Evidence that God is real

[iceaura]

Epistemologically speaking, if one fault was sufficient to sink a ship, nothing would float.
Or to grant you the greatest charity, there is a huge difference between problematizing a claim at the periphery and doing the same to the core.
Post hoc is as post hoc does.

And yet another of these overt Abrahamic theist postings, complete with a bullshit "if", some ungrammatical and carefully unspecific wordfoggery, and an overall focus on personal disparagement via innuendo.

Apparently, if the reader does the work of making sense of it (except for the "post hoc" goofy, which would require too much prose to untangle), all this is supposed to suggest, by innuendo and hint and vague handwaving at generalities - without ever saying anything that could be held to reason, in other words - that only trivial or marginal differences separate those other myths from the Biblical Noachian Flood.

That is of course false (my guess for why it is not stated clearly) - examination of the various myths reveals fundamental differences, such as: not saving any animals, not bringing any women, not building a boat, not raining to cause the Flood, no rainbow, no pissed off deity involved, not happening within hundreds or thousands of years of the same time, not global, doesn't kill everybody else, and so forth. The two myths mentioned specifically - Aztec and Mayan - exhibit some of these differences - both from the Noachian Flood and from each other.

So flood myths are common? snake myths are common, monster myths are common, talking animal myths are common, magic fruit myths are common, and myths involving large soaring birds or giants or bears or clever canids or very tall trees or women turning into things are common. Lots of cultures have David and Goliath type stories, despised castout making good in the King's service stories, wise man befriended by large predator stories,

where do you think the writers of the Bible got their material?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I mist say that I am disappointed in the fact our theist friends have not been able to contribute to this thread in a way that fiited the hopes in the OP.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I was under the impression that from the details listed the ark could not have been built let alone survive being launched or survive afloat even with no animal cargo

Well that proves God helped other wise it could not float.
Alex

 

[James R]

So, where are we at as far as evidence of God goes, 170-something posts into the thread. Let's see...

Jan Ardena has blustered on about how he isn't interested in evidence, yada yada yada. As far as actually presenting any goes, there are two things. At one point he appeared to suggest that everything in the world is evidence of God, but he couldn't quite bring himself to commit to that position when asked the question directly. Apart from that, he suggested that the "scriptures" are evidence of God, without providing any particular reason as to why they should be considered as such.

Meanwhile, Musika has spent his time arguing that to appreciate evidence of God, we all really need to realign our definitions of the term "evidence" to a different "epistemology". If we all just adopt Musika's definition of evidence, then we'll suddenly discover that there's heaps of evidence of God to be had - although what exactly it is he isn't saying, as far as I can tell.

All in all, I was hoping for something a little more concrete. Instead, what I'm seeing is a lot of defensive hedging around the question, combined with attempts by certain theists to take the thread off topic. How disappointing.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I've already told you what I think is good evidence, things like the cosmological, and teleological argument, or most things by William Craig Lane.

The first two things you mention are not evidence, but rather are philosophical arguments. You do understand what evidence is, don't you?

As for your references to William Craig Lane, it's all very vague. You appear to be saying you agree with some or all of the arguments he puts forward. But he writes a lots of stuff. So, you probably ought to pick at least one or two examples of evidence for God that he puts forward (and that you agree is evidence of God), and present those. Let's make the discussion concrete, rather than you vaguely waving your hands in Lane's direction. Okay?

I don't base my theism on them, but they are basically good in my opinion. I'm not a scientist, or philosopher, so I'm not going to lay them out.

It's sounding to me a lot like you haven't really read much of Lane at all, but he just strikes you as somebody you might agree with, so you're placing your faith in him to do the hard lifting that you can't be bothered doing yourself. Is that a fair assessment?

It's a pity you're not going to lay out any of Lane's evidence here. So, given that, is there any evidence you are going to lay out for us, then, or are you done for this thread?

I believes the world is an effect of God.

I know. Have you got any evidence?

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.

That seems like adding a version of reality to fit the evidence. Is that what you do?

I think you've tied yourself in a knot again. I invited you to address the issue of "real" when you provide evidence, if you think you need to. That invitation remains open. We can discuss it when and if you decide to present some evidence.

Really?
So you're not bothered about truth?
It figures.

As is clear from the statement I made (which you quoted in the process of producing this response), I am bothered about presupposing truths. I also wrote quite extensively on my thoughts about the possibility of accessing the Truth, with a capital "T".

But, again, this talk of "Truth" is just a distraction on your part. If you think you have some True evidence, why don't you just present it? That's what the thread is about.

Same here.

Are you willing to change your mind about the reality of God, in principle? (Watch the cartwheels start.)

But there is a truth. There is an age for the universe which is absolutely correct, irrespective of what any scientist thinks or knows.

I'm not so sure about that, but it's a discussion better suited to the Philosophy forum.

I must say, it's remarkable in this thread that you, one who is so often demonstrably unable to distinguish subjective from objective Truth, are suddenly an enthusiast for the One Truth.

Sounds religious to me.

Religious is more along the lines of imagining that one has privileged access to the One Truth, I'd say.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

How is this relevant in a thread about evidence?

Without truth, there is no knowledge.

Without justified truth, there is no knowledge. Hence my call for evidence.

What is ''God language''?
Don't you understand what is meant by ''Truth Is''?

I don't understand "Truth Is" any more than I understand "God Is". They appear to me to be empty mantras, devoid of any content.

But you're not interested in truth.

In this thread, I'm interested in evidence.

A discussion with you is ultimately pointless.

You seem desperate to find an excuse to wiggle your way out of this thread. Why is that?

I don't think you're thinking scientifically.

Honestly, I doubt you'd be able to identify it.

I've never said that.

Can I take it you hold the opposite opinion then? That you think an accurate world-model need not include God? Or do you want to explain yourself?

For a start your ability.

My ability is unambiguous evidence of God? Interesting. Please elaborate.

Nothing wrong with that.

How do you reconcile the idea of God as a separate person with your pan-theism (belief that God is literally everything and everyone)?

Are persons part of reality?

Are you saying that rocks and trees and tubs of butter are all people, too?

You see what you want to see.

To be fair, you're not offering any concrete alternative.

You already admit you're not really bothered about truth.

I don't recall saying that. Got a link? It would be strange for me to start a thread asking for evidence of a truth if I wasn't really bothered about it, don't you think?

''Everything'' is merely an emanation of God.

How is that different to God being a synonym for "everything"?

I'm a theist, so it does.
What is a typical theist?

Not you. A typical theist would be somebody who follows one of the major religions, for example.

And ''supernatural'' is a perspective.

It seems to me that God either has a natural explanation, or he doesn't. But you appear to be saying the truth of the matter depends somehow on one's perspective.

The only way that could work, I think, would be for you to artificially expand your definition of "natural" to include all the things normally thought of as supernatural. Is that what you do?

Lot's of stuff. But we'll go with WLC, as he lays it out nice.

So pick one or two pieces of evidence that WLC presents, that you understand and agree with, and we'll discuss.

The Personality of Godhead[God] is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong.

How about this, for starters.

It's problematic in a number of ways.

For example, the terms "perfect" and "complete" and "completely perfect" and "perfectly equipped" and "Whole" cry out for definition.

The second half is not so much definitional as advisory, it appears. And, if I may say so, somewhat obsessed with property matters.

Yes. The scriptures.
I accept them as evidence as God, also.

The scriptures are evidence that God is in every atom? How so?

More generally, why do you accept them as evidence of God?

 

[Michael 345]

How disappointing.

I'm surprised at your disappointment

Somewhat like sending your dog off for driving lessons because your dog can do anything

When the instructor returns - says the dog can't - ask you for evidence

is your evidence - I believe (have faith) my dog can drive

Belief and cousin faith is all theist have

I believe your faith in theist having evidence to present is at best mild entertainment watching language being mangled

I don't think I will start a thread requesting any photos of theist in a selfie with god

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Really? You're taking lesson from Alex now?

You didn't answer the question. Are you now saying you do regard subjective religious experience to be evidence of God?

Bully for them.

Indeed.

I believe that explicitly atheist scientists would bother with such shallowness, but a good scientist (be he/she atheist, or theist) would easily pick up the essence of what I'm saying.

It's not about atheism, in this instance - just scientific accuracy. But, like I said, we don't need to get into that on this particular issue. And the reason we don't need to get into it is that I easily picked up the essence of what you were saying! So, no need to make unnecessary accusations of shallowness.

By people who read scriptures.

So it is by reading scriptures that we are to confirm that there are spiritual masters who can transform matter on a minute level. Is that what you're saying?

Is there any more direct evidence that supports your claim?

I think cymatics is good evidence of how sound can generate form, and different frequencies can change forms.
Real prayer isn't just about desire, it is about sound vibration, which is why spiritual masters like Jesus teach conditioned souls how to pray.

I hadn't heard the term "cymatics" before this. However, it seems to me that it's mostly religious baggage added on to a well-understood physical phenomenon. I've played with Chaldni plates, for example. Lots of fun, but I don't think it requires spiritual mastery.

I don't give a toss about controlled studies.
They are done for the pleasure of people who do not accept or believe in God.

Very revealing, Jan.

If you did care just a bit more about controlled studies, then your opinions on a number of issues might very well be quite different to the ones you currently hold.

Your not giving a toss is quite consistent with your belief system, I'll give you that much. And to tell you the truth, I can't see your opinion changing any time soon. It could well be this that stops you ever really accessing science properly.

Your attitude on this has consequences that go far beyond your religious beliefs. I think you either don't realise that, or else you vaguely realise it but consciously choose not to improve yourself.

It's okay. I understand the likely reason why you have this attitude.

Because I can read.

What did you read that convinced you?

Fail! You are being arrogant.

Like it or not, it's a fact that some of us have more knowledge and/or ability in some areas than other people do. It's pointless pretending that's not the case. I very seldom make the point explicitly, but it's always worth keeping Dunning-Kruger in mind.

You may understand the detail more, but we all have to, by necessity understand the laws of physics, which are necessary for us to understand. Outside of that, I could care less.

What you're saying is that you're content with the intuitive physics you've developed from your own experience. That's true for most people. Unfortunately, a lot of known physics turns out to be counter-intuitive. It's okay. You'll get by just fine without having to delve into modern science too much. We can't all be experts in everything, and we're not all interested in the same things.

Arrogance doesn't cut it James. Humility is the only game in town.

We were talking about miracles, weren't we? Do you have anything to say about those, on the topic of evidence?

Define God, James.

You just did that, didn't you? Let's go with that for now.

Did you not read the article put forward in my thread which James closed down for no good reason?

The reason I closed your thread is clearly posted in that thread. You were spinning your wheels by the end of it, and getting all riled up in the process. It was best to close it.

The scriptures weren't the invention of men.

Now we're getting somewhere!

Who invented them?

What's the evidence that they weren't the invention of man?

Are we talking all scriptures, or only particular ones? If particular ones, which ones?

 

[James R]

Musika:

In short, the main struggle you will have with this subject is that the "evidence" for God is not determined or constrained by the standard "veil of perception" that commonly surrounds our ideas of things in this world.

I don't understand.

Are you saying that we can access evidence that is beyond the "standard veil of perception"? What does that mean, in practice? That we can access evidence using some other sense than the standard ones of sight, hearing, touch, etc.?

Are you also saying that the only evidence of God is this "behind the veil" evidence, or is there also some evidence that is accessible by the usual methods?

If a special method is needed to access the evidence, can you explain what it is and how it works?

 

[James R]

More...

you have that people have a propensity to believe something that may not be true, is a condition of your worldview, which means it pertains to your atheism alone.

This is so bizarre, I have to comment.

Jan appears to be questioning the idea that people can believe things that aren't true. Jan is saying that the belief-that-people-sometimes-believe-false-things is itself a peculiarly atheistic one.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that people have a propensity to believe that the world is flat, rather than round. Put another way, it is natural for people to believe that the world is flat. Jan would have it, then, that the idea that the world might not be flat (contrary to the "natural" belief that people have) is an atheist idea - a symptom of an atheistic way of thinking about the world.

All I can do at this point is shake my head and say: if realising that people can make mistakes (naturally) is something only atheists are capable of, then I'm very happy I'm an atheist. What it must be like to live under the illusion that whatever somebody believes is true is a fact!

Where is your evidence for this? You keep asserting it. You had a 112-page thread on the matter and still you couldn't demonstrate where it spoke of belief in God being natural. Throughout that thread you seem to have misunderstood what the article was saying, and you have simply latched onto this notion that belief in God is natural. And now you simply repeat it as a mantra.
So is your belief that "belief in God is natural" your main evidence that God is real?

Jan's opinion that "belief in God is natural" is only relevant for this thread if somehow holding a belief "naturally" means that the belief itself must be correct.

So my question to Jan is: do you really believe people can't be mistaken as to the facts when they believe stuff? Or is this a pretence or distraction you're trying to create?

 

[James R]

It seems that if a book or idea is great, it is measured by its influence maintained over time.
2000 years later, and even you can't seem to stop yourself talking about it.

The popularity of the bible is evidence that God is real?

 

[spidergoat]

The popularity of the bible is evidence that God is real?

Obviously! It's the only thing that separates it from other legends like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.

 

[billvon]

The popularity of the bible is evidence that God is real?

By that logic, Santa Claus is even more real. (Oddly enough, Jan agrees with that.)

 

[Michael 345]

By that logic, Santa Claus is even more real. (Oddly enough, Jan agrees with that.)

Add in the Tooth Fairy then

Those coins don't just appear by themselves

 

[DaveC426913]

(There wasn't an 'appeal to popularity fallacy', so bandwagon will have to do.)

 

[sideshowbob]

It seems that if a book or idea is great, it is measured by its influence maintained over time.

Can you show a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the spread of Christianity and the Bible? I doubt it. After all, for most of the history of Christianity, few Christians could read. The Bible seems to be little more than a prop.

 

[Magical Realist]

(There wasn't an 'appeal to popularity fallacy', so bandwagon will have to do.)

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

 

[spidergoat]

It helps that for hundreds of years it was the only book available in the west... where the printing press was invented.

 

[Musika]

Can you show a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the spread of Christianity and the Bible? I doubt it. After all, for most of the history of Christianity, few Christians could read. The Bible seems to be little more than a prop.

Yes, the first council of Nicaea was a complete non-event in the history of christianity, because a vast majority of people were illiterate during the waning of the Roman empire.

 

[sideshowbob]

Yes, the first council of Nicaea was a complete non-event in the history of christianity, because a vast majority of people were illiterate during the waning of the Roman empire.

The question was, "Can you show a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the spread of Christianity and the Bible?" That is, can you show that Christianity spread because the Bible is true? A council on church policy doesn't answer that question.

 

[DaveC426913]

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

Well yes, but I couldn't find a sports meme for it.