Evidence that God is real

[Musika]

You have to present evidence before you can claim that anyone is "dumbing it down."

Done already ... although you will probably have to go back to subsequent posts to JamesR to find it, since he appears to be the only atheist of late capable of engaging in anything other than generic trolling.
In case you subscribe to popular school of "big on opinions, short on reading", which seems to be in vogue at the moment, the short version is that evidence can be garnered outside of empiricism, and this spells a clue on how to approach the epistemological problem of God. IOW if you view empiricism not as but one tool amongst the field of epistemology, but the rather the ultimate form of it, you are dumbing it down.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Down playing the evident value of the entire human history of some form of God association is like saying Humanity doesn't exist.
For what ever reason ALL people past, present including atheists have to contend with the idea of God. Through out history there is ample evidence to support that claim. This thread is just another example.
and that IMO is pretty significant anthropological evidence of God when you think on it....

 

[Musika]

Ideas are manifested as "real" by many means.
Is the nuclear explosion any more real as the manifestation of an idea than any other idea?
You witness the manifestation of ideas all the time...all real and evidenced due to their manifestation.
If one considers God to be an idea then his reality is evidenced by his manifestation in the evidenced human behavior and how collective consensus as to the idea's effects the person individually. ( some profound and some not so)

yet it was/is just an idea.
the act of worship is universal to the human being, whether that be the worship of science, God or the tree you planted in the back yard. Worshiping wealth, money, possessions or something more altruistic. Ultimately though it is the worship of self.
So....it could be extended to... evidence of God's reality is evidence of self reality.

Do you exist?
Ergo Sum...
Are you just an idea or the manifestation of that idea?
If you agree that you are the manifestation of an idea then what say you of the universe entirely?

The universe is the manifestation of an idea...
The big bang theory is just an idea after all...

The obvious problem with this is that humans are prone to ideas that are not necessarily harmonious with the universe.
IOW our "good ideas" corroborate some aspect of the universe and our "bad ideas" don't.
This also gets into tricky territory when there are two or more ideas amongst humans that are mutually exclusive.
IOW at some point, push will come to shove, and if you want to talk of an overarching objective medium in which we are all interacting in, you will have to venture some framework (ie epistemology) for discerning/establishing reality over illusion, or the real over the apparent, or the cause over effect, etc etc ... just pointing to an idea that has a long history of being popular does not necessarily grant it creedence.

 

[spidergoat]

Down playing the evident value of the entire human history of some form of God association is like saying Humanity doesn't exist.
For what ever reason ALL people past, present including atheists have to contend with the idea of God. Through out history there is ample evidence to support that claim. This thread is just another example.
and that IMO is pretty significant anthropological evidence of God when you think on it....

That's problematic since recorded history began when people settled into agricultural communities, which for many reasons are associated with specific forms of religion. History is only 10-15 thousand years while humans have been around 100-200 thousand years. And besides that, religion is far more complex than monotheism.

We can agree, however, that God is merely an idea.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The obvious problem with this is that humans are prone to ideas that are not necessarily harmonious with the universe.
IOW our "good ideas" corroborate some aspect of the universe and our "bad ideas" don't.
This also gets into tricky territory when there are two or more ideas amongst humans that are mutually exclusive.

how is this a problem to what I proposed?
War for example is the manifestation of conflicting ideas sure...

IOW at some point, push will come to shove, and if you want to talk of an overarching objective medium in which we are all interacting in, you will have to venture some framework (ie epistemology) for discerning/establishing reality over illusion, or the real over the apparent, or the cause over effect, etc etc ... just pointing to an idea that has a long history of being popular does not necessarily grant it creedence.

the issue is our human need to evolve order from chaos.
Organized religion, organized peer reviewed science etc is all about the human desire for control and order. Achieved primarily by consensus. (See truth by consensus)
Early pagans even utilized dogma and rules. Epistemology is also a set of rules to ensure organized discussion and development of ideas.
and so on...
And no, I am not just saying that God exist because he is popular. I am suggesting that the historical association of God in ALL persons is commonly the association with self reflected/projected externally.
The self is not always popular I might add...

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's problematic since recorded history began when people settled into agricultural communities, which for many reasons are associated with specific forms of religion. History is only 10-15 thousand years while humans have been around 100-200 thousand years. And besides that, religion is far more complex than monotheism.

We can agree, however, that God is merely an idea.

and a very persistent one at that...
I contend that it is the manifestation of that persistent and "globally shared idea" with all it's variations that has value as evidence of the reality of that idea.

 

[Musika]

how is this a problem to what I proposed?

Reality is not the sum of all ideas but the refinement of them. Ie, some ideas are "real", and other ideas simply function in supporting roles to them.
Or to say it another way, not all ideas are created equal.
Just to grant something the status of an idea in no way grants it the status of being real. Humans make mistakes. Even lots of them, consistently, over vast periods of time.

War for example is the manifestation of conflicting ideas sure...

No matter whether we are talking about ontology, epistemology or morality, "Might makes Right" is a poor tool of refinement.
But there is no need for conflicting ideas to approach the theatre of war to become problematic.
If the point of showing a group of people fist pumping the air is less about the ideas that brought them together as a group, and more about what a group can achieve when it takes the form of a collective fist pumpers, you make the specific ethics/epistemology of an idea subservient to the group dynamic that undermines all group collectives. So ideas about God are now on par with ideas about sport, politics, etc.

the issue is our human need to evolve order from chaos.
Organized religion, organized peer reviewed science etc is all about the human desire for control and order. Achieved primarily by consensus. (See truth by consensus)
Early pagans even utilized dogma and rules. Epistemology is also a set of rules to ensure organized discussion and development of ideas.
and so on...
And no, I am not just saying that God exist because he is popular. I am suggesting that the historical association of God in ALL persons is the association with self reflected/projected externally.
The self is not always popular I might add...

As atheists will no doubt be quick to inform you, if you want to talk of society's pursuit of refinement within the confines of social progress and order, there is no need to invoke the idea of God.
The idea of God is just a Sid Meieir'istic stepping stone on the technological tree of advancement, so they say. The course of history can change and long standing trends can be bucked ... yada yada ... atheism the idea for the future of humanity ... yada yada .... /bell dings twice "Da plane! Da plane!"

Spoiler

.... (/fist pump, fist pump) etc etc.

IOW you are talking less about the idea of God being a real idea, and more about the idea of God serving the advancement of human society in this world.
Ideas about the progress of human society become the "real" idea, and the mish-mash of ideas that serve that end are relegated to the "apparent".

 

[iceaura]

So ideas about God are now on par with ideas about sport, politics, etc.

Except that with sports and politics, people often present arguments from evidence for the reality of whatever they think is important.
So those with ideas about God should maybe think of upping their game a notch.

The obvious problem with this is that humans are prone to ideas that are not necessarily harmonious with the universe.
IOW our "good ideas" corroborate some aspect of the universe and our "bad ideas" don't.

And so corroboration with the universe would be kind of important, to those who care whether their ideas are "good" or "bad".

Done already ... although you will probably have to go back to subsequent posts to JamesR to find it,

You can't find it there either.

 

[iceaura]

Point out where you think my discussionis not sensible, and I will gladly simplify it for you.

You will not. You never have, and you never will, on this forum, post any honest discussion of anything. That's not your agenda.

I’ve given what I think is good evidence. Yazata has brought it all up, so obviously it’s not that difficult to get hold of.

Nonsense.
Yazata has not brought up anything identifiable as your thinking, or anything you have "given" as evidence good or bad.

They don’t have to sift through it. That’s the point

Yes, they do. Yazata had to, for example.
Then they would have to guess. Then you can deny whatever it is - because you didn't provide any of it.

Yazata didn’t have to sift through it, and neither does anyone else.

Yazata had to sift through it, even just to find what Craig thinks. And being a reasonable person, he did not even attempt to sift for what you think - that would have been silly. You are right here.

Based on the evidence he put forward, yes.

The question was about your evidence - not Craig's.
Craig didn't put any forward anyway, but even if he had that tells us nothing about yours.

So put one forth for discussion,
Who with?

You.
Which is why you won't. Discussion is not in your agenda.

 

[DaveC426913]

The funny thing here is that when you are specifically directed to...

The correct word is redirected. This is the same deflection as Jan.

I can Google. So can everyone else here. A forum is about people discussing ideas and making assertions, not references to some unspecified meaning in some unspecified dictionary.

Here's how that'll play out:

I pick a definition and refute it.
You stay at distance, and get more and more explicit about calling the definition I picked as "simplistic", and continie to be non-committal - ultimately treat any definition I do call out as a straw man.

No. The onus remains on you (across almost 800 posts). You make the assertion, here. You pick the definition that you are willing to defend, and you write it out, here. That is how discourse works.

But you won't, because you do not have convictions on the matter.


I reassert this here, not as opinion but as demonstrable fact: No one here who believes in God will come out and actually say what it is specifically that they believe.

 

[DaveC426913]

The funny thing here is that when you are specifically directed to history or philosophy (or even a dictionary definition) related to God, you lose all courage.

Not to mention the fact that it's still not the topic at-hand. Picking a defintion, whether historical or ... dictionarial - whether by you or by anyone else - gets you no closer to providing any evidence for it.

Now approaching 800 posts of zero evidence being presented ....

 

[Musika]

Not to mention the fact that it's still not the topic at-hand. Picking a defintion, whether historical or ... dictionarial - whether by you or by anyone else - gets you no closer to providing any evidence for it.

Now approaching 800 posts of zero evidence being presented ....

You can't approach any problem of evidence without at least a relatively diversion/impediment free path through these subjects set before one's self.

 

[Musika]

The correct word is redirected. This is the same deflection as Jan.

I can Google. So can everyone else here. A forum is about people discussing ideas and making assertions, not references to some unspecified meaning in some unspecified dictionary.

Here's how that'll play out:

I pick a definition and refute it.
You stay at distance, and get more and more explicit about calling the definition I picked as "simplistic", and continie to be non-committal - ultimately treat any definition I do call out as a straw man.

No. The onus remains on you (across almost 800 posts). You make the assertion, here. You pick the definition that you are willing to defend, and you write it out, here. That is how discourse works.

But you won't, because you do not have convictions on the matter.


I reassert this here, not as opinion but as demonstrable fact: No one here who believes in God will come out and actually say what it is specifically that they believe.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The only time I have suggested one consult google is when their ideas are so off-kilter that it seems they are not familiar with standard ideas.
Anything that was more involved, I have gone to great lengths to explain.

 

[Michael 345]

Now approaching 800 posts of zero evidence being presented ....

When it could have been settled at Post #2 or #3 at max #10

The remainder could be about the evidence and how good or bad it was

 

[iceaura]

You can't approach any problem of evidence without at least a relatively diversion/impediment free path through these subjects set before one's self.

You won't post evidence that your God is real because that would impede your agenda here and threaten you with accountability.

Anything that was more involved, I have gone to great lengths to explain.

That's not true. You have explained nothing, and devoted all your lengths - great and small - to personal disparagements.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Reality is not the sum of all ideas but the refinement of them. Ie, some ideas are "real", and other ideas simply function in supporting roles to them.
Or to say it another way, not all ideas are created equal.
Just to grant something the status of an idea in no way grants it the status of being real. Humans make mistakes. Even lots of them, consistently, over vast periods of time.

I am sorry but you will have to unscramble this, as, as it stands it makes little sense to me
I am not claiming that God is ONLY an idea I am claiming that God AS an IDEA can be evidenced by the manifestation of that idea in human behavior through out history and currently.
A straight forward attempt to find at least some agreement about the "reality" of God that both atheists and theists
could agree with.

IOW you are talking less about the idea of God being a real idea, and more about the idea of God serving the advancement of human society in this world.
Ideas about the progress of human society become the "real" idea, and the mish-mash of ideas that serve that end are relegated to the "apparent".

nope. I am talking about how an idea's degree of reality is evidenced by it's material manifestation.
The rest is what you are reading into it from your own overly understandably defensive position. Understandably in the the sense that you are anticipating an attack on theism. This is not my intent.
To further a difficult and generally intractable discussion such as this it would pay to find common ground or points off agreement first, so I contend that God as an idea is materially evidenced by human behavior, historically and currently.
so..
Thread op:
Evidence that God, as an idea, is real.... can be observed in the historical and current behavior of humans.
Inserting my criteria, "as an idea", thus limiting my answer to only one small aspect of the question asked.
Is my claim correct and justified?
Is agreement even possible?

 

[Sarkus]

Point out where you think my discussionis not sensible, and I will gladly simplify it for you.

It's not a matter of simplification, Jan. It's a matter of simply not being sensible. If asked for specific arguments of Craig you find to be evidence for God, asking that person to look it up on Google is not sensible to discussion.

Not the same thing.
I’ve given what I think is good evidence. Yazata has brought it all up, so obviously it’s not that difficult to get hold of. What more do you want?

It is exactly the same thing. The little boy gave what he thought was a good answer. If someone then picks up the steaming pile of faeces, examines it and says "so you think the contents of this..." etc, do you think that excuses the little boy's behavious?
Someone humouring you is not an excuse for your behaviour, Jan.

Based on the evidence he put forward, yes.

What evidence is that, Jan? Please can you be specific?

Ask Yazata.
Or better still, look through his posts.

I'm asking you, Jan. Not Yazata. I'm asking you. Which arguments of Lane's do you think are evidence of God? Please be specific. Or are you just here to continue your trollish behaviour?

Who with?

You're on a discussion forum, Jan. It could be with anyone who then wants to reply. That's how these forums work. If you have no intention of doing so, you know where the door is.

They don’t have to sift through it. That’s the point. Yazata didn’t have to sift through it, and neither does anyone else.

And still you're refusing to be specific about which argument of Lane's you see as evidence for God. If you mean his attempt at the KCA then state that. If you mean something else then state which it is.
That is how decent and sensible discussion works, Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's not a matter of simplification, Jan. It's a matter of simply not being sensible. If asked for specific arguments of Craig you find to be evidence for God, asking that person to look it up on Google is not sensible to discussion.

I’ve already said to Choose any or all of them, I don’t mind. It simply saves me the time of writing it out.

We were asked to put forward what we think is good evidence for God, and that is what I did.

There is nothing to discuss, only whether you accept the evidence or not.

Obviously no atheist is going to accept it as evidence, so what is there to discuss?

It is exactly the same thing. The little boy gave what he thought was a good answer.

There’s nothing wrong with my response to the thread Sarkus, and you know it. So stop whining.

If someone then picks up the steaming pile of faeces, examines it and says "so you think the contents of this..." etc, do you think that excuses the little boy's behaviour

You think the Bill Craig’s layout, is comparable, in the way of gleaning information (laymanic), the same as vomit?
And you want to charge me with not being sensible.

I think your vile.

Someone humouring you is not an excuse for your behaviour, Jan.

Humouring or not, he did what he was supposed to do. You on the other hand seem to have a bit of trouble in that department.

What evidence is that, Jan? Please can you be specific?

Google William Craig Lane evidence for God, and you can pick out any evidence you like.

I'm asking you, Jan. Not Yazata.

Read above.

I'm asking you. Which arguments of Lane's do you think are evidence of God? Please be specific. [/quote ]

I think they’re all equally valid.

Or are you just here to continue your trollish behaviour?

You think I’m a troll because I call out the futility and sometimes foolishness of the atheist (present company accepted)?

Look around, do you see anyone discussing evidence of God? The theists here are smart enough to realise that atheists are absolutely incapable of discussing God, or evidence of God. Primarily because they are atheist.

We’ve all naively been down the road of thinking the atheist actually wants to know if there is evidence of God. Only to find out they are trying desperately to justify their worldview, by constantly denying and rejecting anything that could possibly punch a whole it.

It is a waste of time, and I’m glad that the theists here get that.

So follow my instruction, or read Yazata if you want to see what I think is good evidence that God is real. And you don’t have to thank me for making it atheist friendly by using Bill Craig’s arguments.

You're on a discussion forum, Jan. It could be with anyone who then wants to reply. That's how these forums work. If you have no intention of doing so, you know where the door is.

There is nothing for me to discuss with you about God, or even the evidence of God, unless you wish to discuss something with me.

As there technically cannot be a discussion on this topic, maybe we could explore the reason behind why atheists ask for evidence of God in the first place.

And still you're refusing to be specific about which argument of Lane's you see as evidence for God.

I’m not fussed. I regard all of them as decent.

If you mean his attempt at the KCA then state that. If you mean something else then state which it is.

Any one of them is sufficient.

That is how decent and sensible discussion works, Jan.[/QUOTE]

It’s already laid out. If you wish to discuss something, then discuss.

Jan.

 

[Musika]

I am sorry but you will have to unscramble this, as, as it stands it makes little sense to me
I am not claiming that God is ONLY an idea I am claiming that God AS an IDEA can be evidenced by the manifestation of that idea in human behavior through out history and currently.
A straight forward attempt to find at least some agreement about the "reality" of God that both atheists and theists
could agree with.

nope. I am talking about how an idea's degree of reality is evidenced by it's material manifestation.
The rest is what you are reading into it from your own overly understandably defensive position. Understandably in the the sense that you are anticipating an attack on theism. This is not my intent.
To further a difficult and generally intractable discussion such as this it would pay to find common ground or points off agreement first, so I contend that God as an idea is materially evidenced by human behavior, historically and currently.
so..
Thread op:
Evidence that God, as an idea, is real.... can be observed in the historical and current behavior of humans.
Inserting my criteria, "as an idea", thus limiting my answer to only one small aspect of the question asked.
Is my claim correct and justified?
Is agreement even possible?

I don't think you are likely to to meet much contention if that the extent of your argument. Atheism, as we commonly experience it here, would be untenable without the idea of God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The correct word is redirected. This is the same deflection as Jan.

It’s not a deflection Dave.
For that to be true, I would have to change the direction of the topic. I’m not. I’m acknowledging that atheists here are not, and never have been able to discuss God, let alone evidence that God is real.

I’ve put forward what I think is good evidence, and all some of you have done is moan and whine because you have to make a little effort.

If you are serious then quit whining and state what you think is wrong with it.

I can Google. So can everyone else here. A forum is about people discussing ideas and making assertions, not references to some unspecified meaning in some unspecified dictionary.

What’s stopping you from discussing the reference?

I pick a definition and refute it.
You stay at distance, and get more and more explicit about calling the definition I picked as "simplistic", and continie to be non-committal - ultimately treat any definition I do call out as a straw man.

To quote Bob Marley; “Who the cap fits, let them wear it”.

No. The onus remains on you (across almost 800 posts). You make the assertion, here. You pick the definition that you are willing to defend, and you write it out, here. That is how discourse works.

What onus?
What do theists have to defend?
Theists don’t deny or reject God.
Theists didn’t start this thread.

But you won't, because you do not have convictions on the matter.

We don’t have the conviction to waste time talking about God to a person who actively deny and reject God.

You should think about that, rather than try and convince yourself you have some sort of upper-hand.

I reassert this here, not as opinion but as demonstrable fact: No one here who believes in God will come out and actually say what it is specifically that they believe.

We have said. We believe in God. Silly.
It is our prerogative to engage you in discussion about that. But we have in the past, and it appears to increase your deniability and rejectfulness.

Notice as theists, we don’t ask each other for definitions of God?
Because we believe in God.
You can’t comprehend that because you keep yourself in the “there is no God” state.

Jan.