Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Technically it wasn't. That is, the universe as we know it did not exist until a little bit after the big bang, as when we wind the clocks back as far as possible, we hit a point at which all physics breaks down and we have no idea what was going on but it was after the big bang and it wasn't the universe as we know it.

Thank you.

 

[Sleeppy]

Technically it wasn't. That is, the universe as we know it did not exist until a little bit after the big bang, as when we wind the clocks back as far as possible, we hit a point at which all physics breaks down and we have no idea what was going on but it was after the big bang and it wasn't the universe as we know it.

The universe as we know it is still changing and expanding. And yet everything originated in common before the big bang. That One Source is God of the Universe.

 

[nash8]

Some theists fuss over this because some non-theists goad them into it. But more importantly, it happens because our current cultural norms are grounded in post-Enlightenment values. Call it cultural and peer pressure, if you will. The question of proof and evidence is demanded of us in this arena because of culture.

What troubles me about this trend is that evidence and proofs is often left ill-defined or narrowly hedged in a way that sets the path before one even begins to walk. Put another way, the standards for what "evidence" and "proof" is completely defines the answer you arrive at. Usually folks in my culture really mean "empirical evidence" when they say "evidence" and dismiss all the other forms as irrelevant or not good enough. Which is kind of silly, because god-concepts in general are simply not empirical, they're conceptual. Non-empirical evidence is extremely relevant, and will tell you far more about a particular theist's theism than demanding they produce something that for most of them is impossible in the first place. In general I find that in many cases where proof is demanded, the point is being missed... particularly in spats between theists and non-theists.

This is brilliantly stated. I also think that emperical evidence can be just as iffy as non-emperical evidence. Hence why scientific opinions, views, and theories change on a regular basis, and they are all based on emperical evidence.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The universe as we know it is still changing and expanding. And yet everything originated in common before the big bang. That One Source is God of the Universe.

So the cocoon is the "God" of butterflies?

What evidence do you have that this source (which could no longer exist) is still changing the universe and not something else created by the source? Remember, "God" is creator AND ruler if you want to go by the standard definition.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The universe as we know it is still changing and expanding.

Let me put it a different way. How did big bang cosmology develop? Thanks to astrophysics and the Hubble as well as some brilliant minds, we constructed a model and ran it backwards. The entire time we keep running it backwards, it's changing. But it is still the familiar universe in that physics holds true and we aren't dealing with a mess of impossibilities we can't get beyond. Eventually, however, we do reach that point. It is just after the big bang but whatever reality existed then is totally alien to us and all physics, all that we know of this constantly changing universe, fails to hold true.

And yet everything originated in common before the big bang. That One Source is God of the Universe.

In the standard model, there is not time until the big bang. Which means there is no before the big bang.

 

[Sleeppy]

Only if it's deified.

But that's not the kind of God we're talking about.

I believe the type of God the OP and title are talking about is a sentient being that somehow lives "other" than the rest of us.

When talking about deified beings/things/etc., there's no shortage of evidence for Gods, because humans are often deified, and therefore, gods. Caesar comes to mind.

I'm actually arguing for both. We differ. We are others. We are gods; some of us over others. And all of us over one another, which is both diversity and arrogance in the least cases. When you remove arrogance, you remove fear and ignorance. Others teach one another peacefully and they become interwoven. They know one another. They understand one another. They have mutual respect enough to help one another. They hope for equality, because it is Utopian. It is the common dream. Especially after people get tired of losing their lives. We are gods, that should become like one God, to the extent that we live and prosper together.

And there are many gods of the One God of the Universe. But only the Source knows our outcomes, providing everything necessary to be and do as we are. So, we are others and there is One Source for the entire future of existence as well. Still expanding.

 

[Sleeppy]

Let me put it a different way. How did big bang cosmology develop? Thanks to astrophysics and the Hubble as well as some brilliant minds, we constructed a model and ran it backwards. The entire time we keep running it backwards, it's changing. But it is still the familiar universe in that physics holds true and we aren't dealing with a mess of impossibilities we can't get beyond. Eventually, however, we do reach that point. It is just after the big bang but whatever reality existed then is totally alien to us and all physics, all that we know of this constantly changing universe, fails to hold true.


In the standard model, there is not time until the big bang. Which means there is no before the big bang.

There was a before. Something 'banged'. Maybe they didn't think it necessary to mention, that something 'banged'. Change began. The universe as we know it is still proceeding from that First Instant's instructions.

I actually incorporated some of what you've been saying, but into the bigger scope.

 

[Sleeppy]

So the cocoon is the "God" of butterflies?

What evidence do you have that this source (which could no longer exist) is still changing the universe and not something else created by the source? Remember, "God" is creator AND ruler if you want to go by the standard definition.

Cocoons are more like housing. They don't do much before, or after that. God over housing the butterfly? Sure.

The source, according to science, was and must therefore still be, infinite. It rules everything because it maintains everything according to the First Instant.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There was a before.

Not in any way we can speak of meaningfully, unless you want to get into some fairly advanced field theories that are speculative at best.

Something 'banged'. Maybe they didn't think it necessary to mention, that something 'banged'.

Or not. The standard model is standard not so much because most physicists and cosmologists support it, but because none of the various alternatives have garnered enough support to replace it. But even in the standard model, whatever banged is beyond anything we can know about.

Change began.

How do you know? If there was a before the big bang, then why wasn't there change? if there wasn't, then how could anything begin? And if you insist on applying classical causality, how does this fit into a theory that is clear at least on one thing: classical causality didn't exist until shortly after the big bang.

The universe as we know it is still proceeding from that First Instant's instructions

We have no idea about that first instant. It is further back than we can run the model. All we can say about it is that at best it was nothing we are familiar with.

I actually incorporated some of what you've been saying

That's a sure sign of poor judgment. I never incorporate what I say, as I know what an idiot sounds like when I hear one.

 

[Riverwolf]

But only the Source knows our outcomes

And there's the wrench: it's something that's capable of knowledge.

Now, how do you know that this Source is sentient and thus capable of knowing things?

 

[Sleeppy]

Not in any way we can speak of meaningfully, unless you want to get into some fairly advanced field theories that are speculative at best.



Or not. The standard model is standard not so much because most physicists and cosmologists support it, but because none of the various alternatives have garnered enough support to replace it. But even in the standard model, whatever banged is beyond anything we can know about.



How do you know? If there was a before the big bang, then why wasn't there change? if there wasn't, then how could anything begin? And if you insist on applying classical causality, how does this fit into a theory that is clear at least on one thing: classical causality didn't exist until shortly after the big bang.


We have no idea about that first instant. It is further back than we can run the model. All we can say about it is that at best it was nothing we are familiar with.

That's a sure sign of poor judgment. I never incorporate what I say, as I know what an idiot sounds like when I hear one.

You admit there's a before, but then continue to say 'or not.' I'm not talking about classical, I'm talking causality, period. The change I'm referring to is to our universe. It began expanding. No need to even argue what occurred before. That First Instant still qualifies as the highest God of the Universe we know of. No need to go before that, just know that the Bang is God to everything's existence.

We all have our own idiocies.

 

[Sleeppy]

And there's the wrench: it's something that's capable of knowledge.

Now, how do you know that this Source is sentient and thus capable of knowing things?

It knows it in the same way anything does. Beings house information and energy. They expend and gather energy, where possible, as well.

Einstein predicted time travel, because time is both illusion and reality. Time is one thing. It can be read like a book, in certain instances.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You admit there's a before, but then continue to say 'or not.' I'm not talking about classical,I'm talking causality, period.

Then there is no before, no causality, no anything that you can use according to any model we know of.

The change I'm referring to is to our universe. It began expanding. No need to even argue what occurred before.

There is a need, for multiple reasons. But if there is no need, then you can't say anything about the big bang at all, as there is no cosmology, no physics, no account, nor any scientific perspective that can get us to the big bang, let alone before it.

 

[Riverwolf]

It knows it in the same way anything does. Beings house information and energy. They expend and gather energy, where possible, as well.

There's a difference between information and knowledge.

Just containing information doesn't necessarily indicate the ability to process it.

 

[Sleeppy]

There's a difference between information and knowledge.

Just containing information doesn't necessarily indicate the ability to process it.

What does processing it consist of, in your judgement?

 

[Willamena]

You admit there's a before, but then continue to say 'or not.' I'm not talking about classical, I'm talking causality, period. The change I'm referring to is to our universe. It began expanding. No need to even argue what occurred before. That First Instant still qualifies as the highest God of the Universe we know of. No need to go before that, just know that the Bang is God to everything's existence.

Consider that time is space. That "First" moment is still there, and if you travel far enough fast enough right now, you'd bump into it. Similarly, if you're there at that "First" moment, this moment of you sitting here now reading this post is here.

To say that "there" expands to get "here" isn't quite the case--here, there and expansion are all contained in the universe.

 

[Sleeppy]

Consider that time is space. That "First" moment is still there, and if you travel far enough fast enough right now, you'd bump into it. Similarly, if you're there at that "First" moment, this moment of you sitting here now reading this post is here.

To say that "there" expands to get "here" isn't quite the case--here, there and expansion are all contained in the universe.

I'm aware of this. I'm not seeing our disagreement.

 

[Quintessence]

And I think they have a point. For instance, exactly what is "revelation" besides hearsay from a purported god?

I think that to those who have had experiences communing with god(s) wouldn't regard it like this. This does get into some interesting issues regarding the words of god(s) being channeled through humans that are interesting, though. That's probably beyond the scope of this thread, but I will say I have some issues myself when others claim to be speaking for a particular deity.

But I think I didn't express myself clearly: can you give an actual example of some specific piece of non-empirical evidence that you found compelling? Even better, can you give an example of a specific piece of non-empirical evidence that I (or skeptics generally) don't find compelling but should?

That's not how I approach it; I don't feel that my experiences or forms of evidence should necessarily be compelling to anybody else, whether they identify as theists or non-theists. I work directly with the gods as part of my path, but these are my experiences and I don't expect them to work as evidence for anyone other than myself. I get the sense that many contemporary Pagans operate that way. Many of our paths involve direct communing with various gods, but these experiences are considered personal, not bits of dogma that every other person must accept "or else." We don't care if other people have experienced our gods or not. Not even all Neopagans experience the same gods... it's kind of silly to expect everyone to have the same exact life experiences.

Edit: BTW - I accept logic, but I wouldn't consider it "evidence" itself. IMO, it's more like the processes we use to derive valid inferences from evidence.

That's fair. I was thinking specifically of formal philosophical argumentation, but there are probably some others. The one issue with philosophical argumentation is that somewhere there are always unverifiable premises. But that is true for all fields of human knowledge, I think, so perhaps that isn't as big of a stumbling block as it first appears?

 

[Philomath]

Reading through this thread I still haven't seen any evidence presented.

 

[dgirl1986]

I recognize the lack of evidence, but I'm secure enough in my own beliefs that I don't have an emotional need to justify myself to others.

Exactly, thumbs up man.