What evidence for God

[Wombat]

if god were real, why don't we all objectively experience god the same way?

If love were real,why don't we all objectively experience love the same way?

God loves diversity

doesn't there need to be a fundamental understanding that is consistently empirical and undeniable throughout all faiths in order for people to be able to recognize who and what god is?

Nope.
Same extention of propisition-
"doesn't there need to be a fundamental understanding that is consistently empirical and undeniable throughout all humanity in order for people to be able to recognize what love is"?

"so where is the evidence,"

Back down thread in the posts deliniating the anomaly in statistical probability that is the historical timeline of the worlds major living faiths.

and why is faith considered to be a moral attribute when it only encourages people to make uninformed decisions while adhering to the mob mentality...
:rainbow1:

Sure....faith can do that...but that's not the only thing it can do...nor is it alone/isolated in that negative regard..."people make uninformed decisions while adhering to the mob mentality" in relation to all sorts of notions- political, national even scientific.

Religion/faith can/does also draw people together into supportive community that in turn results in supportive outreach into broader community.

The assesment as to wether religion/faith produces greater good than ill is entirely subjective and conducted through the filters of personal belief and bias.

 

[Orias]

im focusing on ancient hebrew culture and how egyptian and sumerian's influenced early semetic speaking people. I still have allot to learn with the current history i seek.

Ah, I see.

Well then I don't think you should base your evidence for "God" purely off of this, but I understand what you mean.

Also, I sure hope your not looking in the bible for these answers, I would hate to see another person fall victim to its obvious attempts at manipulating the masses.

It does One of two things, it either pushes you away or sucks you in. In the end, most people who turn away don't care to research it, which is silly in my opinion. But of course, what is silly in my eyes may be taken with a heart felt recourse in others.

Lot of religions and gods to learn dealing with the hebrews and sumerians and egyptians.

You will find eventually that they tie into even the Darkest of Arts.

For all we know, Set may have been the character described as Satan.

None the less, I find that there are far more interesting and informative religions and "Gods" besides the dots that connect to the Abrahamic plagiarism.

Oh i agree whole hearted, i was kind of backing what I already know. We know writing goes back to 6000 years between 3 large cultures and not one of them mentions a god figure which as wiki pointed out started rather late in history. If you had said deitys go back 11,000 -15,000 years I would have agreed as im sure they go back further then homo sapiens.

Oh, my apologies.

It is in my understanding that deities and "God(s)" are One in the same.

Of course, they are labeled different for different reasons I guess

I think you would have been better off with deity

Most likely

 

[Orias]

The assesment as to wether religion/faith produces greater good than ill is entirely subjective and conducted through the filters of personal belief and bias.

Not really.

Unless of course you view the world as heading in a good direction.

 

[Wombat]

Not really..

Well........I'm open to considering the objective data not drawn from subjective bias

Unless of course you view the world as heading in a good direction.

Mate!.......The future is so bright we will all have to wear shades!

And thus one subjective bias collides head on with another

 

[rusra02]

it would seem the 'creation', for argument sake, of the heavens and the earth is just as indifferent as the tornadoes and tsunamis we have witnessed as of late
no purpose but a result of pressure...no feelings or lives are being considered and so forth...

Many feel that because we suffer, there must be no God, or that he doesn't care about us. That simply is not true. Loving parents will allow their children to suffer for a beneficial purpose. For example, a child with cancer often must undergo painful procedures. The root cause for man's suffering is what Satan did, and what Adam did. The Bible is quite frank in saying "The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." (1 John 5:19)
God has created the natural weather cycles, but he does not now exercise his power to control them so they cause no harm. Neither does he use them to punish us. These forces have been at work throughout man's history.
Jehovah God has progressively taken action needed to end the suffering we experience. This has not been an easy or quick process, and it is not yet completed. Still, the outcome is certain and suffering will soon end forever. (Revelation 21:3,4)
Our lives pass by quickly as a shadow. (James 4:14) From our pitifully short perspective, it appears God is slow. We question why he doesn't end our suffering now. Rather than blame God for mankind's problems, we should seek the true reasons why we suffer, and who is really responsible. (2 Peter 3:9, Romans 8:20,21)

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

In the times in my life where I did believe in God or some other intelligent being behind the creation of the universe was the teleological argument where the observed complex order was IMHO was highly suggestive of some intelligent plan. But later I learnt of the concept of self organization where even the very simplest random set of rules can create complexities which quite boggle the mind. Phase transitions in particular are a very effective mechanism for generating such complexities. If you happen to be living in a cold climate you may see the outcome of one the regularly happens on mill ponds on frosty nights where the surface appears mirror smooth reflecting all the surroundings perfectly, then as the surface freezes complex ice lattices appear just simply by virtue of changing states of matter. All without any plan of intelligent design and is a good example of complexity self organizing.

 

[waitasec]

If love were real,why don't we all objectively experience love the same way?

God loves diversity

but love is real. we experience it many ways, that is true. but one objectively consistent way would be the love a parent has for their child.

Nope.
Same extention of propisition-
"doesn't there need to be a fundamental understanding that is consistently empirical and undeniable throughout all humanity in order for people to be able to recognize what love is"?

and there is...a parents love.
:yes:

and trust me, i am fully aware that there are many many children out there without it...but that still doesn't diminish the fact that a parents love is fundamental understanding

Back down thread in the posts deliniating the anomaly in statistical probability that is the historical timeline of the worlds major living faiths.

i think people are innately prone to creating gods...
doesn't make god real it just shows how vulnerable people are...

edit:
for clarification, a god can also be some ones work or hobby.

Sure....faith can do that...but that's not the only thing it can do...nor is it alone/isolated in that negative regard..."people make uninformed decisions while adhering to the mob mentality" in relation to all sorts of notions- political, national even scientific.

Religion/faith can/does also draw people together into supportive community that in turn results in supportive outreach into broader community.

absolutely... i never said faith cannot do these things...
but faith in god is not evidence for god, it is evidence of faith

The assesment as to wether religion/faith produces greater good than ill is entirely subjective and conducted through the filters of personal belief and bias.

i agree.
this ultimately depends on the person...
yes religion provides a sense of solidarity which is actually an innate sense we have in order to ensure survival.

 

[outhouse]

Also, I sure hope your not looking in the bible for these answers

no i'm not. I need a reliable and accurate source

None the less, I find that there are far more interesting and informative religions and "Gods" besides the dots that connect to the Abrahamic plagiarism.

absolutely there much more interesting. I started this out to help point out errors do debunk creation and got so interested in ancient history I wanted to drink more.

It is in my understanding that deities and "God(s)" are One in the same.

they pretty much are but when someone says "god" i would think %99 are talking about the abrahamic god. Most previous deitys had names all their own.

 

[Wombat]

but love is real. we experience it many ways, that is true.

But God is real. we experience God in many ways, that is true.

(And it is also true that some do not experience love or God)


"but one objectively consistent way would be the love a parent has for their child."

and another objectively consistent way would be the love God has for humanity"

and there is...a parents love.
:yes:

and there is...Gods love.
:yes:

and trust me, i am fully aware that there are many many children out there without it...

and trust me, I am fully aware that there are many many of Gods children out there without it...

but that still doesn't diminish the fact that a parents love is fundamental understanding

But that still doesn't diminish the fact that Gods love is fundamental understanding

(Not trying to be a smart Alec...but the arguement cuts both ways and becomes circular...there are still Billions and billions of people on this planet who believe that Gods love is fundamental understanding- The vast majority of humans have belief/experience in love and God...a minority of humans do not have belief/ecperience in love or God.......this fact does not provide proof that either love or God exists just that they are popular and deeply ingrained notions.


i think people are innately prone to creating gods...

Some think people are innately prone to creating love...(here, meet my teenage daughter )

doesn't make god real it just shows how vulnerable people are...

doesn't make love real it just shows how vulnerable, needy and open to misreading the sex drive and the biological need to reproduce people are...love is the product of biological drive and persuasive binding social constructs and conventions...Romantic love is an historicaly recent social construct and even parental love is the false construct indoctrinated into and imposed onto vulnerable children so as to encourage the care of elderly parents...
Now...I, personaly, don't believe the above arguements that negate/reject belief in love...but there are those who do believe that love is a "created" notion. And, just as with atheism, the fact that they are in the minority makes their arguement no less valid.


edit:
for clarification, a god can also be some ones work or hobby.

a love can allso be some ones work or hobby and/or some ones sense of posession/ownership and/or someones sense of dependence/need...

Love or God...at every turn...the arguements cut both ways...there is no objective 'proof' of either belief...there is no substantiation in claimed experience...there is no weight in popularity of belief or experience of either.

faith in god is not evidence for god, it is evidence of faith

faith in love is not evidence for love, it is evidence of faith in love.


yes religion provides a sense of solidarity which is actually an innate sense we have in order to ensure survival.

Yes, subjective belief God like subjective belief in love provides a sense of bond, unity, belonging, mutual appreciation "which is actually an innate sense we have in order to ensure survival."

Both love and God are either accepted as widepread common subjective belief/ experiences or cast into doubt as objectively unverifiable "created" social constructs that meet individual/collective survival needs.

We can brain scan people thinking/experiencing 'love' or 'God' but that doesn't prove anything either.......Some people do not believe/experience God...and some people do not believe/experience love.

 

[waitasec]

(Not trying to be a smart Alec...but the arguement cuts both ways and becomes circular...there are still Billions and billions of people on this planet who believe that Gods love is fundamental understanding-
The vast majority of humans have belief/experience in love and God...a minority of humans do not have belief/ecperience in love or God.......this fact does not provide proof that either love or God exists just that they are popular and deeply ingrained notions.


i think people are innately prone to creating gods...

Some think people are innately prone to creating love...(here, meet my teenage daughter )

doesn't make god real it just shows how vulnerable people are...

doesn't make love real it just shows how vulnerable, needy and open to misreading the sex drive and the biological need to reproduce people are...love is the product of biological drive and persuasive binding social constructs and conventions...Romantic love is an historicaly recent social construct and even parental love is the false construct indoctrinated into and imposed onto vulnerable children so as to encourage the care of elderly parents...
Now...I, personaly, don't believe the above arguements that negate/reject belief in love...but there are those who do believe that love is a "created" notion. And, just as with atheism, the fact that they are in the minority makes their arguement no less valid.


edit:
for clarification, a god can also be some ones work or hobby.

a love can allso be some ones work or hobby and/or some ones sense of posession/ownership and/or someones sense of dependence/need...

Love or God...at every turn...the arguements cut both ways...there is no objective 'proof' of either belief...there is no substantiation in claimed experience...there is no weight in popularity of belief or experience of either.

faith in god is not evidence for god, it is evidence of faith

faith in love is not evidence for love, it is evidence of faith in love.


yes religion provides a sense of solidarity which is actually an innate sense we have in order to ensure survival.

Yes, subjective belief God like subjective belief in love provides a sense of bond, unity, belonging, mutual appreciation "which is actually an innate sense we have in order to ensure survival."

Both love and God are either accepted as widepread common subjective belief/ experiences or cast into doubt as objectively unverifiable "created" social constructs that meet individual/collective survival needs.

nice try... :balloons:

i know you are not being a smart alec... and i appreciate your response

love is real for every parent, as in the love you and i and many other parents would agree as a fundamental understanding of love...
our children come first
we would die for our children
we want to protect our children
we want to nurture our children
we hope in our children

this is not a list to compare gods love to parental love, it's the general understanding parents have between parents...how much more empathy do you feel towards a family, parents in particular, when you hear of a child that gets sick or worse yet, dies after becoming a parent yourself? or vise versa when something great and wonderful happens to a child you can actually feel the pride the parents have because you yourself are one too.
this is the general understanding i am speaking of.

however there is no fundamental understanding about god, that is why there is an array of religions out there, throughout history...gods have come and gone because it is subjective. if you you get parents together and have them start talking about their kids, you will have a fundamental understanding of what parental love is
you get believers in the same room talking about their god and you have division...no general consensus of who and what god is...

We can brain scan people thinking/experiencing 'love' or 'God' but that doesn't prove anything either.......Some people do not believe/experience God...and some people do not believe/experience love.

that still doesn't diminish the fact that a parents love is fundamental understanding among parents...
not everyone is a parent but for those that are...there is a fundamental understanding.
not everyone is religious but for those that are...what is the undeniable fundamental understanding of god that is common among all the religions?

 

[Wombat]

love is real for every parent, as in the love you and i and many other parents would agree as a fundamental understanding of love...
our children come first
we would die for our children
we want to protect our children
we want to nurture our children
we hope in our children

Oh waitasec.......please wait a sec...You can put this down to jaded and jaundiced view and/or the reality of minority exception....but OHHHH! Would that what you describe "as a fundamental understanding of love" BE "real for every parent" and child!!!

I work as an Art&Narrative Therapy Activities Worker with Wards of the State... victims of abuse, neglect, trauma and abandonment.

No. I'm sorry. love is not real for every parent....nor for every child.

For many, many thousands of children-
The children come last behind parental self absorbsion/clinical Narcissism- pleasure, alcaholism, drug addiction.
They would kill for a fix but not die for their children.
They want to posess, use and abuse their children.
They want to have power over and inflict pain upon their children.
They "hope" their children will never reveal the abuse to the authorities.

(And,pre emptive disclaimer, I have and do work with many poor parent addicts who do love as you describe......but also far too many who blow any "fundamental understanding of love" notion right out of the water)

"this is the general understanding i am speaking of."

Yes....I hear,understand and agree...and point out the 'exceptions' that break the general rule of "general understanding" of "parental love"....Just as there are exceptions to the general rule of "general understanding" of "Gods love".
And no...I am not compairing Atheists to abusive parents...only pointing out that when it comes to generally held/shared beliefs there are the excptions of those who do not hold such beliefs.

"however there is no fundamental understanding about god,"

No..I'm sorry...but you have gone from a "general understanding" of 'love' to a "fundamental understanding" re God. No "fundamental understanding" for love or God has been established, exceptions for both beliefs/faiths/experiences have been put forward. We are left with a widespread "general understanding" of 'love' and 'God', with exceptions and no proof of either propisition.

Now we loop back to the direct love/God parallel-

that is why there is an array of religions out there, throughout history...

That is why there is an array of notions of love out there, throughout history...and if parental love was a "fundamental understanding" we would not see in the past common parental behaviours that today we identify as child abuse.

gods have come and gone because it is subjective.

Likewise notions of love.....culturally determined and purely subjective.


if you you get parents together and have them start talking about their kids, you will have a fundamental understanding of what parental love is

ONLY if you select love believing parents...if you take a random community sample you are going to come across those parents who have no idea and do not care and are willfully ignorant (evil) in regard the basic wellbeing of their children- let alone 'love'. There is no fundamental- across the board- universal "understanding of what parental love is".....in tens of thousands of cases there is not even a "general understanding"....there is the oposite- violence, neglect, torture and abuse.

(And I tell you this with a heavy heart friend...we are not winning...it is not dissipating or decreasing....despite many a best effort, millions of dollars every day, thousands of workers, ever expanding State Care, Foster and Surrogate Family programs and the best the 'sciences' of Psychology/Counselling can provide....the problem is >increasing< in raw Statistics and in severity (forms of abuse).
There is no "fundamental understanding of what parental love is" and the "general understanding" is decreasing)

you get believers in the same room talking about their god and you have division...no general consensus of who and what god is...

I'm sorry waitasec...but I have to laugh...not only is the same "division" clear and apparent among any randomly selected parents discussing "parental love" but it is amplified when you are in a room/Meeting with the accademics, professionals, agency Managers and experts in the meaning and provision of "parental love"!
If there is a "fundamental understanding" of "parental love" please, please, please bring it to our next Staff Meeting of Surrogate Parent workers and professionals!
(Endless examples of parent/expert "no general consensus of what parental love is and what good parenting is" available on request.:sad4



that still doesn't diminish the fact that a parents love is fundamental understanding among parents...

Well....you can keep repeating it...but repetition will not make it so...there is endless disagreement among parents and accademics/professionals engaged in childrearing as to what 'love' might mean. Hell....in Welfare Sector you are looked down upon if you even >evoke< the term 'love'...Professionals refer to- "Unconditional Non Judgemental Positive Regard"

not everyone is a parent but for those that are...there is a fundamental understanding.

Nope...there are some parents that do not even understand/care for their childs basic material needs....let alone understand/care for the emotional needs/love that you describe. It is a widespread, common and "general" understanding (just like faith)....but it is not "a fundamental understanding" nor is faith.



not everyone is religious but for those that are..."what is the undeniable fundamental understanding of god that is common among all the religions?"

Among the major living faiths The Golden Rule comes close... but again, that is not among all the religions nor throughout history.

As with love...there is no "undeniable fundamental understanding" of God.

There is a widespread, general, diverse and evolving understanding of both subjective belief/experiences- love and God.:yes:

 

[waitasec]

Oh waitasec.......please wait a sec...You can put this down to jaded and jaundiced view and/or the reality of minority exception....but OHHHH! Would that what you describe "as a fundamental understanding of love" BE "real for every parent" and child!!!

I work as an Art&Narrative Therapy Activities Worker with Wards of the State... victims of abuse, neglect, trauma and abandonment.

No. I'm sorry. love is not real for every parent....nor for every child.

of course that is what happens friend...i already mentioned that in a previous post...but it still doesn't diminish the fundamental understanding that all loving parents have for their children

here

and trust me, i am fully aware that there are many many children out there without it...but that still doesn't diminish the fact that a parents love is [a] fundamental understanding

it's a given that i am talking about loving parents.
don't you get what i'm saying?
i am comparing loving parents understanding as there being an undeniable fundamental consistency to how they relate their love for their child among other loving parents to the inconsistency of the religious understanding of god, hence, why so many interpretations of god among all religions.


please don't misrepresent what i am saying...
that is why i am repeating myself.


one more time...
i am not comparing gods love with parents love....
i am comparing the understanding among loving parents is much much more consistent to the inconsistent understanding of god within all religions

this is not a list to compare gods love to parental love, it's the general understanding parents have between parents...how much more empathy do you feel towards a family, parents in particular, when you hear of a child that gets sick or worse yet, dies after becoming a parent yourself? or vise versa when something great and wonderful happens to a child you can actually feel the pride the parents have because you yourself are one too.
this is the general understanding i am speaking of.

 

[Wombat]

of course that is what happens friend...i already mentioned that in a previous post...but it still doesn't diminish the fundamental understanding that all loving parents have for their children

This is a 'fudge' waitasec....You have gone from broad- "a parents love is [a] fundamental understanding" to all inclusive- "love is real for every parent" then to fudge and narrow down the criteria to "loving parents" have a "fundamental understanding" of love.

Yea...'loving' (and I would add thinking) parents have a common/baseline understanding of what it is to love a child.

And loving/thinking theists have a common/baseline understanding of what it is to love God.

But there is no single thing, no fundamental, to the love of a child or the love of God.

Def-
'Fundamental'- central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.
Adjective: Forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.

As soon as you attempt to identify one "primary rule or principle" for the love of a child i.e.- 'To protect' you run up against the potential of the child needing to 'Learn to protect itself'.

it's a given that i am talking about loving parents.
don't you get what i'm saying?

No, it's not a "given"....you previously gave me "love is real for every parent" and as we have both recognized that is false.


i am comparing loving parents understanding as there being an undeniable fundamental consistency to how they relate their love for their child among other loving parents to the inconsistency of the religious understanding of god, hence, why so many interpretations of god among all religions.

Then for your arguement to suceed you are going to need to identify the undeniable fundamental consistency of loving parenting throughout history. And if all you can come up with is common features and principles then you are confronted with the reality that religions, like loving parenting, share those as well- Prayer, ritual, worship, moral code, service to others...

"so many interpretations of god"? ...Here's an offer...For every differing interpretation of God you put forward I will put forward a differing interpretation (from parent or professional) as to what it is to be a loving parent.

Then we can both play- 'Find the Fundamental' (but I'll be on the couch not looking...cos there arn't any in either case)


please don't misrepresent what i am saying...
that is why i am repeating myself.

Here I am obliged to point out I have not misrepresented you...and repeat...you made the assertion- "love is real for every parent" and that assertion is demonstrably false.


one more time...
i am not comparing gods love with parents love....

Good...I understand that, have all along, I i am not comparing gods love with parents love either.

I am compairing your claim to the belief in love (specificaly parent love for child) to the belief in God (specificaly the love for God)...not the belief in "gods love" for us.

i am comparing the understanding among loving parents is much much more consistent to the inconsistent understanding of god within all religions

Yes....I understand your claim assertion that the former is consistent and the latter is inconsistent.....and once more repeat my invitation- For every differing interpretation of God you put forward I will put forward a differing interpretation (from parent or professional) as to what it is to be a loving parent.

 

[waitasec]

since not everyone is a loving parent i can also compare that to not everyone is religious
loving parent=a consistent fundamental understanding among other loving parents
religious= an inconsistent understanding among the religious about who god is

As soon as you attempt to identify one "primary rule or principle" for the love of a child i.e.- 'To protect' you run up against the potential of the child needing to 'Learn to protect itself'.

that isn't the point... i'm talking about the natural inclination to do so, that EVERY loving parent has and could RELATE with other LOVING parent for why THEY TOO WOULD FEEL THE SAME INCLINATION OF WANTING TO PROTECT THEIR CHILD...not the methodology...but the FUNDAMENTAL OR INSTINCTUAL UNDERSTANDING of wanting to do so...

No, it's not a "given"....you previously gave me "love is real for every parent" and as we have both recognized that is false.

sure it is especially when i laid it out for you in an earlier post...

and trust me, i am fully aware that there are many many children out there without it...but that still doesn't diminish the fact that a parents love is [a] fundamental understanding

i guess i have to point out the obvious...

Then for your arguement to suceed you are going to need to identify the undeniable fundamental consistency of loving parenting throughout history.

i did...

Prayer, ritual, worship, moral code, service to others...

all of which are not consistent...

moral code and service to others btw, are not exclusive to religion

Yes....I understand your claim assertion that the former is consistent and the latter is inconsistent.....and once more repeat my invitation- For every differing interpretation of God you put forward I will put forward a differing interpretation (from parent or professional) as to what it is to be a loving parent.

so, when i presented this to you...

"how much more empathy do you feel towards a family, parents in particular, when you hear of a child that gets sick or worse yet, dies after becoming a parent yourself? or vise versa when something great and wonderful happens to a child you can actually feel the pride the parents have because you yourself are one too. this is the general understanding i am speaking of."

you would say no as a parent?

 

[outhouse]

but only more questions and still no proof???

 

[Wombat]

but only more questions and still no proof???

1176 posts and still can't find the distintion between evidence and proof?

 

[waitasec]

1176 posts and still can't find the distintion between evidence and proof?

the proof is in the puddin'

 

[Orias]

no i'm not. I need a reliable and accurate source

Haha, I laugh with empathy.

absolutely there much more interesting. I started this out to help point out errors do debunk creation and got so interested in ancient history I wanted to drink more.

I know what you mean, I eventually got bored with that and turned deicidal :drool:

they pretty much are but when someone says "god" i would think %99 are talking about the abrahamic god. Most previous deitys had names all their own.

Exactly.

When most people ask questions to me about "God" I usually assume they mean their "God", which turns out to be largely the Abrahamic One.

 

[Gloone]

Haha, I laugh with empathy.

What is your understanding of empathy? I have already consorted with others on this forum board as to what it is. How do view it?

 

[Gloone]

Exactly.

When most people ask questions to me about "God" I usually assume they mean their "God", which turns out to be largely the Abrahamic One.

Well the Abrahamic god probably makes up the majority. So you are not by any means falling short of your guess. However, the % sign goes after the 99. So it would be 99%. When it really isn't.