If God is real, how would you know?

[(Q)]

See it as chess moves.
I don’t think you have many moves, based on your worldview.

I don't need moves, this is all about you making assertions without evidence and the rest of us pointing that out.

If there is no God.
No definition of God.
How can you recognise evidence for God?

If there is no evidence for God
No definition of God.
Based on a worldview where there is a lack of, and or a disbelief in God.
How can you recognise evidence for God?

That is an unknown, both to you and to me. Similar to God, dragons are a construct of the imagination, we would expect to see a dragon as evidence for a dragon, therefore we would expect to see God as evidence for God.

If finally you accept evidence for God
What would that evidence have to entail?

God is the evidence for God.

It wouldn’t be based on any definition of God.
It wouldn’t be based on theistic philosophy. Because you don’t accept either of them.

We are the same in that regard, we both don't accept theistic philosophy. You accept something, but that hasn't been defined as yet.

It wouldn’t be based on the the design of structures, as there is evidence that structures weren’t designed, according to the evidence.
You think the ID lot are liars, based on evidence.

The ID lot have not shown that what they accept as evidence for God is evidence for God. Their argument is from ignorance and incredulity.

If you accept the evidence, and you become theists. Then we would have been right all along. You would no longer be an atheist, you would be a theist.

If God made Himself apparent to the world and everyone accepted that evidence for God, we would all understand that God exists. Of course, the possibility and probability that God is anything humans have conjured from their imaginations is probably slim to none.

So what could evidence of God possibly look like for an atheist.

God is evidence for God just like a dragon is evidence for dragons. It's not that complicated.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't need moves, this is all about you making assertions without evidence and the rest of us pointing that out.

I posit that you are incapable of recognising evidence for God, on account of your atheism.

That is an unknown, both to you and to me. Similar to God, dragons are a construct of the imagination, we would expect to see a dragon as evidence for a dragon, therefore we would expect to see God as evidence for God.

We are not in the same position, you cannot account for me.
There is absolutely no evidence that God is a construct of the mind. That is something atheists say to validate their worldview.

How would you know that It was God, if He showed Himself? That’s the point of the thread.

God is the evidence for God.

So you would seem the evidence to be evidence of God, not that it would be evidence. Sounds very familiar.

We are the same in that regard, we both don't accept theistic philosophy. You accept something, but that hasn't been defined as yet.

From someone who is in denial.
You see we could do this all day.
I’m prepared to accept both our positions, but you’re not. For you, there is no God. Your only reason is that you have convinced yourself of such ideas like God is a man-made concept.
Some fairytale for grown ups (not mainstream science) renders God unnecessary.
Nothing of any real value.
Theists simply accept and believe in God. No need for bells and whistles.

The ID lot have not shown that what they accept as evidence for God is evidence for God. Their argument is from ignorance and incredulity.

Blah blah blah!!!
Don’t you get tired of pitching the same old propaganda. Why don’t you try rebutting ID claims. Just for a change.

If God made Himself apparent to the world and everyone accepted that evidence for God, we would all understand that God exists. Of course, the possibility and probability that God is anything humans have conjured from their imaginations is probably slim to none.

Yeah we know. You’re in denial, and you reject anything and everything to do with God.

God is evidence for God just like a dragon is evidence for dragons. It's not that complicated.

*yawn*

 

[(Q)]

I posit that you are incapable of recognising evidence for God, on account of your atheism.

Of course not, that is absurd. Evidence is evidence, it is not based on what someone believes or doesn't believe.

We are not in the same position, you cannot account for me.

Yes, I can, you are a human being, aren't you?

There is absolutely no evidence that God is a construct of the mind. That is something atheists say to validate their worldview.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence of God outside of one's mind. It also accounts for the fact there are hundreds of different gods produced from the mind. Your is no different.

How would you know that It was God, if He showed Himself? That’s the point of the thread.

If God were God, then He would find a way.

So you would seem the evidence to be evidence of God, not that it would be evidence. Sounds very familiar.

That's not what I said, you're doing it again, putting words in my mouth.

From someone who is in denial.

I am not in denial.

You see we could do this all day.

Yes, you could put words in my mouth all day.

I’m prepared to accept both our positions, but you’re not. For you, there is no God.

Putting words in my mouth again.

Your only reason is that you have convinced yourself of such ideas like God is a man-made concept.

I haven't convinced myself of anything and neither have you.

Some fairytale for grown ups (not mainstream science) renders God unnecessary.
Nothing of any real value.
Theists simply accept and believe in God. No need for bells and whistles.

If you were honest, you would admit your acceptance of God is entirely on faith, not evidence.

Blah blah blah!!!
Don’t you get tired of pitching the same old propaganda. Why don’t you try rebutting ID claims. Just for a change.

I have no reason to rebut their claims, others have already accomplished that.

Yeah we know. You’re in denial, and you reject anything and everything to do with God.

*yawn*

Once again, you have your hand up my ass making my lips move, putting words in my mouth that are clearly not there.

Too bad you can't be honest, Jan. Is that how good, upstanding Christians behave?

 

[billvon]

If nothing seems to happen, would that mean God does not exist?

Nope. It would just mean there was no evidence for God.

If it did happen repeatedly, would that mean God does exist?

It would mean that there's evidence for God.

That’s not a usual thing that occurs, if it occurs at all.

Exactly. It is more likely a myth than reality - like God.

You’re rattling off things that you know most probably won’t happen, to validate your worldview. Like Paddo, you’re not being serious.

I am being quite serious. Religion is full of such miracles. St. Francis of Assisi was claimed to be "suspended above the earth, often to a height of three, and often to a height of four cubits." Repeat that, and that's evidence that God is real.

 

[Tiassa]

If there was, science would cease to be and we would all simply pray for whatever we wanted, and Darwinism and the theory of evolution would not be fact.

But that's your God, Paddoboy.

 

[Sarkus]

I read it somewhere. When I come across it again I’ll give you a link.

If you read what was in the link, and if you have subsequently believed it, then the justification, the rationale, the argument, must surely be something you can communicate? I mean, if you could provide even the basic line of the rational argument that this link would detail? No?
Without any link, however, or other support, your claim can be ignored for the appeal to personal incredulity it obviously is.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Of course not, that is absurd. Evidence is evidence, it is not based on what someone believes or doesn't believe.

Atheism - a lack of belief, a disbelief, in God.
Your worldview dictates, just as mine does.
Theism - a belief in God.

Yes, I can, you are a human being, aren't you?

Physiologically yes. But that’s where the similarity ends. Even if we shared the same worldview.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence of Godoutside of one's mind.

1. You cannot know that
2. You say that because you are atheist.
3. A theist would never say that.

It also accounts for the fact there are hundreds of different gods produced from the mind.

No it doesn’t. Those are “gods”, not God.
If you weren’t in denial, you would understand that. But you need to maintain that idea to validate your position.

Your is no different.

More denial.
The definition of God, ‘the transcendental origin of everything’, can only be one. Just like Truth. But you will continue to obfuscate, because it validates your position.

I have no reason to rebut their claims, others have already accomplished that.

I’ll remember that.

Once again, you have your hand up my ass

Ewwww!

Too bad you can't be honest, Jan. Is that how good, upstanding Christians behave?

Again creating this characterisation, to avoid answering questions, or properly discussing.
Again, to validate your position.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nope. It would just mean there was no evidence for God.

So you would accept something as evidence for God, if matched your particular criteria?
I can see a pattern.

It would mean that there's evidence for God.

Same as above.

Exactly. It is more likely a myth than reality - like God.

Nice cozy logic, that only applies to atheists who are in denial.

I am being quite serious. Religion is full of such miracles. St. Francis of Assisi was claimed to be "suspended above the earth, often to a height of three, and often to a height of four cubits." Repeat that, and that's evidence that God is real.

So the only way you’re going to even consider evidence of God to be legit, is by way of a miracle that you witness with your own eyes.
What will you tell people who didn’t see it, who say there is no evidence for God?

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you read what was in the link, and if you have subsequently believed it, then the justification, the rationale, the argument, must surely be something you can communicate? I mean, if you could provide even the basic line of the rational argument that this link would detail? No?
Without any link, however, or other support, your claim can be ignored for the appeal to personal incredulity it obviously is.

What is the importance of that information, in this thread. I’m choosing my back and forths, and mathematics is not high on my list, as I don’t find it enjoyable.
But if I come across, and my interest is raised, I will definitely tag you.

 

[billvon]

So you would accept something as evidence for God, if matched your particular criteria? I can see a pattern.

Good! The pattern is called "science."

Nice cozy logic, that only applies to atheists who are in denial.

It applies to all sciences.

So the only way you’re going to even consider evidence of God to be legit, is by way of a miracle that you witness with your own eyes.

Nope. I don't need to see it with my own eyes. If a lab at Stanford did it and documented it well - and it could be confirmed by Scripps - that would be "legit evidence."

What will you tell people who didn’t see it, who say there is no evidence for God?

Read the paper.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Good! The pattern is called "science."[\quote]
Not if it’s based on your own particular criteria for what counts as evidence.

It applies to all sciences.

Same as above.

Nope. I don't need to see it with my own eyes. If a lab at Stanford did it and documented it well - and it could be confirmed by Scripps - that would be "legit evidence."

Only if was documented in that way, you would accept it, without question.
So wouldn’t that mean people would have been right all along, but you were denial, so you couldn’t see it?
How do you know that is not already the case.

Read the paper.

So there’s no part of complex, specified information within the dna giving instruction how to build proteins, as miraculous, in any sense of the word?

 

[billvon]

Only if was documented in that way, you would accept it, without question.
So wouldn’t that mean people would have been right all along, but you were denial, so you couldn’t see it?

What, exactly, am I in denial about? (This should be good.)

How do you know that is not already the case.

Because people have been trying for thousands of years to accurately test the supernatural. They have always failed.

(Fun story - Harry Houdini spent much of his life outing religious and spiritual scammers.)

Maybe they will succeed in the future. Until they do - there is no evidence.

So there’s no part of complex, specified information within the dna giving instruction how to build proteins, as miraculous, in any sense of the word?

You can call it miraculous if you like. It is certainly cool.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What, exactly, am I in denial about? (This should be good.)

You would have been denying the truth all along.

Because people have been trying for thousands of years to accurately test the supernatural. They have always failed.

You don’t know that.
You’re denying the evidence until it is presented in a way that suits you. You more or less said so earlier.

Maybe they will succeed in the future. Until they do - there is no evidence.

So because there are people who believe can’t prove their own claims, there is no evidence for God?

You can call it miraculous if you like. It is certainly cool.

Why wouldn’t you call it miraculous?
We know that minds perform similar tasks of providing complex, specified, algorithmic information, without batting an eyelid.
But the universe doing that?
Are you trying to tell me it’s just another day at the office?
Wouldn’t that be big news?
Do you really not think that could have been put in place by an intelligent mind? Based how understand the expression of such a specific type of information?
Not saying you should accept it as such.
Do you think the chances of the universe performing such a task, is outranked by an intelligent mind performing such a task, based on what you know?

 

[Write4U]

So there’s no part of complex, specified information within the dna giving instruction how to build proteins, as miraculous, in any sense of the word?

The body does not build proteins, it uses them.

Protein

• Proteins are made up of hundreds or thousands of smaller units called amino acids, which are attached to one another in long chains. There are 20 different types of amino acids that can be combined to make a protein.

What are proteins and what do they do? - Genetics Home ...

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/howgeneswork/protein

There is no irreducible complexity, no magical pattern unrelated to the naturally evolved universe's geometry and biology.

14 billion years of trial and error from an unimaginable number of naturally occurring electro-chemical interactions slowly evolving ever more complex patterns. There is nothing that contradicts the mathematics of bio-chemistry.

 

[billvon]

You would have been denying the truth all along.

Again, what am I denying?

You don’t know that.

Yes, I do. I have seen several attempts to do just that. They have all failed. For example, 17 studies of intercessional prayer revealed no effect - going all the way back to 1872.

You’re denying the evidence until it is presented in a way that suits you. You more or less said so earlier.

Because it's not evidence. Your hunch that God is real is not evidence; it is a hunch, no more real than a flat Earther who declares that the Earth is flat because it seems like that to him.

So because there are people who believe can’t prove their own claims, there is no evidence for God?

If they can provide no valid evidence then you are correct - there is no evidence.

Why wouldn’t you call it miraculous?

Because the more you study it the more you realize it's a result of biological processes, which are based on chemical processes, which in turn are based on physics. No miracle required.

But again, if you want to call it that, feel free.

Are you trying to tell me it’s just another day at the office?

Not at all. Neither is a supernova. But again, the result of physical processes, and not a miracle.

Do you think the chances of the universe performing such a task, is outranked by an intelligent mind performing such a task, based on what you know?

This is the anthropic principle. The odds of life arising randomly are one in a billion. The odds of life arising given that we can look for it are 100%.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Again, what am I denying?

The truth that there is a God.

Because people have been trying for thousands of years to accurately test the supernatural. They have always failed.

If Stanford released a paper, documenting evidence of God, today. It would only confirm what theists have been saying all along.
How do you know that there is no evidence for God now, as theists have been saying all along, but has yet to be discovered, documented, and spoon-fed in a way that suits your sensibilities.

Because it's not evidence. Your hunch that God is real is not evidence; it is a hunch, no more real than a flat Earther who declares that the Earth is flat because it seems like that to him.

You don’t know that, because it is not presented in a way that satisfies you. If that’s what your waiting for, you could have not seen the forest for the trees. So to speak.

If they can provide no valid evidence then you are correct - there is no evidence.

What if there is evidence, but you choose not to accept it, based on your personal preference of distribution?
I’m just talking about God, by the way.

Because the more you study it the more you realize it's a result of biological processes, which are based on chemical processes, which in turn are based on physics. No miracle required.

How does biological processes, encode instructions? Isn’t that the task of an intelligent mind? At least according to your experience of such tasks.

This is the anthropic principle. The odds of life arising randomly are one in a billion. The odds of life arising given that we can look for it are 100%.

One in a billion?
Are you sure about that?

 

[Write4U]

This is the anthropic principle. The odds of life arising randomly are one in a billion. The odds of life arising given that we can look for it are 100%.

A "necessary" result of the combinatory chemical richness of the earth and the enormous time span of natural evolutionary trend to greater complexity. Life had to emerge on earth, eventually. Just as life elsewhere in the universe is just a matter of probability. Given the chemistry of the trillions of stars and planets, the probability for some form of life evolving on other suitable planets is probably 99+%.
Causal bio-chemical and environmental potentials make it necessary for some physical phenomena becoming expressed in reality.

The term is ; Large number of rare events

In statistics, large number of rare events (LNRE) modeling summarizes methods that allow improvements in frequency distribution estimation over the maximum likelihood estimation when "rare events are common".

It can be applied to problems in linguistics (see Zipf distribution), in various natural phenomena, in chemistry, in demography and in bibliography, amongst others.......

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

 

[billvon]

The truth that there is a God.

Nope. That's your assumption. There may be no God. There may be one God. There may be a dozen Gods. There may be 7.9 billion.

There is equal evidence for all those possibilities.

If Stanford released a paper, documenting evidence of God, today. It would only confirm what theists have been saying all along.

It might. It might disprove what they have been saying. It might demonstrate something that no one ever expected (i.e. only prayers to Poseidon work.)

How do you know that there is no evidence for God now, as theists have been saying all along, but has yet to be discovered, documented, and spoon-fed in a way that suits your sensibilities.

There might be. There also might be evidence that the only true God is Poseidon, which you of course would deny.

You don’t know that, because it is not presented in a way that satisfies you.

Basically yes. Woo does not satisfy me.

What if there is evidence, but you choose not to accept it, based on your personal preference of distribution?
I’m just talking about God, by the way.

I'd accept it.

How about you? What if there was hard evidence that there was no God? Or that the one true god is Poseidon?

How does biological processes, encode instructions? Isn’t that the task of an intelligent mind? At least according to your experience of such tasks.

Nope.

Take a look at Giant's Causeway. Who "wrote the instructions" to create a pathway out of perfect hexagonal tiles? If you didn't know better you might say it was a divine intelligence - when in fact it is just simple physical and chemical processes, the same processes that drive crystal and snowflake formations.

One in a billion?

At least!

 

[paddoboy]

It is a question for anyone, but it was specifically aimed at atheists.

Good, I'm anyone.

What part doesn’t make sense to you?
Maybe I can help you to make sense of it.

Actually near everything you say...your claims that we have evidence for god when we don't...your claims we have a soul when we have no evidence...
If you want to help me understand, then offer me some evidence...stop redefining, stop lying, stop being obtuse. Show me some real empirical evidence of your claims. Otherwise it is simply unsupported rhetoric.
Oh, and in line with the thread subject, you have my answer on that also.

Of course we do.
You’re simply in a state of denial and rejection.

Or you are lying....again!

God doesn’t have to “get here”.
Man can only use what he knows, and the resources at hand, to invent stuff. He cannot go outside of that. So man could not have invented a transcendent being.

Let me rephrase, since again you have redefined.Man invented the myth that you call god/s: God/s did not invent man or the universe.

Troll!

Yes, you can add trolling to those questionable qualities you have.

I wasn’t asking you.
It’s not all about you Paddo.

This is a public forum Jan, open to any Tom, Dick, or Harry...or even Jan and paddoboy, caprice?

 

[Write4U]

Nope. That's your assumption. There may be no God. There may be one God. There may be a dozen Gods. There may be 7.9 billion.

There is equal evidence for all those possibilities.

But are they "necessary"?
It's not a matter of possibility, it's a matter of probability. And we have abundant chemical evidence to support the notion that life was an inevitability given the 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical interactions in a hospitable dynamic biosphere, which will give rise to macro and micro-biomes and made it necessary that life must appear (Bohm's Implicate Order).