Evidence that God is real

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Aug 31, 2018.

  1. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Right. The same ontological position occupied by leprechauns and unicorns. In other word, it's nonsense.
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    The evidence is for everyone, but Faith itself is subjective.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Hate is a literal anti-christ in my religion. God is to the devil as LOVE is to Hate
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Which is precisely what I posted

    But putting on my pedantic hat here is the problem

    Love and hate do not exist ie they have no physicality

    They are names given to PROCESSES

    Soooo if god is love he is non existent

    Twist it round and religion says god is real (with a physical presence)

    Please provide a PHYSICAL sample of love, or hate I'm not fussy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  8. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Not even remotely.
  9. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    The subjective nature, manifest as a spontaneous thought ("I, believe").
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member


    I believe
    is not evidence

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    There may be evidence of something for me which I cannot show others but yes, belief is not even evidence for the self. Evidence or something perceived as evidence precedes belief. Once there is belief, something can be perceived as further evidence but something causes the belief.

  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    At the low end of the spectrum I would put it as - exposure

    Middle range - teaching, indoctrination

    Upper range - brain washing

    Lower end - bias

    Upper end - reinforce feedback

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    I've already told you what I think is good evidence, things like the cosmological, and teleological argument, or most things by William Craig Lane. I don't base my theism on them, but they are basically good in my opinion. I'm not a scientist, or philosopher, so I'm not going to lay them out. If you want to bring it to the discussion I will see what I can do.

    You wish.

    I believes the world is an effect of God.

    That seems like adding a version of reality to fit the evidence. Is that what you do?

    So you're not bothered about truth?
    It figures.

    I think you're wrong.

    Same here.

    But there is a truth. There is an age for the universe which is absolutely correct, irrespective of what any scientist thinks or knows.

    Sounds religious to me.
    Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    It is still presupposes truth. Without truth, there is no knowledge.

    I disagree.

    What is ''God language''?
    Don't you understand what is meant by ''Truth Is''?

    But you're not interested in truth.
    A discussion with you is ultimately pointless.

    I'm not content with that.

    It's your God too. No amount of reject or denial is going to change that.

    I don't think you're thinking scientifically.

    I've never said that.
    Then again you're not interested in truth, and can therefore say anything you like, and believe it to be valid.

    For a start your ability.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    Are persons part of reality?

    It's your God too.

    You see what you want to see.
    You already admit you're not really bothered about truth.

    ''Everything'' is merely an emanation of God.

    I'm a theist, so it does.
    What is a typical theist?
    And ''supernatural'' is a perspective. Ours!

    Lot's of stuff. But we'll go with WLC, as he lays it out nice.

    The Personality of Godhead[God] is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
    Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong

    How about this, for starters.

    Yes. The scriptures.
    I accept them as evidence as God, also.

  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You don't know what they are, you don't use them yourself, but you think for some reason they are "basically good" and "evidence".
    What reason would that be?

    In point of fact most of that stuff isn't evidence at all, but invalid and unsound argument. What potential evidence is in there is largely irrelevant even to the unsound arguments presented.
    None of that is evidence. Some of that is unfounded assertion - claims made without evidence. Some of it is unsound argument. Some of it is simply gibberish - the Personality of Godhead is perfect?. But the takehome lesson is that overt Abrahamic theists who post this stuff on science forums do not know the differences between evidence, assertions, and arguments.

    That is a handicap, when posting on a science forum. It may be explanatory.
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    JamesR, sorry if I'm butting in... I've ignored his comments/responses aimed more personally at you, and some of the more trite responses, to focus on what I see as more pertinent to the op...

    As pointed out, these are not evidence but arguments that start from certain premises to form conclusions. One can question the validity of those arguments, and indeed the soundness of them, but they are not in and of themselves evidence. Evidence might be that which convinces you that valid arguments are sound, though. I.e. evidence would be in support of accepting the premises as true.
    Okay, so you're saying that the world is evidence of God, right? on what basis do you believe that?
    So, how do you know the truth of what you otherwise merely claim to know? How do you know that what you claim as knowledge is actually the truth, and thus actual knowledge rather than just a claim? Faith?
    IF God is then you're absolutely right. But I don't know that God is. You claim to know, but you're unable to explain how you know that your claim is of actual knowledge rather than just belief on your part. And, in keeping with the thread, you're not too good at explaining what you consider evidence to be to support your claim of knowledge in this regard.
    So do you consider "everything" to be evidence of God?
    Those are claims by him, nothing more. They may even be premises to an argument, or conclusions from another, but they are not evidence. At least not in the category of what could be considered evidence. And no, it's not that I'm simply rejecting it as evidence for God, I am saying that it is not correct to call it evidence at all. It is a category error.
    Of course, it might be that you are accepting his overall claim that God exists as evidence... in the "well, he said it so I believe it" approach? Appeal to authority. Certainly not evidence.
    Okay. On what basis do you accept them? I.e. What is it about the scriptures that suggests to you they are evidence of God? Is "Lord of the Rings" evidence of orcs and elves, for example?
  16. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    One good turn deserves another

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    How do you know the truth of what you otherwise merely claim to know?
    Perhaps you could illumine the epistemological path through the "veil of perception" that surrounds the standard problems of our sensory input vs our estimations of the outside world (extra brownie points for avoiding "faith").
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    About the world - we don't. We only know within reason, beyond a reasonable doubt. In math there is truth - but that is arranged by the word "if", and is not part of the world.
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    And there was me expecting you to quip that there was then nothing left to respond to.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I generally don't claim to know anything, at least not absolutely. A few mathematical notions, and matters of definition, or logic, perhaps. But not much else. I have mild confidence in some things, driven by experience, though. But at best these experiences can merely confirm an understanding/model of reality, not necessarily reality itself. There are some subjective notions that I can claim knowledge of but only on the grounds that I am also the sole arbiter of the "truth" of the matter. As soon as the arbiter of "truth" is in part external, knowledge slips from absolute into degrees of confidence. And degrees of confidence allow for being wrong, for it not being as thought.
    Or "truth" takes on a more localised application, such as in a shared subjectivity, where "knowledge" is thus similarly confined, as removed from actual knowledge as far as the collective subjective "truth" is from anything objective.

    See, no mention of "faith". Doh!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Really? You're taking lesson from Alex now?

    Bully for them.

    I believe that explicitly atheist scientists would bother with such shallowness, but a good scientist (be he/she atheist, or theist) would easily pick up the essence of what I'm saying.

    By people who read scriptures.

    I think cymatics is good evidence of how sound can generate form, and different frequencies can change forms.
    Real prayer isn't just about desire, it is about sound vibration, which is why spiritual masters like Jesus teach conditioned souls how to pray.

    I don't give a toss about controlled studies.
    They are done for the pleasure of people who do not accept or believe in God.

    Because I can read.

    Fail! You are being arrogant.
    You may understand the detail more, but we all have to, by necessity understand the laws of physics, which are necessary for us to understand. Outside of that, I could care less.

    Arrogance doesn't cut it James. Humility is the only game in town.

    Ask Yazata. He brought it up.

    Define God, James.

    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

    Counter them if you think they are invalid, and or unsound.

    Who says I don't know what they are?
    I use them all the time, whenever I define, describe, or talk about God, because that is part of what God is.
    If I talk about human beings, I automatically invoke everything incorporates a human being.
    It would be pointless for me to define what a human is in order to talk about them.

    They are basically good because they are sound and valid.

    But if you think otherwise, state it.

  21. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Can I pray for miracles to happen and if they don't happen it's because I prayed incorrectly?
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Did you not read the article put forward in my thread which James closed down for no good reason?

    Can't you read?

    So what category would that be?

    For me, scriptures corroborates to the natural theism (unnecessarily defunct thread by James) we all hold, if we accept even the possibility of God (lying about accepting the possibility does not count).
    Of course from your perspective it is entirely subjective, but I'm okay with that, and as such will use that.

    I don't know. Is it?

  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Why do you want miracles to happen?


Share This Page