What evidence for God

[Orias]

Yea?....Ya smoking or injecting it?

:biglaugh: LOL

 

[Where Is God]

1/Nevermind.

2/ I wasn't "arguing" I was asking you what you were upset about, "feeling" "imposed" upon....but now you "dont remember or care" what it was :slap:

3/ Ok, I'll "calm down"...I'll stop accusing you of "imposing" on me, I'll stop "feeling" imposed upon without being able to articulate how or why, I'll stop blowing text to the max in bold underline....

Mate......If I was upset or other than calm I'd let you know your 'God' can't sing.

Clearly your as mistaken as I am.... I'm an atheist and it clearly says that next to my name

 

[Wombat]

Clearly your as mistaken as I am...

Oh I have been wrong in the past (it was Wedns, 5th March, 1972, I believe ;-)

......but I have never been >that< wrong.

.... I'm an atheist and it clearly says that next to my name

One of us is having an identity/cosmology crisis -


"I'm not an atheist. I worship Serj Tankian."
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2406476-post1150.html


And the object of your worship (God, demigod or Diva) still can't sing.


(Hmmmm.......I wonder if that means I'm no longer 'calm'?)

 

[Where Is God]

Well I was joking when I said that and thought you were talking about "god" when you said he couldn't sing so I'm like "what would I care if he did any way!?!?!?"

But yeah Serj blows by himself. Soad ***** on his new records. Reunion tour this year *does a little jig*

 

[RitalinO.D.]

While the above is true and correct...that is not to say there is no 'evidence' for God.

While Atheists (seemingly invariably) object- there is no &#8220;objective empirical scientific evidence&#8221; for God...that is not to conclude there is no rational, logical reasonable evidence for God or that aberations in statistical probability cannot and do not constitute evidence for God.

Here we go again. You seem to think Atheists owe it to the religious community to consider so called evidence that proves nothing. I am an Atheist because I do not believe there to be a god, for the strict reason of no one has been able to show "reasonable" evidence. Reasonable meaning empirical. Something I can see with my own eyes that I can show to someone else who will descerne the same meaning from it that I have, ad nauseum. The TOE has evidence. Lots of it. I can put my hands on a fossil. It has substance. It is quite reasonable then, to conclude that the fossil I have in my hand is the remains of some long ago living creature that was immortilized in the rock, stone, whatever.

There is nothing like that concerning a God. People who do not put stock in blind faith need concrete evidence to relate to. Otherwise it becomes pointless and a waste of time.

So we can continue to waste keystrokes trying to define different types of evidence, when, to an Atheist, or scientist for that matter, empirical evidence is all that is accepted.

 

[Oneatatime]

Here we go again. You seem to think Atheists owe it to the religious community to consider so called evidence that proves nothing. I am an Atheist because I do not believe there to be a god, for the strict reason of no one has been able to show "reasonable" evidence. Reasonable meaning empirical. Something I can see with my own eyes that I can show to someone else who will descerne the same meaning from it that I have, ad nauseum. The TOE has evidence. Lots of it. I can put my hands on a fossil. It has substance. It is quite reasonable then, to conclude that the fossil I have in my hand is the remains of some long ago living creature that was immortilized in the rock, stone, whatever.

There is nothing like that concerning a God. People who do not put stock in blind faith need concrete evidence to relate to. Otherwise it becomes pointless and a waste of time.

So we can continue to waste keystrokes trying to define different types of evidence, when, to an Atheist, or scientist for that matter, empirical evidence is all that is accepted.

The greater problem I find is that theists consider everything and anything as evidence of God as long as it could be interpreted as having some remote link to a God. Something falls over and they didn't see what caused it therefore it must be God, they are thinking about someone and then they receive a call from that person and it must have been Gods influence, they pray to God that their cold goes away and within a few days it has therefore it must be God, they see an image of a cloaked man on their toast and it must be God. Even if there was an outside influence directing these events it is not necessarily God because there is no way of establishing if its God or just some Alien who gets a kick from winding humans up.

Innevitably if you are determined to find evidence for something then you most probably will even if its not very good evidence.

 

[McBell]

Yes, I'm sure you had no idea what the op meant when he used the term "evidence". As far as you're concearned it could have been anything ranging from empirical evidence to a matter of personal taste.

I have no idea why you've suddenly taken this stance, you seem to have been quite clear about the context when you started out in this thread. Let me remind you:

Since you now claim that in order for something to be considered "evidence" it is sufficient that it is the basis of our belief(s) your objection is no longer valid, since what you describe as "rationalization" is what the poster you objected to presumably bases his belief in god on and is then, by definition, evidence. Whether or not what he bases his belief in god on is valid or not is not relevant to its status as "evidence" when defined as "the basis for one's belief" so why would you argue that what the poster presented was not evidence of god? Were you merely questioning his sincerity?

Please...

Ah, so we are to merely assume the context of the OP?
What is the OP again?
Oh yeah:

Simple, what evidence is there of there being a god, a higher being, or any of the like?

Interesting how you suggest we are to toss out all deifinitions of the word we dislike when arguing what is and what is not "evidence".

I argued in the being that what was presented as evidence was not evidence to me, but rationalizations for belief.

However, I do still recognize the fact that how I define evidence is not the only possible definition of the word.

Here you seem desperate to rationalize why everyone should go by what YOU want to be acceptable evidence by claiming a context that is not clarified in the OP.

 

[Wombat]

Here we go again. You seem to think Atheists owe it to the religious community to consider so called evidence that proves nothing..

Not at all. I think Atheists owe it to themselves to consider the evidence >before< they decide that it "proves nothing".

Most fair trials of people and ideas are conducted that way

I am an Atheist because I do not believe there to be a god, for the strict reason of no one has been able to show "reasonable" evidence. Reasonable meaning empirical...

Yea...I heard you guys the first dozen times...there is no evidence bar empirical evidence.
Good luck with that.

There is nothing like that concerning a God. .

That's so true RitalinO.D.........There are >no< God bone fossils.:no:

People who do not put stock in blind faith need concrete evidence to relate to..

Hmmm...Some do,some don't...some are satisfied with reason, logic and those two harnessed in the rational consideration of probability.

So we can continue to waste keystrokes trying to define different types of evidence, when, to an Atheist, or scientist for that matter, empirical evidence is all that is accepted.

If the God question was exclusively a scientific question you would have possible grounds to ignore, exclude, dismiss all evidence other than the empirical...but it aint. It is a question/issue that is open to insight and examination from almost every disipline- History, Art, Philosophy, Mathematics, Sociology...

But hey....if no other evidence than the empirical God bone fossil that you can hold in your hand is going to cut it for you.......Ok

 

[Wombat]

Innevitably if you are determined to find evidence for something then you most probably will even if its not very good evidence.

Innevitably if you are determined to not consider evidence for something then you most probably never will even if its very good evidence.

 

[Oneatatime]

Innevitably if you are determined to not consider evidence for something then you most probably never will even if its very good evidence.

You are presuming that we are not considering the evidence which is not true, at least not for all us because I concede that there are some who will disregard arguements a priori if they don't like what is being argued for. The problem which I have with the evidence which is put foward in support of Gods existance is that the vast majority of it is untestable and that which is testable such as the age of the Earth has been shown to be false. Generally speaking most religious claims do what you state that we are doing in that they dissmiss naturalistic explanations a priori in favour of a supernaturalistic explanation which in this case takes the form of God.

As it stands methodological naturalism has been extemely succesful at explaining the world around us and on the basis of this it seems likely that it will continue to do so. As such it is unreasonable to dismiss naturalistic explanations a priori in favour of supernatural explanations which is what those claiming evidence for God are doing. There is also the fundamental problem that the realisation of claims attributed to God do not constitute as evidence for Gods existance because no mechanism is proposed explaining how God was involved.

 

[Commoner]

Interesting how you suggest we are to toss out all deifinitions of the word we dislike when arguing what is and what is not "evidence".

On the contrary - what I'm suggesting is you look at all available definitions and from that compile an understanding of what the word "evidence" means in different contexts and then use it accordingly. When you are asked to provide evidence to someone else, that in itself should make the context in which the word is used fairly obvious, don't you think? Not to mention that the context has been further clarified in multiple posts throughout this thread.

I argued in the being that what was presented as evidence was not evidence to me, but rationalizations for belief. However, I do still recognize the fact that how I define evidence is not the only possible definition of the word.

You did not. Let me just quote you again:

Your "argument" in post #2 is not evidence for the existence of god.
It is a rationalization for belief that god exists.

Where exactly did you make that distinction?

Here you seem desperate to rationalize why everyone should go by what YOU want to be acceptable evidence by claiming a context that is not clarified in the OP.

Neither was the term "God" clarified, so I presume you would have no problem arguing that, since "God" is also a John Lennon song, there is objective evidence of its existence?

It seems to me you're equating "what someone thinks is evidence" with "what is evidence". What we think is evidence is certainly what we base our beliefs on, yet that does not make those things "evidence". No more than thinking of something as "fact" makes it such. So unless you're willing to claim that the op might have been merely asking for someone to come up with something someone might think was evidence of a god - like soft toilet paper, I really don't see where you're going with this argument.

 

[Wombat]

You are presuming that we are not considering the evidence which is not true,.... .

LOL!
Yes....It is true. And I have the evidence that it is true.
It's true to the extreme point that the vast majority are-
a/ Refusing to consider that there even >could be< evidence.
b/ Devoting endless amounts of time/space to refuting propositions >not put<.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2405501-post744.html

c/ When given clear/tangible evidence of a proposition (Their own behaviour)- simply ignoring it.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2406189-post766.html

..at least not for all us because I concede that there are some who will disregard arguements a priori if they don't like what is being argued for. .

Oh Please...Go back to #744 (link in b/) and take a look....>that< is the pattern and the standard of all the responses...arguing against things unsaid and points not made- &#8220;disregard arguements a priori&#8221;

I&#8217;m not trying to be insulting...but it needs to be pointed out...You know those conversations you have with religious zealots in which you can see and tell they are not listening to a thing you say?
Your talking to them and all they pick up is key words that link to some scripture/argument that they are formulating in their head instead of hearing what you said?

Well conversing with Atheists can be >exactly< the same...and this thread/board provides empirical evidence thereof.

Here......Watch it happen again-

&#8220;The problem which I have with the evidence which is put foward in support of Gods existance is that the vast majority of it is untestable and that which is testable such as the age of the Earth has been shown to be false.&#8221;.

&#8220;Yea...I heard you guys the first dozen times...there is no evidence bar empirical evidence.&#8221;Wombat #850

>What else< do you want me to say? I have heard you, heard you all, I have responded directly, I hear what you are saying and I understand....you all want, demand, expect empirical evidence and will hear consider and contemplate no other...........that&#8217;s OK.

I&#8217;ll just keep arguing that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old and that people rode dinosaurs.

As such it is unreasonable to dismiss naturalistic explanations a priori in favour of supernatural explanations which is what those claiming evidence for God are doing.

Ah huh...and conversely...Given that God is a &#8220;supernatural explanation&#8221; it cannot have a &#8220;naturalistic explanation&#8221; and therefore must be reasonably dismissed a priori.

The only evidence that can exist/be considered is empirical evidence that provides a &#8220;naturalistic explanation&#8221;......I hear ya.

And as Ritalin pointed out-

&#8220;You cannot use the scientific method with religion, because it is not scientific&#8221; #756

Case closed...there can be no evidence there can be no God.

It&#8217;s a nice neat box guys, it locks down and keeps everything out....I really admire it...if it ever rains supernatural serpents you will all be warm and dry as toast.

All the best.

 

[outhouse]

I hear what you are saying and I understand....you all want, demand, expect empirical evidence and will hear consider and contemplate no other...........that&#8217;s OK.

I dont find that to be a true statement

I have never seen any evidence at all let alone empirical for a deity.

what evidence I have seen, points to deitys being created by man the same way man has always created deitys.

can you deny that is not a pattern.???

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I&#8217;ll just keep arguing that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old and that people rode dinosaurs.

Oh we should start a new thread on that one.

 

[Silver]

If the universe exists, what created the universe? If you choose that it randomly just created, you are in a contradiction.

To satisfy the logic necessarily something eternal exists by its own nature, if that isn't posited, you lead into contradiction, because nothing (prior to big bang) cannot create something (big bang).

What if an intelligence devised some way of bringing itself into existence.
I want to suggest that that intelligence was humans/aliens - scientists.
The scientists worked out how to time travel to the past and sent back a kind of 'system generator' that created the system...the universe.....from the most basic building blocks (positive and negative energy perhaps).
In the universe life evolved giving rise to humans, and eventually to the scientists.

Silver

 

[Thief]

I dont find that to be a true statement

I have never seen any evidence at all let alone empirical for a deity.

what evidence I have seen, points to deitys being created by man the same way man has always created deitys.

can you deny that is not a pattern.???

And 6billion people each one with a linear existence.....
developing individuals spirits...and then dying....

Looks like a pattern to me.

And no one survives dying?...no spiritual life at all?

 

[PolyHedral]

And no one survives dying?...no spiritual life at all?

There is no reason to think so, no.

 

[Oneatatime]

Wombat,

If I was dismissing evidence for God a priori I would have just made the statement that there is no evidence for God and then provided no justification for this statement. I did not do this but rather justified my position by explaining why its innapropriate to disregard naturalistic explanations a priori in favour of supernatural explanations given the success of methodological naturalism.

I have given my reasons for why I consider current evidence for God to be lacking. What is the justifcation for disregarding naturalistic explanations a priori in favour of supernatural explanations? Why should we consider something to be evidence for God when there are alternative testable naturalistic explanations which it is evidence for?

 

[outhouse]

And 6billion people each one with a linear existence.....
developing individuals spirits...and then dying....

Looks like a pattern to me.

it is a pattern of life and death

And no one survives dying?...

so far no one ever has, and no one ever will. Dying is not surviving in any aspect.

no spiritual life at all?

that is a unknown factor giving you all the benifit available

 

[Orias]

Wombat,

If I was dismissing evidence for God a priori I would have just made the statement that there is no evidence for God and then provided no justification for this statement. I did not do this but rather justified my position by explaining why its innapropriate to disregard naturalistic explanations a priori in favour of supernatural explanations given the success of methodological naturalism.

I have given my reasons for why I consider current evidence for God to be lacking. What is the justifcation for disregarding naturalistic explanations a priori in favour of supernatural explanations? Why should we consider something to be evidence for God when there are alternative testable naturalistic explanations which it is evidence for?

I would go as far to say that naturalistic explanations also justify the "existence" of "God".

Since, if it wasn't natural then it simply wouldn't be, because you cannot go beyond Nature. It is within us, as much as not believing in the existence of a "God" is also within us.

Together they create the bigger picture, not some narrow and self deceitful propagation.