Evidence that God is real

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

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Simple.

    You said that you believe what Bill Craig does. You have said this at least a dozen times.

    Bill Craig has strong beliefs on homosexuality, genocide and evolution.

    Based on the above two statements, you believe what Bill Craig does on homosexuality, genocide and evolution.

    This is logic. I know theists aren't much for it, so I can see why you are having so much trouble.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Because you have not presented it.

    It must be frustrating to be a theist and be totally unable to present any evidence at all for your beliefs (other than "ask someone else.")
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    All his arguments reveal evidence of God in my opinion,
    Now I take it the OP had something in mind when he asked for this information, so lets see what it is.
    You are welcome to challenge my opinion if you can.

    Why?

    What does this drivel have to do with the thread?

    Sounds like you have psychological problem with theists,
    You're irrational.

    jan.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Question to atheists...

    How do you know that WLC's arguments that reveal evidence of God, isn't evidence of God?

    jan.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Arguments do not reveal evidence.

    The inability of oA theists to say what they apparently want others to assume they mean is a field mark - something they all have in common when posting on science forums.
    Confusing arguments with evidence again.

    The "evidence" that WLC employs in his arguments (he "reveals" nothing) is almost entirely a collection of false claims, with a couple of absurdities or errors of reasoning mixed in - including stuff that is just plain stupid.
    Presumably because his audience finds such stuff persuasive. Whether he is aware of that, whether he despises his audience enough to employ such rhetoric in deliberate and calculated deception, I don't know.

    Of course, as Capracus reminds us, merely being absurd, false, deceptively employed, and so forth, does not disqualify it from being evidence of God without further argument. It's quite possible - from everything we have seen so far by oA theists - that their God would lie, slander, deceive, and in all ways humiliate and abuse "His" believers. For their own good, especially. And if that is the current Holy Mission, something like WLC's essays could be evidence of the reality of that God indeed.

    Are you arguing for that? Is that your evidence for the reality of your God?
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018
  9. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    316
    The first round, the flaw is in bold. It is a leap of faith not a leap of logic. How does one go immediately from an explanation of existence to a personal being? Makes no sense at all.

    1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
    2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being.
    3. The universe is a contingent thing.
    4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
    5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being.

    This round is probably the silliest and makes the least amount of sense. It creates a false premise about mathematics and the jumps to the conclusion that God exists. Absurd.

    1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.
    2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
    3. Therefore, God exists.

    It's little wonder Dawkins refuses to debate Lane, the guys got a screw loose.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Maybe he knows that arguments do not reveal evidence - there are no such arguments in Craig's writing or anyone else's.
    That would be the obvious possibility.
    The only problem with it is that it requires rewriting your sentence there, correcting the grammar and generally making sense of it, and whatever results may not be what you intended to mean.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
  11. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Maybe shmaby!

    How do you know?

    Jan.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Already posted - 868.

    You haven't answered that key question, btw, in 868:

    Am I in error to assume that absurdities, falsehoods, and humiliatingly stupid arguments from someone claiming to believe in God are not evidence of the reality of God? Because one could make an argument that they are - that abusing and humiliating believers by confusing their minds like that is completely in character, and the hand of God is the likeliest explanation for the bizarre foolishness displayed by Craig et al.
     
  13. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    316
    The same reason no one else ridiculous absurd, biased, illogical assertions aren't evidence of God. He doesn't reveal anything other than his own bias.
     
  14. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    316
    They are illogical assertions, Jan. They aren't evidence of anything.

    In fact, I can make far more sense and provide hard evidence than Lane by saying that a horse, rhino and bird are evidence of flying unicorns.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    He presents no evidence.
    There is no such thing as "his evidence" for the reality of God.
    (And evidence does not "reveal" things - why do oA theists on science forums misuse language like that? They all do, consistently, just like that).

    You're giving him too much credit. After all, mathematics does exist, there is a universe, if those were his premises they would at least not be themselves falsehoods.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Hmm....

    Well, this is all very interesting.

    Since I last caught up with this thread, almost 300 more posts have been added, but there's still precious little that the theists have posted in terms of evidence.

    Jan Ardena's focus in the thread has been on making excuses for why he can't or won't present any evidence. There's essentially no useful on-topic content in his posts, so they can be safely ignored.

    Yazata attempted to come to Jan's rescue by summarising a few of William Lane Craig's arguments for God, most of which do not involve evidence but instead try to create a logical progression that points to God, based on dubious initial assumptions. A lot of Craig's arguments, when you look at them closely, sneak in God as a hidden premise at the start. The result is that they end up begging the question. It is hardly surprising that Craig's conclusions end up with God, when that's exactly what he starts with.

    A detailed examination of the many flaws in Craig's various arguments would take this thread off-topic, I fear. Besides, that which is presented with no supporting argument can just as easily be dismissed with no supporting argument. For those who are interested, here is an interesting article about William Lane Craig, his arguments and his debating methods. It also includes refutations of Craig's arguments:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

    So Jan agrees with everything Craig ever wrote about God? Good for Jan. But an expression of Jan's personal beliefs is not a response to the question in the opening post of this thread. Clearly, 900 posts in, Jan has no intention of addressing the topic of the thread, so his contribution to this thread is just noise.

    Musika has complained at length that empiricism is not a good way to get at evidence that God is real. We must use non-empirical epistemologies instead, he says. This is all well and good, but I have yet to see him present any evidence that God is real, derived from these non-epistemological methods. In short, Musika has concentrated on telling all and sundry that we are approaching the whole evidence-collection business the wrong way, but as far as coming up with the goods goes, his own superior evidence-collection methods haven't yet borne any fruit either. Has he actually put forward any evidence for his God in this thread? I don't think he has, but maybe I missed it.

    A few other theists have thrown in the odd sentence or two suggesting various evidences. I'll try to sort through those posts soon.

    I'm in two minds about what to do with all the off-topic excuses and personal rubbish that has been added to the thread in the past 300 or so posts. On the one hand, leaving them in situ speaks fairly eloquently as to Jan Ardena's complete lack of good faith in this discussion, in particular. And in a general sense, the longer this thread goes on and the more excuses the main theist participants make as to why they can't or won't try to respond in simple terms to the direct question of the thread, the worse the theist case for God looks in respect to the claim that God is evidenced. But on the other hand, all the petty insults and stonewalling might, by sheer volume, act effectively as the kind of smokescreen that Jan is trying to put up to hide his inability to address the topic. In other words, the casual reader might fail to see the wood for the trees.

    Previously, I thought it was appropriate to split the off-topic nonsense to a separate garbage-collection thread. I would appreciate your thoughts, readers, on whether the latest prevarications and attempts to distract should be shifted to the same thread, or left here as a kind of testament in themselves to the weakness of the case of the particular group of theists we have attracted.

    This post, as I'm sure you've noticed, is meta. I intend to respond to what new substance there is that has actually addressed the topic in the last 300 posts (for example, Musika has earned a thoughtful response on certain points), but it might be another few days before I have time to devote attention to that.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
  17. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    316
    Clearly, not to the satisfaction of one who doesn't want to hear it and thinks illogical, irrational conclusions from false premises is somehow hard evidence. Maybe your asking if Lane got lucky and by sheer chance got it right? How do we verify that?
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    It's a tough problem. 'Points of order' need to be called out when the debate process is violated - otherwise a debate could be thwarted simply with cheap diversionary tactics. But when it happens to the extent that's happened in this thread, the whole thread ends up being meta - and the ... thwartage can't be separated as distinct from the defense itself inasmuch as whether a conclusion - or perhaps score - can be reached.

    In my opinion, this thread, while started in good faith, has far outlived its effectiveness. It has lived far longer than it would have if it were not tended to by JamesR (you could interpret that as a hat-tip, but you could also interpret that as a knock).
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No.
    No more than Jan, anyway.
    He just misuses longer strings of bigger words, Gish Gallops floridly instead of aridly.
    e.g.: Refusal to post in good faith on grounds that the "teleology" of "empiricism" can't handle it is no different from Jan's refusal on grounds that "atheism" can't handle it. It's exactly the same refusal.

    When you mentally adjust and make allowances for these folks - rehab the vocabulary and fix the garbled syntax of one of these oA theists to create something that has earned a thoughtful response - you are fooling yourself. You are normalizing bad faith and trollposting.

    Musika is posting in bad faith equivalent to Jan's, in the same characteristically fogged lingo of innuendo, and to the same end: disparagement of science and its base in reason, including - tactically - personal disparagement of anyone promoting or defending it. He is not engaging in discussion.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    Nicely put.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,888
    Given that the alternative any of you are providing is ignorant, hateful superstition, I think your childish whining is a sick joke.

    This thread gets exactly what it's worth.

    Seriously, a thread that starts with sick, obsessive bigotry isn't going to produce much more than the self-righteous ignorance of its own intention and spirit.

    What? What did any bigot-bullies think this thread was going to accomplish? It's just a bunch of religious zealotry no better than anything it complains about.

    Complain about Jan all you want. You're supposed to be the smart ones.

    Yeah, I know: Too bad about that.
     
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968


    It makes a lot of sense. If the universe, with all it's laws, time, bit, bobs, etc is contingent, then it stands to reason that, that it is contingent to a transcendent, intelligent agent, who creates universes at will.

    How do you explain the applicability of mathematics to the physical world?
    Or, which explanation do you lean toward?

    jan.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2018
  23. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    I literally see evidence for God all around me every single day. To me His existence is the most reasonable and logical, even the most plain and simple thing. I could not deny His existence unless I were to deny my own existence.

    And what would be the point of providing evidence to someone else when the evidence is already so clearly provided to all? It is self evident!
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2018

Share This Page