Evidence that God is real

[Capracus]

That would put God in the business of deception and swindle and self-contradiction and venal bs in the service of despotism.

And that would represent the true nature of God as derived from an epistemological alternative that allows God to be defined solely on the basis of unbounded imaginatrion. IOW, God gets to be what ever we want it to be.

By that token, God would have the same status as a universal optical illusion - the checkerboard illusion, say. In the case of reality as observed, it isn't everyone - so God's genetic status would compare more directly to an environmentally mediated genetic propensity or vulnerability.

You'd be hard pressed to find a person dating all the way back to Adam that hasn't entertained some conception of God. That's how ubiquitous the specter of God is in our cultural DNA.

 

[Write4U]

You'd be hard pressed to find a person dating all the way back to Adam that hasn't entertained some conception of God. That's how ubiquitous the specter of God is in our cultural DNA

I agree, but that does not prove the factual existence of a god. The only thing we know is that we are little gods with knowledge only of our own little universes generated by our brains, and not immortal or omnipotent to the point of not needing to answer to Natural universal mathematical constants.

Human life span is what 75? Turtles live longer than that. Turtles have a different biological pattern from humans which is more durable for certain mathematically emergent reasons. Trees can live for thousands of years. They have developed a very sturdy and resilient set of patterns.

 

[Musika]

Two sincere parties? The issue is between God and all of humanity. If such a being was evident, we wouldn’t be treating the condition of its absence as the joke it appears to be.

Interesting.
So joking about God is no longer optional for parts of humanity in your new world order.
Are you ready to give up your gig in material/conditional life?

 

[Baldeee]

If God did provide such information, why wouldn't you expect it to take the form of testimony by saintly persons (or scripture,) ?

The question is not how God would or wouldn't provide such information, but whether God did provide such information.

Just because I have a pizza on my plate doesn't mean it was delivered by Bob.
Yes, if Bob was to deliver a pizza, then it would look just like the one on my table.
But the existence of the pizza on my desk is no support one way or the other for Bob having delivered it.

To think the pizza being on my plate supports Bob having delivered it is an invalid case of affirming the consequent.

 

[Musika]

The question is not how God would or wouldn't provide such information, but whether God did provide such information.

Just because I have a pizza on my plate doesn't mean it was delivered by Bob.
Yes, if Bob was to deliver a pizza, then it would look just like the one on my table.
But the existence of the pizza on my desk is no support one way or the other for Bob having delivered it.

To think the pizza being on my plate supports Bob having delivered it is an invalid case of affirming the consequent.

Then you would probably, if you were interested in making a start, look at the relationship between pizza, pizza delivery, and Bob.
If not, then hey, life (and pizza) goes on (at least for a while).

 

[Baldeee]

Still, I think space should be endless in any which way it can go. It can't expand if space occupies everywhere already.

There are a number of things to consider here...
First: "everywhere" is in relation to space.
There is no meaningful "everywhere" if not part of some space.

Second: it is possible to have multiple infinities.
I.e. Inifinity does not imply everything.
If there is a hotel of infinite size then there an infinite odd-numbered rooms and an infinite even-numbered rooms.
The odd numbered rooms take up an infinite space yet only half of the hotel.
Etc.

 

[Baldeee]

Then you would probably, if you were interested in making a start, look at the relationship between pizza, pizza delivery, and Bob.
If not, then hey, life (and pizza) goes on (at least for a while).

Sure.
But if all I intend to do is define that which ultimately resulted in my pizza being on my plate as "delivered by Bob" then I am simply playing with words and adding nothing new to one's knowledge other than a definition.
And any attempt at evidence to the reality of "delivered by Bob" is simply circular.

 

[Musika]

Sure.
But if all I intend to do is define that which ultimately resulted in my pizza being on my plate as "delivered by Bob" then I am simply playing with words and adding nothing new to one's knowledge other than a definition.
And any attempt at evidence to the reality of "delivered by Bob" is simply circular.

If you can't/haven't/won't define relationships between pizza, pizza delivery and Bob, evidence is simply dead in its tracks. I am simply proposing a framework for beginning. If that is fudged, one is beyond the very framework of having the capacity to ask q's, much less put it all in some hierarchical or conclusive framework

 

[Capracus]

Interesting.
So joking about God is no longer optional for parts of humanity in your new world order.
Are you ready to give up your gig in material/conditional life?

Unfounded, ridiculous proclamations about God will be comedic fodder until the last adherents of such nonsense realize the joke was on them.

 

[Musika]

Unfounded, ridiculous proclamations about God will be comedic fodder until the last adherents of such nonsense realize the joke was on them.

If you sincerely believe that, why do you offer unfounded, ridiculous proclamations about God?

 

[Baldeee]

If you can't/haven't/won't define relationships between pizza, pizza delivery and Bob, evidence is simply dead in its tracks.

But I have defined the relationship: pizza on my plate is delivered by Bob.
There is pizza on my plate.
Thus it was delivered by Bob.
The pizza is evidence of this relationship holding true.

I am simply proposing a framework for beginning. If that is fudged, one is beyond the very framework of having the capacity to ask q's, much less put it all in some hierarchical or conclusive framework

Rather you're simply proposing that I look on my plate for signs of pizza.
After all, if Bob did deliver my pizza, wouldn't I expect to see it on my plate?

 

[Musika]

But I have defined the relationship: pizza on my plate is delivered by Bob.
There is pizza on my plate.
Thus it was delivered by Bob.
The pizza is evidence of this relationship holding true.
Rather you're simply proposing that I look on my plate for signs of pizza.
After all, if Bob did deliver my pizza, wouldn't I expect to see it on my plate?

If you define the relationship between things, then you have the means (or ar least the possibility of) to go forward.

 

[James R]

Sure.
But if all I intend to do is define that which ultimately resulted in my pizza being on my plate as "delivered by Bob" then I am simply playing with words and adding nothing new to one's knowledge other than a definition.
And any attempt at evidence to the reality of "delivered by Bob" is simply circular.

Yes. (And, good example, by the way!) Although I'm essentially repeating your point, I'd like to expand just a little.

Compare:

1. Bob delivers pizza to my table IMPLIES there is pizza on my table. Or: IF Bob delivers pizza to my table THEN there is pizza on my table.

and

2. Bob delivers pizza to my table IS EQUIVALENT TO there is pizza on my table. Or: Bob delivers pizza to my table IF AND ONLY IF there is pizza on my table.

Case 1 is deductive logic. If Bob has delivered the pizza, then I can conclude I have pizza. But don't be tempted to reverse this! If I have a pizza, it does not necessarily follow that Bob delivered it. After all, Alice also delivers pizzas. If you attempt to deduce from the pizza the fact of Bob, you're affirming the consequent, which is a logical fallacy.

In Case 2, we simply have two statements with the same logical content. Given (2), we could say that, by definition, pizza and Bob's delivery go together. You can't have one without the other. But notice that causation is essentially gone, now. If there's Bob, there's pizza; if there's pizza, there's Bob. Maybe Bob causes pizza. Maybe pizza causes Bob. Maybe it's better to just regard them as the same thing, since they always go together.

But then, are we just playing with words? If Bob is nothing but pizza, and pizza is nothing but Bob, then we just have two words for the same thing. You can't have one without the other.

Consider the argument that everything is evidence of God. As before, the possibilities are:
1. IF God creates everything THEN everything exists.
2. God creates everything IF AND ONLY IF everything exists.

As before, (1) cannot be used to infer God from the existence of universe (everything). It can only go the other way: we can infer the universe if we have already established God. That is, if we try to use the universe as evidence of God, with the logical implication (1), we're making an error of logic by affirming the consequent.

On the other hand, if we go with (2), then we're essentially just renaming "the universe" with the label "God". God and the universe are indistinguishable if our argument is (2).

One obvious problem with (2), of course, is that religions typically make a distinction between God and the universe. That is, self-described theists do not identify God with "everything".

It is worth pointing out that both Musika and Jan Ardena have explicitly denied that God and "everything" are one and the same.

Musika has argued for God as the "enabler" of everything, which is more like argument (1) than argument (2). But then Musika cannot appeal to the existence of "everything", along with (1), to prove the existence of God. That would be a logical error.

Jan Ardena, on the other hand, has argued that "God is not a thing". "Everything" is the collection of all "things", and Jan has explicitly and repeatedly said that God stands apart from this collection. So, while Jan's argument often drifts around and looks a lot like (2), he isn't consistent in that position. Moreover, even if we did have such consistency from Jan, (2) does nothing to establish God as the "supreme being" of Jan's religion. Jan appears at times to agree with (1). Maybe he has a similar position to Musika on that; it's hard to tell since Jan isn't very clear most of the time. But if that is the case, then he is in no better logical position than Musika to argue backwards from the universe to God.

But maybe I'm not being entirely fair to Jan. Jan's main assertion about God is "God Is". That is, God just exists, by assertion, and Jan's done. This, of course, is not an argument for God's existence. I think that because Jan's God exists only by assertion, this explains both why Jan cannot provide any evidence for his God, and also why he feels that it is unnecessary to do so. For Jan, God is an unquestionable premise that requires no proof. Thus, niceties like logic and rational argument are not necessary, for him.

 

[Capracus]

If you sincerely believe that, why do you offer unfounded, ridiculous proclamations about God?

Which ones?

 

[iceaura]

You'd be hard pressed to find a person dating all the way back to Adam that hasn't entertained some conception of God.

Only if in your journey you continually redefine "conception of God" to include whatever spiritual beliefs and comprehensions you find someone entertains.
You will rapidly run out of people who have a conception notably similar to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for example.
The Tao has almost nothing in common and much in conflict with that conception of God, likewise the spiritual beliefs of many animists - the most likely spiritual conceptions and beliefs of a majority of the planet's people until fairly recently.

The normal response, one that at least preserves a coherent and definable meaning for the word "God" as well as the word "conception", is to recognize that many if not most human beings have spiritual understandings and conceptions that differ substantially from anything a reasonable person would label a "God".

And file that next to the observation that a genetically governed environmentally mediated propensity to see or believe or perceive or whatever in some particular way has almost nothing to do with real existence. The clouds do not actually have faces.

 

[Baldeee]

If you define the relationship between things, then you have the means (or ar least the possibility of) to go forward.

Sure.
But that won't stop any evidence you present being circular.
I see pizza on my plate.
This is evidence of Bob having delivered my pizza.
How do I know?
Well, because I defined Bob as that which results in pizza being on my plate.

And Bob also becomes a rather meaningless concept with regard knowing anything (other than how Bob is defined).

 

[Musika]

Musika:


Are you essentially telling me that you can't present any evidence for God because to do so would require that you define evidence in such a way that atheists would consider radical?

Its not so much the evidence but the definitions. Because atheists have a strong tendency to define evidence and God in a particular fashion, they inevitable demand the answers in a language that the problem can't answer. Kind of like discussing 3d problems in the exclusive language of 2d.

Are you essentially telling me that God is so fundamentally different from something like the Sun that the usual notions of evidence make no sense when it comes to discussing God?

Yes

But you and Jan have both told us all, previously, that God is necessary for reality. Without God there would be nothing, you said.

Are you now back-peddling on that because you think that there's no way you can know what is or isn't necessary for reality, after all?

If so, then it could just as well be the case that God is not necessary for reality. Either way, you can't know, by your own admission. Right?

You proposed a method to examine the presence of a subject by contemplating its absence. In this case, this method is not valid, because it becomes difficult to explain how one proposes to remove reality from reality for the purposes of studying reality. Now, if we were talking about the sun, however....

Does omni-consciousness rate big in the theist dept? Or are you now willing to retract your previous claim that you know that God is necessary for reality?

I am just talking about what is required for methods you advocate for knowing God. If these methods arrive at problems, you own them.

Are you essentially telling me that you can't establish a cause-effect relationship between God and the universe (say), then? On what basis do you then accept the claim that God caused the universe?

In short, upon God revealing it. Its kind of like trying to determine intricate details on the life of an artist simply by observing a painting in the museum. You could perhaps arrive at some general conclusions, but to get detailed info, you have to go through the channels of history, which is basically personal testimony. There is simply no alternative to this.

Are you essentially telling me that the vast majority of theists have to rely on the say-so of other "expert" theists in order to know whether God is real? I was under the impression that theists thought they had more direct access to that knowledge.

Initially, yes.
That said, it is a gradual process. Arriving at the stage of directly perceiving God is the final stage, not the introductory one (at least as far as surmounting conditioned life is concerned).

Speaking for yourself, do you accept that God is real due to the testimony of religious authorities, or for some other reason?

In my case, its more a case of applying the testimony of religious authorities.

Are you essentially telling me that there is no empirical evidence for God, here?

If there isn't, that's okay. The parameters of this conversation, as set in the opening post, can go beyond empiricism.

Do you know of any non-empirical evidence for God, then?

We have been over this subject before in other conversations (aka, the Andaman islanders, etc). Its not so much about being beyond empiricism, but being beyond the individual or cooperative empirical efforts of a specific population.

 

[Musika]

(continued...)


Do you have any evidence for God that is in line with your preferred definition of God? Never mind what my definition might be. Let's go with yours for now and see how far we get.

As previously discussed with the Andaman islanders etc.

I'm interested to see if you can come up with anything concrete, because it seems to me that so far all you've done is make excuses as to why you can't or won't present evidence.

Concrete means what?

 

[Musika]

Sure.
But that won't stop any evidence you present being circular.
I see pizza on my plate.
This is evidence of Bob having delivered my pizza.
How do I know?
Well, because I defined Bob as that which results in pizza being on my plate.

And Bob also becomes a rather meaningless concept with regard knowing anything (other than how Bob is defined).

If you define Bob in relation to the pizza, you have a means to go forth. If you haven't/ can't/ won't, then you don't.

 

[Musika]

Which ones?

The one as per your new world order with no jokes allowed.