Jan Ardena:
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not in the least bit interested in any bid to "satisfy atheists here".
I thought you might be interested in talking about the evidence that your God exists. If that's not the case, you don't have to participate in the thread.
The title of the thread makes no sense from a theistic perspective.
Why? Because there isn't any?
The atheist chooses to accept that what is "real" is to be accessed by any one who merely has sense perception. Bricks are real because we can see, and touch them. God is not real if God cannot be seen or touched.
Evidence can be indirect. For example, see kx000's post above. He seems to be saying that God must be real because love exists. The assumption, of course, is that love couldn't exist without God.
To take a scientific example, I believe that gravity exists, even though I can't see it or touch it. I believe it exists because its effects are visible in the world.
The real question that should be addressed here is what is meant by "real" in the context of the opening post.
If you think that's important, you can address that question when you provide your evidence.
As for evidences for God. They are real, whether you accept them or not.
Fine. Whatever. All I ask is that you present these evidences you say are there. Are you going to, or not?
The quest for evidence, presupposes truth, otherwise the pursuit of evidence would be an endless, pointless pursuit.
You are very much mistaken there. In science, for example, it is very common to look for evidence that either supports or tends to refute a hypothesis, while keeping an open mind. Presupposing truth strikes me as a more religious way of thinking.
The common usage of the term true, is a narrow one. It claims truth is that which is in accordance with fact or reality. So if something is considered factual, then it is the truth. But what if those facts are later proven to be false? That would mean what we thought was truth, was false. But through all of these speculations, truth just is.
I think you're tying yourself up in knots before it becomes necessary.
In science, again, conclusions are always provisional. I consider it a fact that gravity exists, but I'm willing to change my mind, in principle. Usually, that doesn't involve tossing the whole idea away and starting from scratch, although sometimes it does. For example, suppose good evidence were to come to light that gravity obeys an inverse power law that goes as the distance to the -1.99th power, instead of the usual -2 power? Then I'd be happy to revise my current belief.
Is the universe 14 billion years old? Did Dinosaurs become extinct 65 million years ago? Do we actually know? Enough to say it is the truth?
The age of the universe is a good example of a figure that has been revised many times, and in fact is still only approximately known. Gradually we are narrowing it down. We are confident we know the age within certain limits. That kind of thing is quite normal in science.
The dinosaurs are an example of the perils of making statements that are too broad. In one sense, the dinosaurs are still with us today - we call them
birds. But if we want to get more specific (no pun intended), we could list a whole bunch of dinosaur species that were very probably wiped out 65 million years ago.
Or are we satisfied with never knowing truth, living in a world where truth is behind hypothesis, theory, educated guesses, speculation, etc?
It's the most we can hope for. No human being can ever access the Ultimate Truth, whatever that might be.
The value of evidence is that it tends to make us more confident that our hypotheses, theories, educated guesses, speculation are correct - or else it tends to tell us that we were wrong.
Without truth, there is nothing but indifference.
I disagree. I think that Truth, with a capital 'T', is unattainable in practice.
We all instinctively know Truth Is, but what is the evidence that it is real? Is that even a legitimate enquiry? Would we be using truth to find if truth is real?
You're using your God language to talk about Truth now. God Is, Truth Is. Both are ideals, but what I'm interested here is evidence. If the best that evidence can do is point vaguely in the direction of Truth, then we'll just have to be content with that.
Thinking scientifically, I'm interesting in making a mental model of the world that most closely matches what is observable and accessible to me. My best model currently includes things like gravity and the dinosaur meteor. Theists like yourself tell us that an accurate world-model must include God, in addition. So, I want to know: what is it that I can access that should lead me to introduce God as the most reasonable hypothesis? What evidence says God, unambiguously?
God, by all definitions, is truth. That is the way theists understand God. The OP suggests that we try to put forward evidence to show that God is real. It implies that God is a separate entity. That God is not the very cornerstone of any, and every reality. That the universe created itself, or that it itself is what could be termed God.
The major religions treat God as a separate entity. Indeed, they speak of God as a
person who acts in and on the world.
Maybe your God is not a person but merely the "cornerstone of reality". That sounds like a very diffuse and nebulous sort of God to me, and it seems to me that in that picture no evidence would ambiguously point towards God. Or, rather, all evidence (of anything) would supposedly point to God. But then God is just a synonym for "everything". The problem with that is that it doesn't match how theists talk about God, typically. God, as far as I'm aware, is supposed to be a supernatural person.
So before we begin, the thread starter must explain what is evidence (in this context)...
No. My question is to theists: what do
you consider to be evidence.
We have a separate thread for what I, as an atheist, might regard as evidence, and I have already posted quite extensively to that thread.
The thread starter must give an account of what is God, why he accepts that God is, or could even be, a separate entity, as opposed to being at the heart of everything, including ourselves and our ability to seek out God.
No. I'm quite happy, for the purposes of this thread, for you to give your account of God, as a theist. Read the opening post again.
Can the thread starter accept that God in within every atom, just as he is prepared to accept that God is a separate entity, that could be known via satisfactory evidence?
Is there evidence that God is in every atom? If so, what is the evidence?
