Evidence that God is real

[James R]

(continued...)

I believe in God, because I accept God.

How do you know there is a God to accept?

It's a simple question, Jan. Why do you dodge it all the time?

Please provide evidence that babies know God.

I’m not going to waste my time providing anything, because you already know why.

I take it that you have recognised your over-reach and you're back-peddling furiously.

You ought to be honest and retract your silly claim, Jan, since you know you can't support it. Alternatively, if you think you can support it after all, please do so. If you can explain how babies know God, that might give us insight into how you or I know God. As things stand, there are only your assertions.

It is easy for you to set up barriers against theists. But it is a lot harder to put up barriers against the truth that you know.

This thread is supposed to tear down those barriers, Jan. You, as theist, tell us how this knowledge of God comes to all of us. What is the justification for your knowledge claim? Is there evidence that God is real?

I’m more interested in discussing your delusion, commonly known as atheism.

You could to start a separate thread for that, or use one of the existing ones in which you whine on about supposed atheist delusion. This thread, as you will recall, is about evidence for God.

God is merciful, because God will grant not only remberance, but forgetfulness to those that ask for it sincerely.

Is there evidence that God is merciful? Is there evidence that God can grant remembrance or forgetfulness? (Should we perhaps defer consideration of such things until after we have established the base reality of God?)

I don’t have to provide anything.

In a thread titled "evidence for God", don't you think it would be appropriate to suggest some evidence for God? It's fine if you don't have any. Such an admission might advance the discussion - maybe even obviate the need for the thread - potentially.

See, the problem is that you seem to want a bet each way on this, too. You claim there is evidence to be had, but when push comes to shove you jack up and refuse to provide any. Is that because it is hard for you to present the evidence? Or is the claim to evidence a sham on your part?

You have clearly stated that you do not need evidence to bolster your own belief. I'm fine with that. You are free to believe what you like for entirely irrational reasons, as far as I'm concerned. But the fact remains that, as far as I can recall, you have on multiple occasions told us that there is evidence to be had. So where is it?

And yes you are trying to convince yourself there is no God. And it would probably work if you could show that there is no evidence for God, despite not knowing where your ability to come to any conclusion is derived from.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof, to make it that atheists have to prove a negative. Rather than atheists having to show that there is no possibility of ever finding evidence for God, wouldn't it be easier for everyone if theists simply presented some positive evidence for God?

Why are you so confident that if God exists, there should be evidence of God for everyone?

Are you saying that only certain special people, like yourself, have access to the God evidence, and that this evidence is somehow concealed from or inaccessible to atheists?

Is it that one must possess the pass-key of theistic belief before one is allowed to access the secret/restricted evidence for God? I find it hard to imagine what objective evidence for God would look like, such that it would be inaccessible based on a person's existing religious beliefs. Can you explain how that works, please?

Or is this a circular argument? If you believe in God, then you'll also believe there is evidence, and if you don't, you won't? Why is the existence or accessibility of evidence dependent on one's attitude?

I also sense that we're straying into that blank area of difficulty you have when it comes to the ability to distinguish the objective from the subjective. It sounds like you're saying the existence of evidence for God is real for you, but not real for me, and that the objective reality of the evidence is somehow tied to our respective personal impressions or opinions.

Does dreaming about evidence make it appear?

What do you know about God, that makes you think there should be evidence outside of your very existence?

Are you saying there is no evidence for God outside of our own existence?

I have addressed the problems with such a view in a recent post. See above.

 

[James R]

Musika:

Decrying God as "the supernatural" is just a common tool of convenience utilized by atheists. It finds practically no historical or philosophical usage outside of their select echo chambers.

It's more the case that practically no theist advocates God as being "supernatural". The real question here is why its only atheists that insist on such eccentric descriptions.

If you are too lazy to consult history and philosophy, a dictionary might be a good place to start.

billvon consulted a dictionary and discovered, among other things, the follow definitions of God:

"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality"
"A superhuman person regarded as having power over nature and human fortunes"​

Dictionaries describe how words are typically used. One would expect something like the Oxford dictionary to reflect theistic ideas of God more than it would reflect atheistic usages of that term, I would have thought. And here we have the Oxford dictionary defining God as "superhuman" with "power over nature".

The term "supernatural", of course, means "above nature". One who has power over nature is, by definition, supernatural.

As far as I am aware, theists generally assert that God has power over nature. This doesn't strike me as an atheist distortion of theistic belief. Ergo, to describe God as "supernatural" is a no-brainer.

Possibly you ought to reconsider taking people to task and consult a dictionary yourself before making silly claims in future.

I see the potential for a bet each way from you here, just like Jan, of course. Because God is in every leaf and rock, you will tell us that God is "natural". The leaves and rocks are natural, God is the reality that underlies them, ergo God is natural. But at the same time, you tell us that God is Supreme Enabler, without which nothing. Ergo, God has power over "nature" as well as being embedded in it. So God is both natural and supernatural.

The point is, of course, that if we remove the "supernatural" from the God, we are left with just the rocks and the leaves, with no God in sight. Or, to put it another way, the God merges with the rocks and leaves and has none of the personal attributes or supreme abilities associated with one who has power over nature.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the God you believe in is just a synonym for the universe as a whole. Your God is supposed to exist apart from the universe, as well as being in it. So, again, it follows that your God is literally above nature - supernatural.

Even in this tirade, you introduce no tools for comprehending reality or unpacking evidence of it beyond empiricism.

As you will recall, I have invited you on several occasions in this thread to present your toolbox that goes beyond empiricism - the tools that allow you to discover the evidence that God is real. Yet you remain reluctant to do that. Why is that?

What is your non-empirical evidence for God? Can you present some of it?

So is cosmology natural, iyho? If so, bring forth evidence, ideas, etc pre big bang.

Cosmology is a set of theories about nature, is it not?

What does it mean to you to ask whether a theory is natural? It could be that I'm not understanding your question.

My point is that there are whole vast tracts of "the natural" that are simply out of bounds for even the most delightful and optimistic renditions of empiricism.

Please give us a few specific examples drawn from these vast tracts. That could help to advance the discussion.

 

[Musika]

Musika:


If the main problem is the definition, why haven't you provided a definition that you're comfortable with, somewhere in the last 400 posts?

It's not so much an issue of a definition of God that I am comfortable with, but the tendency of atheists to have severe reluctance to depart into ahistorical definitions they are comfortable with. If the whole point of atheism is to offer a successful critique of theism, I can't understand why they would begin the game by insisting on eccentric definitions of God. Sure, it might make the task of arguing easier, but if at the very onset one is irrelevant, what would be the point?

Do you intend to provide a working definition that you're happy to go on with?

Omnimax seems to be conventional, wouldn't you agree?

Are you telling me that it is impossible to contemplate a universe without God in it? If so, tell me why you think that is the case.

I thought we were discussing your (not mine) proposed method of arriving at evidence .... namely remove the subject from the environment, and examine the said environment. The notion of achieving that by mere contemplation is ineffective for probably 99% of things, of which God is included.

It sounds like you're saying that asking for evidence for God is a "bad method". Do you think it is invalid to ask for evidence of God, then?

I am saying your method (not mine), especially if it has no requirement to go beyond contemplation, is a bad method.

Observing the painting in the museum would be fairly suggestive that the artist was real. This is because in our shared experience paintings are usually created by artists. You're correct that I would need more than a single painting to get details of the artist's life, although I might be able to deduce certain things from it.

The issue of the artist's existence was never in question. It was the issue of the artist's biography. The point is that there is a vast array of information that is simply out of bounds by a standard investigation of cause and effect. Rather, we get such information from testimony.

Is there anything analogous to the painting that we can agree on when it comes to God? I know that the temptation might be to point to the entire universe as God's painting, but you and I do not agree in advance that universes are usually created by gods.

The painting is an effect from the artist. Even though you may have the painting in front of you, it is simply not feasible to access all the information about the artist that you might otherwise get from a historian.

We might possibly avoid this impasse if you can point to something about the universe which could not have been caused by anything but God. Can you do that?

What would you possibly hope to measure such an object's authenticity against?
What would you propose is off-limits to an omni-max God?

Note that we are free to enquire into the artist's life after we have established that the artist is real. Similarly, after we establish that God is real, then we might continue to explore what can be said about God's life and actions etc. But first things first.

The artist is analagous only as far as it illustrates succinctly the point where cause and effect becomes invalid and testimony imparts knowledge.

To me, this flies in the face of the testimony of people who have sudden religious conversions, such as so-called born-again Christians. Would you have it that such people need to be "primed" in advance for their religious conversion, by religious experts?

I'm not sure why you would interpret such events as the final conclusive religious experience and not the beginning of a gradual process.

Also, typically, people first learn about their religion from their parents. How do such non-experts manage to impart the ability to know that God is real into their children? Or does that process usually require the intervention of higher religious authorities, in your opinion?

Parents tend not to engineer unique religious disciplines for the sake of their children.

What would you say is the average time and/or education in religion that is necessary before a person can directly perceive God?

Like any relationship, it depends on attitude.
A person can get it in a moment. Another may not get it in millions of lifetimes.

And, out of curiosity, are you at that level yourself, or yet to reach it? If you're there, when and how did you get there, personally?

It is celebrated as the perfectional stage. It is not such a cheap thing.

How?

By following to the best of one's abilities.

By "specific population" here, do you mean the whole of humanity, when it comes to the question of the reality of God? Or are you perhaps referring to the population of atheists? If it's atheists, can you tell me what faculties or resources atheists lack, so that that they are unable to appreciate the relevant empirical evidence for God?

The short answer is that at the end of the day, everyone follows their enthusiasm. This existence begets a certain dichotomy, whereby to that degree one is genuinely enthused by God, is the same degree one is not enthused by illusion. And alternatively, to that degree one is genuinely enthused by illusion, is that degree one is not enthused by God. So this world of illusion is simply helping the living entity along as they try out different types of enthusiasm until they find something that fits. In that sense, theism offers the final resting place for enthusiasm, but there is a whole myriad of things that glitter yet are not gold along the way.

Is that a "No", then?

Absolutely not.
Just because the Andaman Islanders are dependent on the Indian government to develop knowledge of their sovereignty in no way means they are in a constitutional position bereft of knowledge.

Strike "concrete". The word was unnecessary. I am interested to see if you can come up with anything. Period.

We have already attempted to discuss the varigated field within epistemology, pramanas, etc on numerous occassions and you repeatedly ignore it and come back to the same old same old, hence the query.

 

[Musika]

Musika:




billvon consulted a dictionary and discovered, among other things, the follow definitions of God:

"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality"
"A superhuman person regarded as having power over nature and human fortunes"​

Dictionaries describe how words are typically used. One would expect something like the Oxford dictionary to reflect theistic ideas of God more than it would reflect atheistic usages of that term, I would have thought. And here we have the Oxford dictionary defining God as "superhuman" with "power over nature".

The term "supernatural", of course, means "above nature". One who has power over nature is, by definition, supernatural.

As far as I am aware, theists generally assert that God has power over nature. This doesn't strike me as an atheist distortion of theistic belief. Ergo, to describe God as "supernatural" is a no-brainer.

Possibly you ought to reconsider taking people to task and consult a dictionary yourself before making silly claims in future.

I see the potential for a bet each way from you here, just like Jan, of course. Because God is in every leaf and rock, you will tell us that God is "natural". The leaves and rocks are natural, God is the reality that underlies them, ergo God is natural. But at the same time, you tell us that God is Supreme Enabler, without which nothing. Ergo, God has power over "nature" as well as being embedded in it. So God is both natural and supernatural.

The point is, of course, that if we remove the "supernatural" from the God, we are left with just the rocks and the leaves, with no God in sight. Or, to put it another way, the God merges with the rocks and leaves and has none of the personal attributes or supreme abilities associated with one who has power over nature.

At a certain point, assuming one is not being dishonest, one should ask ones self why a specific creed uses a specific sort of language.
Why is it that atheists use "supernatural"?
Why do theists use words like "transcendent" and "immanent"?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the God you believe in is just a synonym for the universe as a whole. Your God is supposed to exist apart from the universe, as well as being in it. So, again, it follows that your God is literally above nature - supernatural.

Then why is that word used exclusively used by atheists, if the situation is so etymylogically straight forward as you would have us believe?

For instance, suppose someone started discussing notions of things pre-big bang as "supernatural". Would you feel inclined to take them to task?

As you will recall, I have invited you on several occasions in this thread to present your toolbox that goes beyond empiricism - the tools that allow you to discover the evidence that God is real. Yet you remain reluctant to do that. Why is that?

I have brought the variety within epistemology to your attention about 6 times in an assortment of different threads. Your standard response is along the lines of trying to determine what methods of direct perception one can use to take apart cause and effect to encompass them all. (And saying that the inability to arrive at such methods equates to no/dubious evidence)

What is your non-empirical evidence for God? Can you present some of it?

Pretty much the same as our non-empirical evidence for understanding much about history (particularly, say, the lives of famous painters).

Cosmology is a set of theories about nature, is it not?

What does it mean to you to ask whether a theory is natural? It could be that I'm not understanding your question.

What do you see as the relationship between theory and evidence?

Please give us a few specific examples drawn from these vast tracts. That could help to advance the discussion.

I thought you were insisting on evidence. Now you have rolled it back to theory. I will have to wait for you explanations before anything else can be offered.

 

[Musika]

Thanks. You're confirming that you have nothing further to contribute to the thread topic.
It would be good form then, to step back and let others discuss it.

Fine.
At least you now understand why others may intercede when you venture eccentric definitions.

 

[Michael 345]

Jan

If evidence needed to be presented, there would be no theists.

James R

You appear to be saying that one can't come to your brand of God belief through evidence. Some other mechanism must be deployed. Faith?

I take Jan as saying, if you have presented evidence everyone would believe in god (become theist)

the·ism
\ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\
noun

• : the belief that god exists or that many gods exist

Mirriam-Webster

but but but, god IS (is a brand of belief), which is not associated with evidence

Hence the theist who rely on evidence are not true believers

Only those who believe without evidence are truly theist

Convoluted? Yes, so I hope I got it correct


Jan

No one is equipped with the intelligence to create God, or gods. It is silly to even think that to be possible.

Plenty of intelligent con artist who can create the idea of Sky Daddy and make a living from the silly people who think Sky Daddy is possible

 

[James R]

Musika:

It's not so much an issue of a definition of God that I am comfortable with, but the tendency of atheists to have severe reluctance to depart into ahistorical definitions they are comfortable with.

I don't really understand what you're referring to here, unless it is the argument about "supernatural", which I have addressed above. Which ahistorical definitions are you referring to, exactly?

Omnimax seems to be conventional, wouldn't you agree?

All that says is that God is the epitome of whatever you'd like to consider. It doesn't seem to work very well as a guide to where we should start to look for evidence for God.

I thought we were discussing your (not mine) proposed method of arriving at evidence .... namely remove the subject from the environment, and examine the said environment.

Science usually works the other way round: remove (or isolate as much as possible) the subject from the environment, and examine the subject. I'm inclined to follow the scientific method.

The notion of achieving that by mere contemplation is ineffective for probably 99% of things, of which God is included.

The issues raised by "mere contemplation" are the reason why I'm something of a fan of empiricism. Nevertheless, it can sometimes be helpful to consider how (or whether) things would be different if the subject of interest was not present in the environment.

I am saying your method (not mine), especially if it has no requirement to go beyond contemplation, is a bad method.

Aren't you the one who is mostly saying we need to go beyond empiricism?

The issue of the artist's existence was never in question. It was the issue of the artist's biography. The point is that there is a vast array of information that is simply out of bounds by a standard investigation of cause and effect. Rather, we get such information from testimony.

Testimony is based on cause and effect, too. There are always underlying causes for why a certain testimony is given. It just requires more digging to uncover them.

The painting is an effect from the artist. Even though you may have the painting in front of you, it is simply not feasible to access all the information about the artist that you might otherwise get from a historian.

I agree. But this thread starts from ground level. I'm asking the most basic question here: for some evidence of the artist's existence. Once we have established there is an artist, then we can go on to worry about his biography, motives, methods of creation of his works, and so on.

What would you possibly hope to measure such an object's authenticity against?
What would you propose is off-limits to an omni-max God?

I'm asking the opposite question - not about the limits of God's powers, but the minimal requirement for deducing God's influence, as opposed to a more mundane cause. Is there anything in the universe that could not have conceivably come from anything but God (because no other cause is sufficient to explain the thing)?

I'm not sure why you would interpret such events as the final conclusive religious experience and not the beginning of a gradual process.

I interpret the events that way because so many theists describe the events that way. I'm only going on what they say.

Parents tend not to engineer unique religious disciplines for the sake of their children.

Right. Their non-expert instruction is often enough to encourage the religious belief in the children.

Like any relationship, it depends on attitude.
A person can get it in a moment. Another may not get it in millions of lifetimes.

If a person can get it in a moment, that flies in the face of your previous claim that extensive religious education by religious experts is necessary, doesn't it?

We have already attempted to discuss the varigated field within epistemology, pramanas, etc on numerous occassions...

Have we?

On the topic of pramanas, which I do not believe we have ever discussed, I might point readers to the following introductory article, which is interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana

Of particular note is that particular pramanas (means of knowledge) are recognised as epistemically reliable in some religious traditions but not others, with some traditions being especially restrictive (or prudent, depending on how you look at it). Also of interest are the details surrounding how something like "perception" is defined, which is usually taken to include various forms of "internal" or subjective perception, and not just the objective perceptions of science.

I assume that it is your own belief that some of the listed pramanas give you reliable knowledge about the reality of God. Perhaps you could tell us which ones.

 

[iceaura]

Can you please stay on topic in this thread? This one is about evidence for God.

No it isn't.
It's a pretext for attacking science, reason, and the purveyors of science and reason, by repetition of disparagement
- - -

Omnimax seems to be conventional, wouldn't you agree?

For the Abrahamic God, by convention - yes.
And therefore supernatural, then, by convention. Like other deities, in that respect.

Then why is that word used exclusively used by atheists,

Because it makes theists uncomfortable, in its implications.

At a certain point, assuming one is not being dishonest,

One cannot make that assumption about theists, ever. Look at their posts on this forum.

The point is that there is a vast array of information that is simply out of bounds by a standard investigation of cause and effect. Rather, we get such information from testimony.

The usual semi-literate fog, which the reader is expected to untangle. Making the best of it, then:
False dichotomy. Investigation of cause and effect provides only part of the world of information not found in testimony.
And a false claim. We do not get information from testimony itself, but from analysis and examination of testimony. Reason.
And a deflection - what was required was not information, but evidence.
And a further refusal to provide evidence - or even "information" - itself - just another repetition of the claim that it exists, "vast arrays" of it.

Nothing but bad faith bs, in other words.

It's not so much an issue of a definition of God that I am comfortable with, but the tendency of atheists to have severe reluctance to depart into ahistorical definitions they are comfortable with.

It's an issue of another overt Abrahamic theist's characteristic refusal to provide any definitions at all, any evidence whatsoever, anything for which they might find themselves accountable to reason.
And instead, disparage the usual targets.

 

[James R]

Musika:

At a certain point, assuming one is not being dishonest, one should ask ones self why a specific creed uses a specific sort of language.
Why is it that atheists use "supernatural"?
Why do theists use words like "transcendent" and "immanent"?

Atheists are more direct about the topic, perhaps?

The use of the word "immanent" is understandable, if your particular brand of belief is that God is in the leaves and rocks, but that isn't a general requirement of theistic belief. And "transcendent" reflects the omnimax idea.

The reasons that some theists shy away from the word "supernatural" are more interesting, I think. I can only speculate as to why they do that. One reason might be that they associate "supernatural" with lots of other ideas that they do not necessarily want to embrace or identify with. For example, a particular theist might believe in the idea of an immortal soul, but not believe in ghosts. Ghosts, being thought of as persons who are separate from nature are "bad supernatural", whereas God is "good supernatural", even though both concepts share many elements in common. The theist might believe in "evil spirits" or "demons" or similar, that they regard as separate from God, and they might be happy to describe such beings as "supernatural".

Another possibility is that theists, by their nature, tend to blur the lines between what can and cannot be verified. That is, they actually maintain no firm demarcation in their heads between the "natural" and the "supernatural". For them, the world is populated by ethereal entities (often persons) of different types, and those entities are just as "real" to them as the rocks and leaves. If you hold such a worldview, the term "supernatural" becomes unnecessary. Your world consists not just of what can be verified empirically; it is also populated by fantasies whose reality you take as a given. Testing the assumptions is either discouraged or the idea to test the assumptions simply doesn't occur. Religions and their "scriptures" rarely pay any attention to the veracity of their own precepts; those are unspoken and taken entirely for granted.

As for atheists, a word like "transcendent" is a bit vague; "supernatural" seems more specific, and goes to the heart of a demarcation issue that atheists consider to be pivotal.

I'm speculating, but you can tell me why you don't like the word "supernatural", from the point of view of your own theism. So, over to you.

For instance, suppose someone started discussing notions of things pre-big bang as "supernatural". Would you feel inclined to take them to task?

It would very much depend on the notions they were appealing to in the particular context of the discussion. Its quite possible to have a discussion about the pre-big bang universe, say in the context of the notion of a multiverse, without introducing anything that would necessarily have to be described as "supernatural". When scientists discuss such things, they are usually postulating naturalistic hypotheses to account for the existence of our observable universe. On the other hand, if somebody is vaguely waving their hands at a mysterious Creator entity who appears to be an ad hoc assumption in the discussion, and who operates outside of natural laws as they are usually contemplated, then it might well be appropriate to label such a hypothesis as "supernatural".

I have brought the variety within epistemology to your attention about 6 times in an assortment of different threads. Your standard response is along the lines of trying to determine what methods of direct perception one can use to take apart cause and effect to encompass them all. (And saying that the inability to arrive at such methods equates to no/dubious evidence)

You've vaguely waved your hands from time to time and dropped the odd word like "pramana" here and there (see above), but you have done very little so far to expound on how your preferred non-empirical methods of arriving at evidence are actually applied to get to conclusion that you draw about God.

Pretty much the same as our non-empirical evidence for understanding much about history (particularly, say, the lives of famous painters).

You're referring to testimony here, I assume. Basically, this amounts to an argument that we ought to believe that God is real because lots of "scriptures", backed by the religious authorities/experts that wrote them, say so. I think Jan's position is essentially the same as yours on this. Is that your argument?

What do you see as the relationship between theory and evidence?

I come at this largely from a scientific background. I regard evidence as the test of a theory (or hypothesis). Evidence tends to either confirm or refute a theory. As for theory itself, it's just an idea (or set of ideas). The value of a good theory is that it allows us to make deductions and predictions: if X, then according to the theory, Y. The "goodness" of the theory is judged by its record of successful deductions or predictions.

Why do you ask?

I thought you were insisting on evidence. Now you have rolled it back to theory. I will have to wait for you explanations before anything else can be offered.

I don't understand how I have rolled anything back to theory.

You claimed that there are "vast tracts" of "the natural" that are "out of bounds for ... empiricism". I asked if you could give me an example or two of natural things that are out of bounds for empiricism.

The relevance, of course, is that if you're claiming that God is natural but out of bounds for empiricism, I'd like to know that God isn't an ad hoc exception or special pleading that you are just making up on the spot with hands waving towards supposedly "vast tracts" that you can't give examples of.

 

[Bowser]

What does this notion of God add to the description of the object, other than an insubstantial aura of supernatural mystery?

But you don't need to add the notion of God to the description of an object. It exists despite what you believe. It's not as though it will be snatched away because of your perception of its origin.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena:


Knowing implies a justified belief. How is the belief in God justified without evidence?

Why do yo assume there is no evidence?

At what point are you prepared to accept what you would regard as evidence?

What if after your acceptance, you find there are still people who don’t?

Are you familiar with mythology? It often involves Gods. There's even a whole genre of fiction devoted to fanstastical creations of, among other things, Gods. Human beings are very creative, Jan. I think you give people far too little credit. The imagination is a wonderful thing.

Really! You’re going there?!

They didn’t make up the concept of gods.
That is just knowledge that has been passed down. They may have given the gods a character.

The concept of a God is not very difficult to create. We are all familiar with people, and Gods are really just imaginatively suped-up versions of people. It's no harder to create a god than to create Spiderman.

If you believe gods are nothing but imaginary, why ask for evidence of God?
Are you trying to oust people’s belief as simply imagining God to be real?

To respond to your point. I think there are very few plots, whether books, films, or theatre, that does not have it’s root in scripture. Be romance, action, sci-fi, or religious.
There is nothing new, only presented differently.

How do they know this? How do I, as an atheist, know this? And, as a subsidiary question, why do you think it is that I fail to recognise that I know it?

You have a conscience. You already come with knowledge. You simply needed parents to help you grow. But you have chosen to suppress that knowledge. And you’re still actively doing it.
This whole thread is a sham. It is designed to help validate your position.

And, in particular: how do you know that a baby knows about God? Are you talking about newborns without the power of speech, for example? How do you ascertain their state of knowledge of God, exactly?

It is knowledge that we have.There is no need to acquire it.
It’s part of being human.
We can interpret that knowledge as something we think is favourable to us, or we can remain fixed in that knowledge. Or we can start out by interpreting it to our favour, but over the course of our life, try to become realised in that knowledge again.

Perhaps so. That is why I have created this thread as an opportunity for you to explain the evidence that sits well with your world view.

I’ve already told you, I’m okay with the evidences put forward by Bill Craig. I’m not concerned with your cry for evidence, because I know you’re interested in denying and rejecting God. That is what you currently do. So it doesn’t matter what is presented.

You seem strangely reluctant to provide any evidence at all,

Why do you assume, that to know God, one must be presented with evidence that God exists?
Does this mean you know God exists, but because you cannot observe through you’re looking glass, means there is no evidence for God?

Are you the judge who gets to decide who or what is God, why I have to present you with (as Sarkus puts it) evidence that is to your satisfaction.

You’re an atheist because you are without God. A decision you made, and are clearly upholding. You will never accept God, or any evidence of God, until you are no longer an atheist. It is your atheism that prevents you.

even using your own preferred definition of your God.

I’m no longer bothered about definitions.
The only point of real interest in any discussion about God, with atheists, is atheism. Because you cannot venture beyond that, and for some reason you think your worldview is the limit.
Now that makes for good discussions.

There's a separate thread about the psychology of atheists and theists, if you're interested in discussing what atheists like to hear from theists, and the psychological reasons behind that preference.[/ quote]

I prefer to discuss it as it is happening.

Can you please stay on topic in this thread? This one is about evidence for God.

You’ll need to stop denying and rejecting God. But you don’t want to. It’s all tied up in you.

Jan.[/quote]

 

[iceaura]

Why do yo assume there is no evidence?

That's been an observation, not an assumption, explicitly, for a long, long, time on these forums.

They didn’t make up the concept of gods.

They made up the gods.
The concept was invented much later, by Western intellectuals.

If you believe gods are nothing but imaginary, why ask for evidence of God?

The bullshit "if" used for attack, Fox style, from the overt Abrahamic theist posting on a science forum- it's not one or two, it's all of them.

To respond to your point. I think there are very few plots, whether books, films, or theatre, that does not have it’s root in scripture.

Backwards.
All known scriptures have their roots in tales, myths, and stories. The plots came first, the scriptures came much, much later.

Why do you assume, that to know God, one must be presented with evidence that God exists?

Dishonesty, again.
No such presumption is visible or suggested. One or more of the opposites, instead, are the common suggestions.

I’ve already told you, I’m okay with the evidences put forward by Bill Craig.

Bill Craig has put forward no "evidences". Neither have you.

I’m not concerned with your cry for evidence, because I know you’re interested in denying and rejecting God. That is what you currently do. So it doesn’t matter what is presented.

So we come to the only interesting question raised by the ethically bankrupt posting of overt Abrahamic theists on these science forums:

Why are they here, posting like that?

 

[Kittamaru]

I guess what makes me chuckle is that, simply put, there is no level of evidence that would satisfy someone dead-set against believing... they will always claim that it isn't good enough.

Likewise, there is no evidence that will sway a true believer - they will always claim it to be some sort of test, or fabrication, or otherwise.

So... yeah?

 

[billvon]

Why do yo assume there is no evidence?

You have admitted you cannot produce any.

They didn’t make up the concept of gods.

Of course they did. They vary greatly from concept to concept, due to the difference in the imaginings of each creator. Many contain common themes from earlier concepts (like Genesis 1 vs. the Egyptian creation myth) with each new creator adding his/her unique twist to it.

If you believe gods are nothing but imaginary, why ask for evidence of God?

Because many people claim they are not; it is interesting to see what such people think.

To respond to your point. I think there are very few plots, whether books, films, or theatre, that does not have it’s root in scripture. Be romance, action, sci-fi, or religious.

And there is very little in scripture that does not have its roots in earlier myths.

This whole thread is a sham. It is designed to help validate your position.

Actually it was designed to allow you to present yours - something you steadfastly refuse to do. Why not present it? Are you afraid others will see through it? Or do you simply _have_ no position, other than ridicule and mocking? Or have you simply never thought about it, other than to say "ditto" when some other theist says something?

I’ve already told you, I’m okay with the evidences put forward by Bill Craig.

That's Bill Craig "evidences" - not yours.

 

[Michael 345]

That's Bill Craig "evidences" -

I took time to check Bill Craig evidence, figuring if it is any good I could use it

However when I found The Kalam Cosmological Argument was listed under a god of the gaps evidence I stopped looking

So I don't know if there are any other Bill Craig evidence but I suspect no

Or any other Bill Craig evidence put forward would be as shallow as god of gaps

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So no evidence yet?

Heck there is more evidence that Santa is real.

Who puts the presents under the tree?
Who eats the snacks left out?

And laugh if you will but at least we have something in the way of evidence☺

God exists merely by the insistence of the particular cult making their particular claim and as in all cases their claim is nothing more than a claim and we can not expect that any reasonable evidence can be offerred because the only thing that exists is mere assertion.

However is it fair to demand of the theist evidence or request they outline the extent of their apparent delusion when it is their god who perhaps should relieve them of such embarrasement by some simple universal appearance that one could expect that only a god could do.

However I am happy that so many folk believe in and fear their god because when you observe their dishonesty, hypocracy and seemingly horrible morality, and realise that is the best they can manage even under the threat of hell, one must wonder just how base their standards would be without some confused drive to follow their cherry picked rules to be good.

I dont like to generalise, but I wonder if that is what I do given that all I see of the behaviour of believers, when I say that it truely sadens me to witness the general dishonesty believers embrace in their cumbersome efforts to establish their world view is anything more than made up unsupported myth.

Their attempts to win arguement by fair means or foul is it seems more common than not.

Perhaps I am naive in so far as I expect believers to be decent honest and more interested in being truthful and honest than doing no more than being tricky in their arguement.

Look at the dishonesty of the intelligent design mob who will say "oh we dont claim the intelligent designer to be god as that is unscientific" ... that is dishonest.

They will never conceed they or their good book could be wrong...look at the answers they give if one points out a flaw in their good book...slavery for example...excuses only..no addmission or concession that it is wrong.

They are indeed a sorry bunch who will avoid making tangible points for no other reason than they know that to do so puts them and their superstitious cult beliefs at risk of being exposed as made up wishful thinking.

The evidence we are always left with points to the desire of believers to push their superstitious beliefs as reality in the absence of reasonable observation merely to manage their fear of death and to avoid acceptance of their undeniable insignificance in the universe and its history and future.

If you find comfort that your purpose is no more than a god pet you are easily pleased.

I hear their cries " but you must have a purpose in life" as if not to have purpose is unberable...and then are happily content to accept a role of nothing more than gods house pet...sad that such a role satisfies their desire for purpose.

Alex

 

[Michael 345]

On the point religions are not , paraphrased as "just made up", I found this

Poor and unreadable but enough can be seen that gets the gist of how religion morphs




----
Moderator edit:
Click here for a large version - https://www.worldreligionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/85acb7827abdbd83b2580f173ee2e784.jpg

 

[James R]

But you don't need to add the notion of God to the description of an object. It exists despite what you believe. It's not as though it will be snatched away because of your perception of its origin.

Okay, my bad. I thought you were agreeing with Jan and Musika that God is in every leaf and rock, but apparently not.

 

[river]

Okay, my bad. I thought you were agreeing with Jan and Musika that God is in every leaf and rock, but apparently not.

but god is in every leaf and rock .

It is about the potential . when the rock is broken down , into its contsituent parts it feeds a life form .

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I have not failed to notice that you only responded to half of what I wrote to you and that you've left out my entire second post.

Why do yo assume there is no evidence?

I don't. But I do note that we're now 600 posts into this thread and you've presenting nothing.

I have to ask: is this really the best you theists can do? And, if so, doesn't that worry you at all? And, if it doesn't, why doesn't it?

At what point are you prepared to accept what you would regard as evidence?

After you post some, perhaps.

What if after your acceptance, you find there are still people who don’t?

There will always be people who don't. There's no getting through to some people about some things. Don't worry about me, I'll be okay.

Really! You’re going there?!

They didn’t make up the concept of gods.
That is just knowledge that has been passed down. They may have given the gods a character.

How do you know they didn't make it up?

If you believe gods are nothing but imaginary, why ask for evidence of God?

Rolling with your premise, there are two reasons. First reason: lots of people say there is evidence of God, and I'm interested to find out what it is that they think is good evidence for God. Second reason: I could be wrong.

Are you trying to oust people’s belief as simply imagining God to be real?

If there's no evidence that God is real, then one plausible explanation of theism is that people are imagining that God is real, I'm sure you'll agree.

You have a conscience.

How is that evidence of God?

You already come with knowledge.

That's a somewhat complex area you're wading into. I agree that some "knowledge" is built into my DNA and the body that it made. A baby is not a blank slate.

Do you have any evidence that knowledge of God comes built-in to babies?

This whole thread is a sham. It is designed to help validate your position.

I think you're worried that you have no good evidence for God, so you're making excuses.

Seriously, aren't you at all concerned that you have nothing to offer in this thread?

I mean, it's all well and good to see if you can outwit the evil atheists and avoid answering questions, but when you're away from the forum quietly contemplating, don't you think that you really ought to have something substantial to offer in this discussion?

It is knowledge that we have.There is no need to acquire it.

This is God-given knowledge, is it? Built into every baby. And you know this is there ... how?

It’s part of being human.

How has this been established, and by whom?

I’ve already told you, I’m okay with the evidences put forward by Bill Craig.

I don't think you've read much from Bill Craig, if truth be told.

I think your approach is: "Bill Craig is a theist like me, so he must be an okay guy. He manages to stick it to the atheists, so I guess I'll have whatever he's having. I don't need to read his stuff or think about it. I'll just be lazy and rely on him as an authority. I'll wave my hands and the atheists won't be able to tell the difference."

If you really think Bill Craig has some good evidence for God, why don't you go ahead and post just a little of it? A morsel or two would be fine. Being familiar with his evidences and all, as you are, it should require very little effort for you to find one relevant fact, say.

I'm surprised that, with all Bill's evidences at your fingertips, you have yet to post any of it. Well, okay, I'm not really surprised.

Why do you assume, that to know God, one must be presented with evidence that God exists?

I don't, necessarily. But even if I did, for myself or as general principle, it's irrelevant to this thread.

The important thing for this thread is: you claim that there is evidence for God. Yet you fail consistently to support your claim by presenting any of the supposed evidence.

It is reasonable to conclude that you're knowingly lying about the existence of this evidence, or else you don't actually know if there's evidence or not, you're over-reaching in your claim and lying about what you know.

Your line that "It doesn't matter if I present evidence or not. You won't change your mind about God." is irrelevant. You don't need to change my mind about God. If I deny the evidence you present, you've still presented it, and answered the challenge of this thread. The readers will see that you were right all along, and there really is evidence for God. Never mind that contrary James R and his atheist denials. Jan has posted the truth!

Does this mean you know God exists, but because you cannot observe through you’re looking glass, means there is no evidence for God?

Why is what I know or do not know at all relevant here? I asked you a simple question: is there any evidence that God is real? And here we are, 600 posts into the thread, still waiting for you to present even one piece of evidence.

Are you the judge who gets to decide who or what is God, why I have to present you with (as Sarkus puts it) evidence that is to your satisfaction.

Obviously not. You've decided for yourself who or what is God, to your own satisfaction, regardless of anything I might say or think.

You don't have to present any evidence. You don't have to post in this thread at all. But here you are, avoiding the question of the thread, consistently. Not only that, but you brazenly claim that there is some evidence, even though you cannot or will not produce it.

It's not just you giving theists a bad name with this behaviour, of course. But the poor showing and bad faith of the others doesn't excuse yours.

I’m no longer bothered about definitions.

I'm so glad to hear that. Musika is still stuck at the definitional stage. Maybe you can help him.

The only point of real interest in any discussion about God, with atheists, is atheism.

If the current discussion is of no interest to you, why are you here? Are you trying to derail this thread? You keep bringing up atheists and atheism, as if that is in any way relevant to the question of evidence for God. Start another thread about atheism if you like. Stop trying to send this one off on a tangent, to draw attention away from the fact that you've come up empty on the evidence question.