What evidence for God

[Hawkins]

Why do the religious come across as cheap car salesmen when trying to push their scripture on people?

Because when someone yelled "there's a bomb!", some people will think that he's a salesman. They failed to realise that it is their own lives and might be that actually no one cares.

It is a duty for Christian to preach, but whether people will convert is not part of such a duty. It can be a good wish though. It is your life, convert or not (I almost said that "who cares" if not out of love).

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Its the Geico lizard!

That's the definition of science?

Stupid xtian highschool all they taught me in science class was biology, physics, chemistry and such

 

[asketikos]

interesting thread

i see a problem with such a question: you are asking for proof, evidence, of God's existance yet God is immaterial.

Science is studying the material matter, not immaterial. So how can you have proof?

I have a question for you in return: can you prove the existence of love?

 

[Commoner]

interesting thread

i see a problem with such a question: you are asking for proof, evidence, of God's existance yet God is immaterial.

Science is studying the material matter, not immaterial. So how can you have proof?

I have a question for you in return: can you prove the existence of love?

Love, the emotion? Are you seriously asking whether or not we can "prove" emotions exist?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

interesting thread

i see a problem with such a question: you are asking for proof, evidence, of God's existance yet God is immaterial.

Science is studying the material matter, not immaterial. So how can you have proof?

I have a question for you in return: can you prove the existence of love?

Wait, are you suggesting that God is like love? Are you saying that god is subjective becuase if you are we can end this thread right now And I'll definitely agree with you.

 

[Orias]

I do.

sci·ence
n. 1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.




Let's make one thing clear, Christianity is something that I don't get a long with very well.

Oh yes you have

Special pleading - "Though, unicorns and fairies were meant to exist as separate fantastical entites, God can exist without being considered "supernatural" and an "entity", yet a certain faith is still required to consume this thought, and many (not all) people are not able to fathom something greater than themselves"

God is a supernatural entity and it cannot be exempt from being treated as any other supernatural entity because its inconvenient. To expect otherwise is special pleading and as you've rightly pointed out this isn't a good thing to do.

Let me correct you narrowed assumption, God does not have to be supernatural and does not have to exist as an entity. Maybe you should rightly define special pleading, and then dictate whether you are doing it yourself.

[COLOR=darkred]Insults - "But again, skeptics don't see religion as generally ridiculous, narrow minded people do" and "many (not all) people are not able to fathom something greater than themselves"[/COLOR]

You've unfairly labelled myself and those who hold a similar position to mine as narrow minded and small minded because our skepticism of religious claims and beilefs.

Then maybe you should consider the label you have taken unto yourself "unfair". I am speaking from experience from having hundreds of debates on these forums with atheists. It's rather stupid when one declares themselves irreligious, yet they take a religious label unto themselves.

You are unable to differentiate between skepticism and narrow-mindedness. To be skeptical is to question claims, to be narrow minded is to refuse to consider anything but that which you already believe.

And you have refused to answer any of my questions and claims, by countering with the subjective statement that I am making "special pleading", yet you generalize theists a like and then go out of your way to provoke nonsense claims and insue that I was insulting you by countering your examples with better ones.

Clearly I'm willing to question religious claims rather than flat out ignore them. I take offence at the accusation that I'm incapable of understanding anything greater than myself, moreso because you're applied that accusation in response to my unwillngness to embrace nonsense claims which I understand but find greately implausable.

Of course, you are clearly willing to question religious claims as well as mock them. To understand a side you must not have a bias, which clearly excludes you.

Nonesense - "So then what leads you to think that theories are any more factual based than the existence of something beyond us?"

Why do you think that scientific theories are more factual than supernatural claims? If you have a basic understanding of science then you would be able to answer the question yourself. The reason is that science tests itself again real results collected under controlled conditions to verify its claims. Supernatural claims just assume the are right.

You claim that science holds factual knowledge with subjective reasoning, ha. Of course, I love science, but when it comes to metaphysics it's just as "factual" as religion. I believe in evolution, I know the components of stars, I know the M-theory and String theory. The point is, they are theories, educated guesses, in which none that I have heard can actually provide proof against my "God".

What separates you from me, is I know the Opposition and I know myself, I know that all sciences alike are human fabricated, which means that it would only be logical to explain things in a hypocritic and humanly fashion.

If you haven't noticed, I am not defending the supernatural at all, I agree that it is a bunch of bs.

The purpose of religion is to "build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world"? I think not.

The purpose of religion is part of the natural drive of self preservation. Consisting of this drive is comfort, whether it be in material or belief, it is a necessity. It's a common view that because we cannot reproduce it means that it must not be a "truth".

Religion is very organized with their sources of knowledge and have tested it to best consider their benefits. Now because you chose to see it a different way, doesn't mean that is a logic of ill-refute.

Their must be some merit to religion, as it's existence extends beyond your birth and will continue to extend beyond your death.

Think of it this way, everything that we have now, is because of what was.

Simple evidence for "God" is that thousands exist in the image of man's desire, and what man desires is only a natural image, which means nature provokes our minds with a sense of what it is to be "divine".

 

[asketikos]

Love, the emotion? Are you seriously asking whether or not we can "prove" emotions exist?

I'm making a point, not a direct connection. Yes we can prove some emotions exist, or rather we can prove that oxytocin is released, but we are extremely far away from proving or even defining love - the emotion that binds people to others.

The point that I am making is that for thousands of years people had no brains scans or other materials to prove that emotions were real, or even explain what they are - just like we still do not have scans to prove the feeling of God, the presence that is felt of him by others, but how does one explain someone's faith then?

 

[asketikos]

Wait, are you suggesting that God is like love? Are you saying that god is subjective becuase if you are we can end this thread right now And I'll definitely agree with you.

God is subjective for people. Love is subjective. Truth is subjective. History is subjective. Subjectivity is a choice, and we can see that with many examples throughout history -- perhaps you can't deny that a building exists, but you can deny its purpose, or why its there, etc. But yes . . . for those who embrace God, choose to believe in it, and choose to dedicate their lives to understanding the mysteries of it, are closer to it . . . for those who whom God is not a presence, then it is not a presence.

God is not the same for everyone, so yes. But being subjective, does not make something not exist. Because in your argument then love does not exist at all.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

God is subjective for people. Love is subjective. Truth is subjective. History is subjective. Subjectivity is a choice, and we can see that with many examples throughout history -- perhaps you can't deny that a building exists, but you can deny its purpose, or why its there, etc. But yes . . . for those who embrace God, choose to believe in it, and choose to dedicate their lives to understanding the mysteries of it, are closer to it . . . for those who whom God is not a presence, then it is not a presence.

God is not the same for everyone, so yes. But being subjective, does not make something not exist. Because in your argument then love does not exist at all.

No, I whole-heartedly agree with you, and my argument is not that something such as love or, as you say also, god doesn't exist. My argument is that God and love are subjective and not real in the sense that they are not physical objects, they are not objective. My OP asks for evidence that God is a physical entity and no one has provided evidence of such being true which lends to my belief that god is nothing more than a concept such as love or any other emotion/idea.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

God is subjective for people. Love is subjective. Truth is subjective. History is subjective. Subjectivity is a choice, and we can see that with many examples throughout history -- perhaps you can't deny that a building exists, but you can deny its purpose, or why its there, etc. But yes . . . for those who embrace God, choose to believe in it, and choose to dedicate their lives to understanding the mysteries of it, are closer to it . . . for those who whom God is not a presence, then it is not a presence.

God is not the same for everyone, so yes. But being subjective, does not make something not exist. Because in your argument then love does not exist at all.

Truth and history are not subjective, btw. The perception of truth is subjective, but truth itself is not. History is not subjective at all.

 

[asketikos]

Truth and history are not subjective, btw. The perception of truth is subjective, but truth itself is not. History is not subjective at all.

Well, I believe that any professional historian will disagree with you.

History is written with a bias, by all historians, that is why you have so many schools of history - authoritarian, totalitarian, social history, gender history, etc., because each history is written through a framework, our perceptions of history is seen through that particular framework -- history cannot be anything but subjective. Mathematics, science, on the other hand are not subjective -- they are prone to the scientific method -- the humanities are not.

Truth is subjective in the sense that there is no such as material "truth," truth is in the eye of the beholder, that is. My truth is not your truth.

 

[asketikos]

No, I whole-heartedly agree with you, and my argument is not that something such as love or, as you say also, god doesn't exist. My argument is that God and love are subjective and not real in the sense that they are not physical objects, they are not objective. My OP asks for evidence that God is a physical entity and no one has provided evidence of such being true which lends to my belief that god is nothing more than a concept such as love or any other emotion/idea.

It's cool that we agree, to some degree
But an emotion and ideas are not concepts as-is.
Ideas are real, they exist, people come up with ideas.
Emotions are real, people feel emotions, people live by emotions, some more then others, but emotions guide the way people live their lives.

It all becomes problematic when we begin to try to reduce these emotions and feelings into categories, into atoms, etc. Because how does one define emotions?

Physically people can feel love, and I think physically people can feel God or sense God.

The question is then . . . is God a concept? That is, is he a creation of man?
Perhaps the God we all know from television and thousands of interpretations is, but is God not just an articulation of creation of everything, or a source? In that sense, someone or something had to create all of this -- this universe -- and that is God, therefore it must be real?

 

[Commoner]

I'm making a point, not a direct connection. Yes we can prove some emotions exist, or rather we can prove that oxytocin is released, but we are extremely far away from proving or even defining love - the emotion that binds people to others.

The point that I am making is that for thousands of years people had no brains scans or other materials to prove that emotions were real, or even explain what they are - just like we still do not have scans to prove the feeling of God, the presence that is felt of him by others, but how does one explain someone's faith then?

What you're describing there isn't god, it's a religious experience (at best). Religious experiences exist, just as emotions do. When you posit, however, that a god causes the emotion/experience/etc., that's another thing entirely. Do you see what I mean?

What is the difference between that and me asserting that transcendental gremlins cause love? Love isn't evidence of transcendental gremlins and a religious experience is evidence of a religious experience, not of god.

Whether or not we can explain such phenomena in their entirety or define them properly is secondary, we can certainly demonstrate that they exist. But beyond that, you need actual evidence to assert something about them - and this is the evidence this thread is looking for, the evidence that - behind a religious experience - is god, as so many theists claim. And for that, still no evidence...

 

[Commoner]

Truth is subjective in the sense that there is no such as material "truth," truth is in the eye of the beholder, that is. My truth is not your truth.

"Truth" is the objective/relative reality we are trying to describe, with varying degrees of success/accuracy. It's certainly not subjective, we're simply often mistaken about what it is.

 

[asketikos]

What you're describing there isn't god, it's a religious experience (at best). Religious experiences exist, just as emotions do. When you posit, however, that a god causes the emotion/experience/etc., that's another thing entirely. Do you see what I mean?

What is the difference between that and me asserting that transcendental gremlins cause love? Love isn't evidence of transcendental gremlins and a religious experience is evidence of a religious experience, not of god.

Whether or not we can explain such phenomena in their entirety or define them properly is secondary, we can certainly demonstrate that they exist. But beyond that, you need actual evidence to assert something about them - and this is the evidence this thread is looking for, the evidence that - behind a religious experience - is god, as so many theists claim. And for that, still no evidence...

I understand what you are saying:
someone can have a religious experience that does not mean that God exists

that really isn't what i was trying to argue, obviously emotions are not God

that i am arguing is two-fold:
1) god is immatereal, therefore the question of "evidance" is rather void
2) god is faith, like love, or other beliefs, therefore those people who seek "physical evidance" in order to have "faith" are not going to find it because they must have the faith first

does this make "sense"? lol.

the question could also be asked like so -- why do so many believers not need physical evidence to believe in the existence of god?

what is it about the concept of god that makes it so different to believe in then - let's say the speghetti monster

i think this will help answer the question of evidance, the evidance is in people's faiths. In people's personal experiences, the thousands if not millions of experiences that peopel have had of God. all over the world, in all cultures, for thousands of years. There has to be something there.

Also -- by evidance what do you mean?

Some may argue the fact that humans are so mentally advanced and spiritually advanced from other animals as proof that God exists, that he created man. One could say that all physical creation is proof that God exists.

 

[asketikos]

"Truth" is the objective/relative reality we are trying to describe, with varying degrees of success/accuracy. It's certainly not subjective, we're simply often mistaken about what it is.

from wikipedia on Truth:

Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars and philosophers. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.
​

 

[Commoner]

I understand what you are saying:
someone can have a religious experience that does not mean that God exists

That too.

that i am arguing is two-fold:
1) god is immatereal, therefore the question of "evidance" is rather void

What's "immaterial"?

2) god is faith, like love, or other beliefs, therefore those people who seek "physical evidance" in order to have "faith" are not going to find it because they must have the faith first

Beliefs and emotions are faith? I don't know how to interpret that to be quite honest. And furthermore, I thought we had established that "faith" is not evidence of a god, therefore neither I nor those who have faith have evidence and the catch22 doesn't really change anything.

the question could also be asked like so -- why do so many believers not need physical evidence to believe in the existence of god?

what is it about the concept of god that makes it so different to believe in then - let's say the speghetti monster

Which god? There are many god concepts. The reason why they're more appealing than the s. monster specifically is because the s. monster was made up with the intention of criticizing religion. It's the same reason frauds are more effective when you don't recognize them as such.

i think this will help answer the question of evidance, the evidance is in people's faiths. In people's personal experiences, the thousands if not millions of experiences that peopel have had of God. all over the world, in all cultures, for thousands of years. There has to be something there.

Transcendental gremlins?

Also -- by evidance what do you mean?

That's not for me to decide, as I'm not positing a god. I wouldn't know how the evidence would "look like" as I don't know what god is. That's up to the believer that's trying to demonstate the concept he/she is asserting. You know - if I posit transcendental gremlins, then there's no way for you to know what evidence of it might look like, since you don't even know what I mean by "transcendental gremlins". That would be my job to explain/demonstrate.

Some may argue the fact that humans are so mentally advanced and spiritually advanced from other animals as proof that God exists, that he created man.

[/quote]

Those people would have to (1) demonstrate that we are mentally/spiritually advanced and (2) explain how exactly us being that way is evidence of a god. What if dogs were so "advanced"? Would that be proof of god? Would dogs then gather around and discuss how their being the "best" means there must be a god?

There is always someone who is the best/tallest/fastest at something/anything. That's no proof of anything - there's no way for it to be any other way, assuming we're not all the same.

One could say that all physical creation is proof that God exists.

What is god proof of then? Another god? A god creating god? And what would that god creating god be proof of?

 

[Commoner]

from wikipedia on Truth:

Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars and philosophers. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.
​

That's great, but that only means we're using the term "truth" in different ways. My point was, there is an objective reality - if you disagree, then a conversation is pointless anyway, since there is nothing to establish.

 

[asketikos]

That too.



What's "immaterial"?



Beliefs and emotions are faith? I don't know how to interpret that to be quite honest. And furthermore, I thought we had established that "faith" is not evidence of a god, therefore neither I nor those who have faith have evidence and the catch22 doesn't really change anything.



Which god? There are many god concepts. The reason why they're more appealing than the s. monster specifically is because the s. monster was made up with the intention of criticizing religion. It's the same reason frauds are more effective when you don't recognize them as such.



Transcendental gremlins?



That's not for me to decide, as I'm not positing a god. I wouldn't know how the evidence would "look like" as I don't know what god is. That's up to the believer that's trying to demonstate the concept he/she is asserting. You know - if I posit transcendental gremlins, then there's no way for you to know what evidence of it might look like, since you don't even know what I mean by "transcendental gremlins". That would be my job to explain/demonstrate.

I never said that faith and emotions are the same -- I was saying that like emotions, similar to emotions, we can describe the elements of God.

Immaterial means it is spiritual, rather than physical -- therefore the question is rather nonsense, you cannot have physical evidence of what is not physical, and that this is the evidence which I think you are seeking - physical, correct?

But if we broadly speak of God as spoken through the ages, he has been described as the Creator - what had created everything - therefore all creation is physical proof, or could be physical proof.

By saying that truth is subjective I was saying that many things are subjective, that we choose how we look at certain things, and build a particular framework on how we percieve them -- such as history, god, truth; these things create our worldview and our framework, and none of them have an absolute truth, this is I think not an argument that deserves much debate, as I believe most academics and scientists agree on this.

Transcendantal gremlins? I'm sorry but I do not understand what you mean by that, and I'm not sure if its a shot at me or my statement? What I meant by my statement was that -- of all the imaginable things to believe in the world, people choose to believe in a similar Creator, an act of faith.

Do we really need to discuss if humans are more mentally and spiritually advanced then dogs? The question should by why humans are.

Here though, I think you are unto something my friend:

What is god proof of then? Another god? A god creating god? And what would that god creating god be proof of?

I think that's a wonderful question. Isn't that the point of spirituality, of faith, to ask these questions?

But I guess my question to you is thus: why ask for evidence? If evidence was presented to you, would you worship God? I'm sure when you ask this question you know that the evidence you seek will not be provided, so why ask this question (not that people shouldn't ask philosophical questions)?

 

[stupified]

The suffering in the world (16 year old girl's getting stoned) proves that there is not a God that cares about us. Whether or not there is a different kind of God, perhaps an evil one, is hard to disprove.