What we mean by "there is no evidence for theism"

[Windwalker]

But if your clothes and hair were completely dry, I wouldn't need to have jumped in a lake myself to say that you didn't just jump in the lake.

Exactly. If someone claims they have realized God in their lives, and yet that act like Donald Trump, you know they are lying, or at best just deceiving themselves. Their clothes are bone dry, in other words, keeping with the lake analogy. Jesus had another way of stating this. "By their fruits you shall know them".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly. If someone claims they have realized God in their lives, and yet that act like Donald Trump, you know they are lying, or at best just deceiving themselves. Their clothes are bone dry, in other words, keeping with the lake analogy. Jesus had another way of stating this. "By their fruits you shall know them".

Not what I was getting at, but thanks for trying.

 

[Windwalker]

What I claim is that the "wrong" is in putting the thing forward, or adhering to it as "truth" when the foundations are in the state they must necessarily be in for an item like this. And guess what? If the state of the foundations are not in a poor state, then whatever it is that make the foundation "so strong" should be able to be demonstrated and shared with others!

Sure. "By their fruits you shall know them". If someone claims to have found God, you should expect to be able to see it in their lives. Not perfection of course, but positive changes. Spiritual awakenings are not weak foundations. They are profound foundations.

I can even retro-fit any part of my story to answer any of your questions - just like the theist does for excusing "god" from any and all scrutiny.

You're speaking of all theists as if they were specifically all Christian fundamentalist apologists. I have offered my thoughts to give credibly to a theistic perspective, but you ignored all those and just went into insults, doing battle with the god of your own imagination. It's easy to win against straw soldiers you create for yourself. It's another thing to talk to someone who actually has something to say. So far, your just battling strawman.

I'll help you out. Go read this post: What we mean by "there is no evidence for theism"

And if you're up to it, this one contains some solid information as well: What we mean by "there is no evidence for theism"

These are not fundamentalists' apologetics argument to try to prove their theological God as an actual entity in the sky somewhere. I am talking about how theism in general is a valid perspective of the Absolute, or Ultimate Reality. Deity mysticism is an actual thing. All this other nonsense you are doing battle with, I don't believe in myself either.

Exactly. Yes. You seem to think this some kind of "gotcha" - but I have admitted as much. I am trying to get people to see their ideas through the eyes of a skeptic, and to understand that their ideas SHOULD NOT be accepted (keep in mind the "shape-shifter" story) until such time as they have produced evidence that can be shared and distributed among the rest of us.

So you are proselytizing then. It is your mission to convert theists to become atheists. Is that correct?

You are admitting her to trying to foist your ideas upon others, which you initially denied. At least here you are honest about this.

• "A personal experience" - we've gone around and around on this one already - it just isn't any good. If I had a "personal experience" involving something calling itself "god" but had absolutely no way to share it with or evidence it to anyone or have them experience it also, then I would, quite honestly, begin to question my reliability as a witness on this particular topic.

Have you heard, me or anyone else in this thread claim they they had an experience of "something calling itself god". That certainly wasn't my experience of the Divine. But I can tell you, I experienced the Infinite. I choose to call that God, because that word is a good word to try to describe something wholly transcendent to all finite experiences of life. It is an experience of the Absolute. This business of experiencing "something calling itself god", sounds like an encounter with an ET, a cosmic Yeti, not God! If that's what God is to you, no wonder you are so confused!

So, with that down goes your 100% sure you know what you're talking about list.

No... I do not think they are "believing for no reason whatsoever" - I have many, many times already stated that the reasons are insufficient or poor. WHY would I say that if I thought there were NO REASONS AT ALL?

All of those other reason, aside from your profound misunderstanding of what people are talking about in saying they have experienced the Divine, are not experiences at all. Those are all just conceptual ideas about God. They aren't experiences.

EXACTLY!!!!! Thank you! And there you have it... in that particular instance I can LITERALLY jump into the lake and verify that your descriptions of your experience match to some of what I may feel. So, where's God so that I can jump into Him? Eh? Don't you see that we suddenly have a HUGE problem on our hands with respect to the idea that you might like to share such a thing with me? This is EXACTLY what I have been getting at.

In order to have the experience of the lake, you have to follow the instructions. 1. Walk to the lake. 2. Walk into the lake. 3. Fall into the lake.

Same thing for experiencing God. You have to follow the injunctions. You have to have a practice. For instance. 1. Practice meditation. 2. Observe your mind. 3. Completely surrender your ego and your grasping to understand with the mind. 4. Immerse yourself fully in the moment. 5. Let go, let go, let go, and let go.

If you really want an experience of the Divine, you have to let go of your ego. If you do, you will. Those who have, have. Those who don't, dont.

There is a saying in Zen I think captures this perfectly. See where you fit in to it.

Great doubt, great awakening,
Little doubt, little awakening,
No doubt, no awakening.

Great doubt means you don't hold onto your ideas of reality as reality itself. You let go, and then you realize Reality. You have 'great awakening' or Enlightenment, Satori, or an experience of the Divine, or God, or Emptiness, or whatever word captures that meaning. The Absolute. And that is real. And many have experienced this.

Being 100% sure you are right, and feel a need to convert others to validate your own views of reality, is to have no doubt at all. The result will be no awakening at all. You will see only your own mind, and no God whatsoever.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I am talking about how theism in general is a valid perspective of the Absolute, or Ultimate Reality. Deity mysticism is an actual thing. All this other nonsense you are doing battle with, I don't believe in myself either.

Whatever you're talking about, it has a different name and/or description that I am sure does it much more justice than the loaded word "god." I don't care that you like to call "ultimate reality" by the term "god." That's just a ridiculous game that I refuse to play. You can take your ideas and I am pretty sure you know what you can do with them if this is where you want to go. I am the one who will actually be ending this conversation... which is not worth taking any further in my estimation.

 

[Windwalker]

Not what I was getting at, but thanks for trying.

You asked what I'd say if they said they jumped into a lake, and yet were completely dry. So what you you say if they were wet? I'm not sure what point I missed there. Care to explain?

 

[Windwalker]

Whatever you're talking about, it has a different name and/or description that I am sure does it much more justice than the loaded word "god." I don't care that you like to call "ultimate reality" by the term "god." That's just a ridiculous game that I refuse to play. You can take your ideas and I am pretty sure you know what you can do with them if this is where you want to go. I am the one who will actually be ending this conversation... which is not worth taking any further in my estimation.

Oh, I see. So God is the strawman you create and debunk. Congratulations! But you're not actually talking to theists. Why do you pretend you are, telling them their beliefs are garbage and personally insulting them then? Just to be a jerk for no reason? To feel powerful? To feel in control?

BTW, you've admitted to proselytizing others to convert them away from theism. That's against the forum rules. Once an evangelical, always an evangelical?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

At its core, this topic boils down what is meant by "evidence."

I define evidence as "Anything that lets us reliably differentiate between ideas that are merely imaginary, and ideas that accurately describe reality."

Who is us?

If there are any atheists included, the opinion would be biased from the beginning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You asked what I'd say if they said they jumped into a lake, and yet were completely dry. So what you you say if they were wet? I'm not sure what point I missed there. Care to explain?

I was thinking mainly of "mystical experiences"/"religious experiences"/"experiences of God"/etc.

I've heard plenty of people who claimed to have experienced God directly argue that their experience is proof of God - at least for them - and (conveniently) can't be contradicted by anyone who hasn't also had the same experience.

My point was that it's entirely possible to not only question an experience that we haven't had ourselves, but even refute it if empirical facts can be brought to bear on the matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who is us?

If there are any atheists included, the opinion would be biased from the beginning.

Ironic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ironic.

I suppose an atheist could say that if 'us' is made up of theists, the opinion would likewise be biased.
Perhaps if 'us' were purely made up of agnostics, we may get an unbiased opinion?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I was thinking mainly of "mystical experiences"/"religious experiences"/"experiences of God"/etc.

I've heard plenty of people who claimed to have experienced God directly argue that their experience is proof of God - at least for them - and (conveniently) can't be contradicted by anyone who hasn't also had the same experience.

My point was that it's entirely possible to not only question an experience that we haven't had ourselves, but even refute it if empirical facts can be brought to bear on the matter.

Ok, so I have often had out of body UFO dream experiences, met aliens in their spiritual/astral bodies, been on their ships. I've asked about religion and they made it clear they were religious, but they were not into physic realms.

Can you refute it?

I want to make one thing clear, when I use 'I' to refer to myself in the dream or out of body state, it is not the body self, it is a higher part of my inner being, where awareness transcends the limitations of the thinking mind.

 

[Windwalker]

I was thinking mainly of "mystical experiences"/"religious experiences"/"experiences of God"/etc.

I've heard plenty of people who claimed to have experienced God directly argue that their experience is proof of God - at least for them - and (conveniently) can't be contradicted by anyone who hasn't also had the same experience.

My point was that it's entirely possible to not only question an experience that we haven't had ourselves, but even refute it if empirical facts can be brought to bear on the matter.

I don't have an issue with questioning something you haven't had an experience of yourself. I have an issue when someone says to the person who has had an experience, that they have no evidence for their beliefs, that they are simply believing without any support. That's rubbish.

Yet, that is exactly that which I hear being put forth over and over again by the anti-theists here. That's all I'm disputing. It seems they are just simply uncomfortable that some people actually have good reasons to believe as they do, and they want to convince them that their experiences aren't valid. That's about their insecurities, and has nothing to do with actual rational arguments.

But besides, that, what I would argue for is this. That people do in fact have transcendent experiences. And that is something that is objectively verifiable from multiple approaches. That is empirical evidence. It's not necessary to call them "God", but many who do choose to use that word to describe it, due to the nature of what those experiences are. I happen to be one of those, but I'm also comfortable not calling it God too. The Absolute, the Infinite, Emptiness, the Mystery, the All, etc, all work as well. They are simply words to attempt to describe something that is beyond words.

If they try to say it's "just the brain", whatever. It's the nature of the experience. It's the content. Not the organ that is the point. Like one neuroscientist said, "If it's just the brain, would that everyone had that experience!!". Ditto. Then when they do, using words like God, means something entirely different than a Sky Yeti, which is what most anti-theists here are stuck on in their lame concepts of the Transcendent.

 

[rational experiences]

A human theist. Natural human thinks.

Is living self owned on a stone planet inside heavens then thinks.

How are you different to any other human?

Your thoughts are only.

You don't own anything I don't own.

Fact without allowing for lying human egotism.

So you think tell stories first. Just stories.

The claim I believe a creator created me

You own no machine. No reactions. No claim to proof by science choices.

You think you know you aren't anything you observe not your own self.

Who else is with you?

Another human.

In the beginning a human theist lied self deitised theirself.

So you ask how why did human image voice recording get recorded then transmitted back so you heard it by phenomena?

As I built machines that transmitted by my mind control the thinker.

Okay so two humans one mind obliterated?

Yes.

As heavens transmitting where you lived within did not do it to you. You chose it yourself scientist.

Then he says the heavens changed did it to me. As he changed the heavens.

 

[gnostic]

Science is a great idea in theory. Unfortunately, scientists are human beings with biases.

It is true, scientists are humans, so they can be biased, and they can be wrong or illogical.

But that’s is why you are not relying on scientists being objective, because that what evidence are for.

It is the weights of the EVIDENCE that determine which models are true and probable, and which are false and improbable; the scientists themselves don’t make that determination.

Scientists are responsible for coming with the PROPOSED concepts that could explain the phenomena, and predict the outcome based on past observed evidence. But it is the evidence that determine the scientific values of the whole models (models that include the explanations, predictions and mathematical modeling).

It is the evidence that provide information (DATA, like quantities, measurements, properties of the phenomena, etc) about the phenomena, and it is these evidence that will either verify or refute the proposed models.

There are several mechanisms in place, in which all models - models meaning “hypothesis”, “theory”, “theoretical model” - must pass the requirements of Scientific Method and Peer Review.

And the models can only pass them if there are evidence and data that support the models.

So it is the “hypothesis” that must be tested, not the “author” (scientist) of the hypothesis, and it is the hypothesis, not the scientist that must undergo Scientific Method and Peer Review.

Science isn’t about popularity contests between scientists. Science is about the testable and tested models.

The theism as a model or concept, isn’t testable and tested.

For instance, in Christian theism, the concept of the existence of god, you cannot test god, you cannot observe god, you cannot measure god.

You need to remember evidence should provide information about the phenomena, such as -

• been able to examine the properties phenomena,
• to observe or detect the phenomena,
• to quantify the number of evidence (needed for being empirical, and used past observations to make predictions),
• to compare evidence against each other,
• to test and analyze the phenomena,
• Etc.

You cannot do any of the above with god, hence theism is an unfalsifiable and untested concept.

God isn’t a physical, nor natural phenomena that can be observed and tested.

Still using Christian belief and religion as example...

Your can also not test any of the miracles of Jesus and his disciples, the belief of resurrection, or that of angels and demons (or demonic possession), etc.

 

[rational experiences]

It is true, scientists are humans, so they can be biased, and they can be wrong or illogical.

But that’s is why you are not relying on scientists being objective, because that what evidence are for.

It is the weights of the EVIDENCE that determine which models are true and probable, and which are false and improbable; the scientists themselves don’t make that determination.

Scientists are responsible for coming with the PROPOSED concepts that could explain the phenomena, and predict the outcome based on past observed evidence. But it is the evidence that determine the scientific values of the whole models (models that include the explanations, predictions and mathematical modeling).

It is the evidence that provide information (DATA, like quantities, measurements, properties of the phenomena, etc) about the phenomena, and it is these evidence that will either verify or refute the proposed models.

There are several mechanisms in place, in which all models - models meaning “hypothesis”, “theory”, “theoretical model” - must pass the requirements of Scientific Method and Peer Review.

And the models can only pass them if there are evidence and data that support the models.

So it is the “hypothesis” that must be tested, not the “author” (scientist) of the hypothesis, and it is the hypothesis, not the scientist that must undergo Scientific Method and Peer Review.

Science isn’t about popularity contests between scientists. Science is about the testable and tested models.

The theism as a model or concept, isn’t testable and tested.

For instance, in Christian theism, the concept of the existence of god, you cannot test god, you cannot observe god, you cannot measure god.

You need to remember evidence should provide information about the phenomena, such as -

• been able to examine the properties phenomena,
• to observe or detect the phenomena,
• to quantify the number of evidence (needed for being empirical, and used past observations to make predictions),
• to compare evidence against each other,
• to test and analyze the phenomena,
• Etc.

You cannot do any of the above with god, hence theism is an unfalsifiable and untested concept.

God isn’t a physical, nor natural phenomena that can be observed and tested.

Still using Christian belief and religion as example...

Your can also not test any of the miracles of Jesus and his disciples, the belief of resurrection, or that of angels and demons (or demonic possession), etc.

Basic common sense.

Did a man in science invent God?

Did a man in science obtain God out of earths mass?

The science by theism where all alchemies he manipulated builds his machine. He then puts other earth mass into his machine as he is just a human and he is physically manipulating mass.

God men define is a belief of an entity.