Evidence that God is real

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

  1. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,229
    I was under the impression that from the details listed the ark could not have been built let alone survive being launched or survive afloat even with no animal cargo

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,922
    Only if it is integral to its structure or function. Which is probably just as well, if one insists on floating ships or ideas about knowledge.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,922
    Yes but it would still be singular therefore...
    Alex
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,113
    i have a very clear theory however i am not sure i wish to share right now or here as i think it may be a little off topic and derail the thread.
    noting, maybe the nature of what i read in your post is a new thread
    "what possible reason for god?"
    that tends to rattle thiests a tad i note hence part of my reluctance in elaborating.
    and noting JamesR comment on the 1st page about thread jacking or thread killing etc.
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  8. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,922
    Sure, but not any old one.
    "Show me a faultless man and I will show you a fool", and so on ...
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,933
    And yet another of these overt Abrahamic theist postings, complete with a bullshit "if", some ungrammatical and carefully unspecific wordfoggery, and an overall focus on personal disparagement via innuendo.

    Apparently, if the reader does the work of making sense of it (except for the "post hoc" goofy, which would require too much prose to untangle), all this is supposed to suggest, by innuendo and hint and vague handwaving at generalities - without ever saying anything that could be held to reason, in other words - that only trivial or marginal differences separate those other myths from the Biblical Noachian Flood.

    That is of course false (my guess for why it is not stated clearly) - examination of the various myths reveals fundamental differences, such as: not saving any animals, not bringing any women, not building a boat, not raining to cause the Flood, no rainbow, no pissed off deity involved, not happening within hundreds or thousands of years of the same time, not global, doesn't kill everybody else, and so forth. The two myths mentioned specifically - Aztec and Mayan - exhibit some of these differences - both from the Noachian Flood and from each other.

    So flood myths are common? snake myths are common, monster myths are common, talking animal myths are common, magic fruit myths are common, and myths involving large soaring birds or giants or bears or clever canids or very tall trees or women turning into things are common. Lots of cultures have David and Goliath type stories, despised castout making good in the King's service stories, wise man befriended by large predator stories,

    where do you think the writers of the Bible got their material?
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,933
  11. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,922
    If you want to move out beyond attempting to deconstruct peripheral issues, you have to move out beyond attempting to deconstruct peripheral issues. An over active imagination that fuels animosity towards imaginary abrahamic enemies, illustrating yet another PTSD episode triggered by the word "if" or attempting to weigh in as a level 100 grammar nazi will not help you in this regard.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,933
    The bullshit "if", followed by
    personal disparagement (in the form of projection - also typical ).
    No content, no argument, nothing thread relevant.
    The overt Abrahamic theist posts on a science forum.

    The question is: why?
     
  13. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,922
    The predictable PTSD triggered by the word "if", followed by ...

    .... more red herrings.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,933
    It's like having a speed dial - good for Jan's, good for yours, no work at all.
     
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,922
    If I could show you a faultless man I would expect you to show me something more interesting than a fool perhaps a faultless woman.

    Alex
     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,922
    I mist say that I am disappointed in the fact our theist friends have not been able to contribute to this thread in a way that fiited the hopes in the OP.

    Alex
     
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,922
    Well that proves God helped other wise it could not float.
    Alex
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,450
    So, where are we at as far as evidence of God goes, 170-something posts into the thread. Let's see...

    Jan Ardena has blustered on about how he isn't interested in evidence, yada yada yada. As far as actually presenting any goes, there are two things. At one point he appeared to suggest that everything in the world is evidence of God, but he couldn't quite bring himself to commit to that position when asked the question directly. Apart from that, he suggested that the "scriptures" are evidence of God, without providing any particular reason as to why they should be considered as such.

    Meanwhile, Musika has spent his time arguing that to appreciate evidence of God, we all really need to realign our definitions of the term "evidence" to a different "epistemology". If we all just adopt Musika's definition of evidence, then we'll suddenly discover that there's heaps of evidence of God to be had - although what exactly it is he isn't saying, as far as I can tell.

    All in all, I was hoping for something a little more concrete. Instead, what I'm seeing is a lot of defensive hedging around the question, combined with attempts by certain theists to take the thread off topic. How disappointing.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,450
    Jan Ardena:

    The first two things you mention are not evidence, but rather are philosophical arguments. You do understand what evidence is, don't you?

    As for your references to William Craig Lane, it's all very vague. You appear to be saying you agree with some or all of the arguments he puts forward. But he writes a lots of stuff. So, you probably ought to pick at least one or two examples of evidence for God that he puts forward (and that you agree is evidence of God), and present those. Let's make the discussion concrete, rather than you vaguely waving your hands in Lane's direction. Okay?

    It's sounding to me a lot like you haven't really read much of Lane at all, but he just strikes you as somebody you might agree with, so you're placing your faith in him to do the hard lifting that you can't be bothered doing yourself. Is that a fair assessment?

    It's a pity you're not going to lay out any of Lane's evidence here. So, given that, is there any evidence you are going to lay out for us, then, or are you done for this thread?

    I know. Have you got any evidence?

    I think you've tied yourself in a knot again. I invited you to address the issue of "real" when you provide evidence, if you think you need to. That invitation remains open. We can discuss it when and if you decide to present some evidence.

    As is clear from the statement I made (which you quoted in the process of producing this response), I am bothered about presupposing truths. I also wrote quite extensively on my thoughts about the possibility of accessing the Truth, with a capital "T".

    But, again, this talk of "Truth" is just a distraction on your part. If you think you have some True evidence, why don't you just present it? That's what the thread is about.

    Are you willing to change your mind about the reality of God, in principle? (Watch the cartwheels start.)

    I'm not so sure about that, but it's a discussion better suited to the Philosophy forum.

    I must say, it's remarkable in this thread that you, one who is so often demonstrably unable to distinguish subjective from objective Truth, are suddenly an enthusiast for the One Truth.

    Religious is more along the lines of imagining that one has privileged access to the One Truth, I'd say.

    How is this relevant in a thread about evidence?

    Without justified truth, there is no knowledge. Hence my call for evidence.

    I don't understand "Truth Is" any more than I understand "God Is". They appear to me to be empty mantras, devoid of any content.

    In this thread, I'm interested in evidence.

    You seem desperate to find an excuse to wiggle your way out of this thread. Why is that?

    Honestly, I doubt you'd be able to identify it.

    Can I take it you hold the opposite opinion then? That you think an accurate world-model need not include God? Or do you want to explain yourself?

    My ability is unambiguous evidence of God? Interesting. Please elaborate.

    How do you reconcile the idea of God as a separate person with your pan-theism (belief that God is literally everything and everyone)?

    Are you saying that rocks and trees and tubs of butter are all people, too?

    To be fair, you're not offering any concrete alternative.

    I don't recall saying that. Got a link? It would be strange for me to start a thread asking for evidence of a truth if I wasn't really bothered about it, don't you think?

    How is that different to God being a synonym for "everything"?

    Not you. A typical theist would be somebody who follows one of the major religions, for example.

    It seems to me that God either has a natural explanation, or he doesn't. But you appear to be saying the truth of the matter depends somehow on one's perspective.

    The only way that could work, I think, would be for you to artificially expand your definition of "natural" to include all the things normally thought of as supernatural. Is that what you do?

    So pick one or two pieces of evidence that WLC presents, that you understand and agree with, and we'll discuss.

    It's problematic in a number of ways.

    For example, the terms "perfect" and "complete" and "completely perfect" and "perfectly equipped" and "Whole" cry out for definition.

    The second half is not so much definitional as advisory, it appears. And, if I may say so, somewhat obsessed with property matters.

    The scriptures are evidence that God is in every atom? How so?

    More generally, why do you accept them as evidence of God?
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2018
  20. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,229
    I'm surprised at your disappointment

    Somewhat like sending your dog off for driving lessons because your dog can do anything

    When the instructor returns - says the dog can't - ask you for evidence

    is your evidence - I believe (have faith) my dog can drive

    Belief and cousin faith is all theist have

    I believe your faith in theist having evidence to present is at best mild entertainment watching language being mangled

    I don't think I will start a thread requesting any photos of theist in a selfie with god

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,450
    (continued...)

    You didn't answer the question. Are you now saying you do regard subjective religious experience to be evidence of God?

    Indeed.

    It's not about atheism, in this instance - just scientific accuracy. But, like I said, we don't need to get into that on this particular issue. And the reason we don't need to get into it is that I easily picked up the essence of what you were saying! So, no need to make unnecessary accusations of shallowness.

    So it is by reading scriptures that we are to confirm that there are spiritual masters who can transform matter on a minute level. Is that what you're saying?

    Is there any more direct evidence that supports your claim?

    I hadn't heard the term "cymatics" before this. However, it seems to me that it's mostly religious baggage added on to a well-understood physical phenomenon. I've played with Chaldni plates, for example. Lots of fun, but I don't think it requires spiritual mastery.

    Very revealing, Jan.

    If you did care just a bit more about controlled studies, then your opinions on a number of issues might very well be quite different to the ones you currently hold.

    Your not giving a toss is quite consistent with your belief system, I'll give you that much. And to tell you the truth, I can't see your opinion changing any time soon. It could well be this that stops you ever really accessing science properly.

    Your attitude on this has consequences that go far beyond your religious beliefs. I think you either don't realise that, or else you vaguely realise it but consciously choose not to improve yourself.

    It's okay. I understand the likely reason why you have this attitude.

    What did you read that convinced you?

    Like it or not, it's a fact that some of us have more knowledge and/or ability in some areas than other people do. It's pointless pretending that's not the case. I very seldom make the point explicitly, but it's always worth keeping Dunning-Kruger in mind.

    What you're saying is that you're content with the intuitive physics you've developed from your own experience. That's true for most people. Unfortunately, a lot of known physics turns out to be counter-intuitive. It's okay. You'll get by just fine without having to delve into modern science too much. We can't all be experts in everything, and we're not all interested in the same things.

    We were talking about miracles, weren't we? Do you have anything to say about those, on the topic of evidence?

    You just did that, didn't you? Let's go with that for now.

    The reason I closed your thread is clearly posted in that thread. You were spinning your wheels by the end of it, and getting all riled up in the process. It was best to close it.

    Now we're getting somewhere!

    Who invented them?

    What's the evidence that they weren't the invention of man?

    Are we talking all scriptures, or only particular ones? If particular ones, which ones?
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2018
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,450
    Musika:

    I don't understand.

    Are you saying that we can access evidence that is beyond the "standard veil of perception"? What does that mean, in practice? That we can access evidence using some other sense than the standard ones of sight, hearing, touch, etc.?

    Are you also saying that the only evidence of God is this "behind the veil" evidence, or is there also some evidence that is accessible by the usual methods?

    If a special method is needed to access the evidence, can you explain what it is and how it works?
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,450
    More...

    This is so bizarre, I have to comment.

    Jan appears to be questioning the idea that people can believe things that aren't true. Jan is saying that the belief-that-people-sometimes-believe-false-things is itself a peculiarly atheistic one.

    For the sake of argument, let's assume that people have a propensity to believe that the world is flat, rather than round. Put another way, it is natural for people to believe that the world is flat. Jan would have it, then, that the idea that the world might not be flat (contrary to the "natural" belief that people have) is an atheist idea - a symptom of an atheistic way of thinking about the world.

    All I can do at this point is shake my head and say: if realising that people can make mistakes (naturally) is something only atheists are capable of, then I'm very happy I'm an atheist. What it must be like to live under the illusion that whatever somebody believes is true is a fact!

    Jan's opinion that "belief in God is natural" is only relevant for this thread if somehow holding a belief "naturally" means that the belief itself must be correct.

    So my question to Jan is: do you really believe people can't be mistaken as to the facts when they believe stuff? Or is this a pretence or distraction you're trying to create?
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2018

Share This Page