How are these things evidence for god(s)?
The First Cause argument
Do you mean the Kalaam Cosmological Argument? That doesn't get you anywhere near god(s).
The universal constant argument
What do you mean and how is that evidence for god(s)?
The UVA studies on NDEs and Reincarnation
How are these evidence for god(s)?
The Black projects such as Robert Monroes Gateway Experience
How and why is that evidence for god(s)?
Personal experiences with pre cognition, out of body experiences, talking to the dead and seeing what I describe as a “heavenly” realm
How and why are these evidence for god(s)? Which god?
And there’s probably a whole load of other reasons for me personally, but I’m way too tired
Cool. Let's start with these.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
No matter how hard mankind tries (and there are volunteers) they are not going to solve the pollutioin problem, I venture to say pollution cuts lives shorter than if there were no pollution. Time bending or not. Looking forward to the time that the prophecy is fulfilled when the earth will be a better place -- much better where there is no pollution. That, of course, will require a whole new, big change.
We definitely can and have solved many pollution problems throughout the years.
The hole in the ozone layer caused by CFCs, for example.
The thick smog that used to hover over L.A.
The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland used to catch fire on occasion due to a buildup of industrial waste being dumped into it.

We can definitely solve pollution problems if we just put some effort into it.
 
Top