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

[Ouroboros]

My point is, what evidence could God ever possibly provide to 'prove' He exists and more to the point, what evidence will people accept as being proof of God?

Someone once said to me 'If Jesus appeared today, people would just call him crazy and lock him up in a lunatic asylum'.

I've heard that one before, and I'm not so sure about that. There are many crackpot armchair philosophers with "love" messages and many followers. If Jesus actually did come in our time, he would supposedly do miracles of a kind that we couldn't explain (like he supposedly did in the stories). Think Superman. It's easy to call someone crazy if he/she claims miracles but they're not happening, but it's not so easy to call someone crazy if he/she is doing miracles in front of your eyes. I'm certain that Jesus (if he existed) could be on Earth all the time, no death needed or sitting in Heaven, and do miracles constantly for everyone to see. And if someone argues that he's just doing tricks, he can easy move the Moon out of the sky and back again, or whatever is needed to impress the doubters. I don't doubt that I exist. Neither do the Christians. So there are things in life that can be persistent enough to convince us against any doubt, and if Jesus is the creator, he could too. He would know what every single person needed to see so he/she could believe. He's all powerful and all knowing.

So, I can readily admit that the existence of God cannot be proven because God is beyond 'proof' of any kind.

Agree.

And to me, Reality, Universe, Nature (as proper nouns just like God), are all God to me. No need to prove the very same Nature that science is constantly proving. The evidence is in the pudding. Now, what do we want to call a pudding is a different question.

It's like you guys saying to me...'prove you are a female online'....now, without going into pornography, there's no way I can do that, so others will just have to take my word for it....despite Internet rule #30.

I think it's more like this: "Prove to me that you like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate ice cream." It's not about proof, but about what you are and think. I see God and religion more as a painting now. You paint your own painting of God. It's yours. If you copied it from someone else and didn't do anything to change it, then it's his or hers, not really yours. When you paint your own God and how you see the world, it's not about proving that your painting is your painting, because it's obvious. Your painting will never, and can never be a perfectly representative objective art of the real thing. We can't paint a perfect painting. Nature looks like nature, and painting still are only copies. And many times, these copies/paintings tell something more than what it originally represented. They convey emotions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, hopes for future, disappointments, motion, and more. The painting is yours.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not just yet, but soon...soon my friend.

My point is, what evidence could God ever possibly provide to 'prove' He exists and more to the point, what evidence will people accept as being proof of God?

Someone once said to me 'If Jesus appeared today, people would just call him crazy and lock him up in a lunatic asylum'.

How does one know God doesn't exist? but alas, the 'burden of proof' rests with us Theists.

I cannot prove God exists, I just know He does and it's a 'knowing' beyond knowing.

That would seem very illogical to the scientific mind that states 'without proof, it doesn't exist'.

Existence in any form, relates to the physical world and what our senses can process...God totally by-passes this system.

So, I can readily admit that the existence of God cannot be proven because God is beyond 'proof' of any kind.

It's like you guys saying to me...'prove you are a female online'....now, without going into pornography, there's no way I can do that, so others will just have to take my word for it....despite Internet rule #30.

Now, the thread can end....maybe. lol

The difference is this. I don't believe god "doesn't" exist. I also at the same time don't believe he "does" exist. I don't believe or disbelieve. When it comes to more specific religions I can get more and more sure in specific instances that its not true but overall as a god concept I don't know if he exists or not. I don't have a compelling reason to believe in god.

I don't require a compelling reason to withhold belief in god. That is the logical default position.

I could get into differences between believing you when you say your a girl and with god. For one I know for a fact that women exist. I know they have more or less equal access to the internet as men. So it is already possible and likely that you are a female. I also don't have any vested interest in the subject so it becomes a moot point anyway. But there is evidence that you could be a girl. However I don't "know for a fact" that there are gods and that they exist elsewhere in other universes or whatever and neither do I have any statistical knowledge of if god exists.

There is no 50%/50% chance god exists. Either it does or it doesn't.

 

[Quiddity]

Mostly because the word evidence itself is often misunderstood. It's probably used synonymous with proof.

 

[adi2d]

Mostly because the word evidence itself is often misunderstood. It's probably used synonymous with proof.

Maybe you could post some of the evidence(not proof) for God it would be a refreshing change

 

[Quiddity]

Maybe you could post some of the evidence(not proof) for God it would be a refreshing change

Maybe I could.........but I doubt it. The very strong arguments for the existence for God are a bit abstract and philosophical. I'm not even sure I'd do them justice myself. But really, most people don't come to believe through such ways.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

My point is, what evidence could God ever possibly provide to 'prove' He exists and more to the point, what evidence will people accept as being proof of God?

If, e.g. the interventions by God in the world described in the Bible had actually occurred, this would entail leaving some worldly evidence behind; evidence that does not exist. The things that are often claimed of God entail certain evidences- they just happen to not exist, which of course indicates that no god ever did those things (including the Christian one).

How does one know God doesn't exist?

Know? Depends how you define knowledge. But one can quite rationally believe (perhaps even know) that God does not exist because the hypothesis "God does not exist" is consistent with all the available data, whereas "God exists" is not.

I cannot prove God exists, I just know He does and it's a 'knowing' beyond knowing.

That would seem very illogical to the scientific mind

Not just the scientific mind, but any mind that understands the English language- if you do not have either proof, or at least sufficient evidence, for your belief that God exists, then you do not know.

Existence in any form, relates to the physical world and what our senses can process...God totally by-passes this system.

If God exists in a manner unlike anything else which exists, this means that logically, God does not "exist".

So, I can readily admit that the existence of God cannot be proven because God is beyond 'proof' of any kind.

"Proof", if by that one means logical certainty, is a false standard. We don't require proof of, say, my claim that I know how to get to TGI Fridays; sufficient evidence proportional to the type of claim in question is what we're looking for. But, as noted above, there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of God, in fact, there is an absence of necessary evidence, and also sufficient evidence for the non-existence of God. This means that the matter is relatively open-and-shut.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe I could.........but I doubt it. The very strong arguments for the existence for God are a bit abstract and philosophical. I'm not even sure I'd do them justice myself. But really, most people don't come to believe through such ways.

What are "the very strong arguments for God"?

I've yet to see a philosophical argument for God that didn't rely on at least one logical fallacy.

I've also yet to see one that would actually work to establish God even if its arguments were sound; typically, they tend to pick one characteristic that's normally attributed to God, argue that a being with this attribute must exist, and then wrap it up with "... and we call this 'God'", completely ignoring the question of whether anything else could possess the characteristic in question.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Maybe I could.........but I doubt it. The very strong arguments for the existence for God are a bit abstract and philosophical. I'm not even sure I'd do them justice myself. But really, most people don't come to believe through such ways.

What are "the very strong arguments for God"?

I've yet to see a philosophical argument for God that didn't rely on at least one logical fallacy.

I've also yet to see one that would actually work to establish God even if its arguments were sound; typically, they tend to pick one characteristic that's normally attributed to God, argue that a being with this attribute must exist, and then wrap it up with "... and we call this 'God'", completely ignoring the question of whether anything else could possess the characteristic in question.

Not necessarily a fallacy- many of them are simply question-begging; they assume the conclusion. If Quiddity is thinking of the causal/cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, the transcendental argument, or the teleological argument/argument from design, she/he is quite mistaken; these arguments are anything but strong, as has been demonstrated in the literature for centuries!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not necessarily a fallacy- many of them are simply question-begging; they assume the conclusion. If Quiddity is thinking of the causal/cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, the transcendental argument, or the teleological argument/argument from design, she/he is quite mistaken; these arguments are anything but strong, as has been demonstrated in the literature for centuries!

Begging the question is a logical fallacy itself, but I really did mean what I said: while which fallacy is being employed varies a bit from argument to argument, I haven't found one yet that's free of them. The cosmological argument, for instance, relies on special pleading.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Begging the question is a logical fallacy itself, but I really did mean what I said: while which fallacy is being employed varies a bit from argument to argument, I haven't found one yet that's free of them. The cosmological argument, for instance, relies on special pleading.

Well, the issue is slightly more complicated than that; begging the question is considered a fallacy not because it is an invalid form of reasoning (indeed, a question-begging argument is generally valid, for instance "A, therefore A" is valid) but because it is deceptive. All deductively valid arguments could be said to commit petitio principii, in a certain sense- else the conclusion wouldn't follow, and the argument would have to be invalid.

In any case, most of the typical arguments for the existence of God commit some fallacy or other on most constructions, and often more than one, but all deductive arguments for the existence of God are, without exception, either invalid or question-begging, regardless of what other fallacies are committed (for instance, the fallacy of composition on Craig's formulation of the causal argument, seeing as it requires that infer something about a collection- the universe- from members of that collection- things in the universe). The teleological argument, on the other hand, is an inductive argument, so it is necessarily invalid. It does not, however, commit any particular fallacies on its most charitable reconstruction- it simply is a very weak inductive argument, in that it rests on a weak analogy, and thus its conclusion is improbable.

But yeah, the moral of the story is the same; these are not strong arguments at all.

 

[Quiddity]

What are "the very strong arguments for God"?

I've yet to see a philosophical argument for God that didn't rely on at least one logical fallacy.

I've also yet to see one that would actually work to establish God even if its arguments were sound; typically, they tend to pick one characteristic that's normally attributed to God, argue that a being with this attribute must exist, and then wrap it up with "... and we call this 'God'", completely ignoring the question of whether anything else could possess the characteristic in question.

There is a good chance you may not yet understand them. That doesn't mean you'd agree with them, but I'm doubtful you get them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a good chance you may not yet understand them. That doesn't mean you'd agree with them, but I'm doubtful you get them.

Again: which ones?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There is a good chance you may not yet understand them. That doesn't mean you'd agree with them, but I'm doubtful you get them.

I can't speak for 9-10ths Penguin, but I can assure you, I understand them as well as anyone- my degree is in the philosophy of religion- and the better you understand them, the less doubt there is that they are unsound, bad arguments. In fact, that you've failed to recognize how very thin they are suggests that its quite likely that you are the one who has not understood them very well.

 

[ladybug77]

There is evidence. In math and science and even language. With history too! Link them al together, then tie in all the evidence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There is evidence. In math and science and even language. With history too! Link them al together, then tie in all the evidence.

Can you present it?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Can you present it?

Well, there was this-

God says he is the alpha and omega.
Take the letters of '0ne'
The '0' is always '1' maybe the 'n' = never 'e' = ending ???

God is Hydrogen. God is YHMH. God is One??
Do these relate??

1(+-)=infinity

^^^thats the equation for everything.

Waters freezing point is 0.0
If the decimal is ACTUALLY ....ABSOLUTE 1.
and the '0' is a placeholder for '1'

Then look:

0.0

One hydrogen is the decimal.
One '0' is one oxygen.

Science and math are friends buddy. And zero...is ABSOLUTE ONE. In actuality. Binary code anyone??

Nothing equals zero.

50×0 is not even solvable without knowing the value of zero.

... Does that count?

 

[adi2d]

Can you present it?

I'm not a betting man usually but after almost 1000 posts of nonsense and bs I don't think you'll get much evidence

 

[adi2d]

Well, there was this-



... Does that count?

Thanks that was a perfect example of the baffle them with bs type of post so common on this thread

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, there was this-



... Does that count?

lol

I'm not a betting man usually but after almost 1000 posts of nonsense and bs I don't think you'll get much evidence

On rare occasions you can get people to have an "ah ha!" moment with such things. Not commonly but enough so that I continue to press the issue.

 

[ladybug77]

lol



On rare occasions you can get people to have an "ah ha!" moment with such things. Not commonly but enough so that I continue to press the issue.

There is evidence of God if you remove the concept of zero as a number. I would need to present a book that ties it all in. That i have either written before, or have not written yet. Its working backwards to the beginning...and from the beginning to the end. You would not end up with zero. You would not conclude nothing. You would understand absolute one.

Which came first? Chicken or egg??

Niether! One seed made both.