A Thought for Atheists

[LOki]

I am simply saying that I believe in God, and that there is evidence to support that belief.

No there isn't.

At least none you can produce for verification.

Of course one can hold beliefs unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; one can hold beliefs contradictory to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Such is faith.

I am then pointing out to specific posters that their insistence on being given verifiable evidence that God actually exists is holding me to a standard that they do not hold themselves, or even science, to.

This is nonsense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am simply saying that I believe in God, and that there is evidence to support that belief.

No there isn't.

At least none you can produce for verification.

Of course one can hold beliefs unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; one can hold beliefs contradictory to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Such is faith.

You should read my posts. Requiring verification, whatever you think that means, is a way to reject any evidence anyone presents. I know of no single piece of evidence that exist that proves God is real, what proves it is everything I know about the subject.

That makes it a working hypothesis, aka science.

I am then pointing out to specific posters that their insistence on being given verifiable evidence that God actually exists is holding me to a standard that they do not hold themselves, or even science, to.

This is nonsense.

I agree. Being close minded is nonsense, but some people prefer it to admitting that they might be wrong.

 

[LOki]

Requiring verification, whatever you think that means, is a way to reject any evidence anyone presents.

Game over.

This is just the typical faith-based question-begging appeal to faith required by those who insist that there is evidence of God's existence.

You are just seeing what you believe.

You're just making the fatuous demand that I must dismiss any notion that anything called "evidence" can be demonstrated to not be evidence.

Not happening.

You are demanding belief in the existence of your God (first) as the premise for establishing evidence of His existence.

That's intellectually invalid, and disingenuous.

 

[Montrovant]

To be more serious, QW, I think you need to be able to define god to present anything of credible, objective evidence of god's existence. By saying you don't feel able to define god, you are basically saying the Christmas cease-fire is evidence of something....but that's all. Not evidence of god, really, because you can't define god, but evidence of something you are unsure what it is, that you have decided to call god.

Faith, belief in god or the supernatural, these are extremely subjective, personal things. I understand the desire to show people who don't believe as you do WHY you hold your beliefs, but it's always good to step back and remember that what may seem obvious to you is not so to someone else. As a non-believer, I've had that problem many times; I just don't understand how people make the connection from an event, like the Christmas cease-fire, to god without being dishonest with themselves. Clearly our thought processes don't follow the same path. It doesn't make either of us wrong, but it also doesn't mean whatever evidence someone provides to prove their beliefs is objective rather than subjective.

Why do I have to stop and define God? Wouldn't it be arrogant of me to define something I do not fully understand?

Do I have to define my neighbor in order to tell you about him? Is my inability to tell you his political belief somehow make my knowledge that he lives next door to me less credible?

The problem here is not my ability to provide evidence, it is your definition of credible. You are quite willing to accept my unsupported word that I have a neighbor without me actually proving I do. The explanation for this is quite simple, we live in a world where the thought that a person does not actually have a neighbor is more incredible that an unsupported assertion that they do.

When it comes to a discussion of the existence of God some people insist on a level of proof they do not apply to anything else. To them, this is no different than a belief that everyone has neighbors. It is the world they live in, and to think anything else requires a level of proof that goes beyond credible and reaches the level that actually requires a person to eliminate all other possible explanations, even ones that are absurd. That is completely unreasonable, and is indicative of extreme bias and being close minded.

Please note that, throughout this thread, I have not tried to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I have been taking the time to urge you, and others, to do exactly what you are saying I should do.

Step back, examine your beliefs and prejudices, admit them, and open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong. My faith, my belief in God, is a working hypothesis. I examine all the evidence available, test it against my faith, and see what happens. One day I might stumble across something that will prove me wrong, until then I will keep believing because faith, as a working hypothesis, explains more than disbelief does.

Working hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Me pointing to the Christmas Truce is not me being dishonest, it is but one piece of evidence I have for my faith. The fact that you, and others, reject it out of hand is proof of your bias and dishonesty. I freely admit that, by itself, it does not prove anything, but it is certainly evidence of something.

Open your mind, and look around. Examine the evidence that is all around you. you might be surprised at what you find.

Others have brought up some points I might have, so I'll skip a lot. I will say that you need to define god only in the context of this conversation, and your claim that you have evidence of god's existence; it seems unreasonable to claim evidence of a thing without being able to say what that thing actually is. I'm not saying the definition needs to be extraordinarily detailed, simply that the word god isn't well-defined enough to really provide evidence for. Is this a god of one of the major religions? A single all-powerful god such as those religions claim, or one of a pantheon more like some of the ancient religions? Is god an intelligent being, or more a force without will behind it? etc.. I have similar issues with many claims of supernatural beings/forces/phenomena. Without at least a halfway decent definition, what seems like evidence to you is nothing of the sort to someone without your beliefs. To try and make an analogy, if someone heard a strange noise in their home and said it was the work of spirits, I would ask just what they mean by spirits, in part because that definition might explain why they believe that noise was the work of spirits and not a more mundane event. It's unlikely to make me believe them, but at least I might understand why they consider it evidence of their belief.

I did not mean to give the impression you are forcing your beliefs on anyone. You can believe in whatever god or gods you wish and I'm fine with it. I don't consider you discussing your beliefs on a message board in the religion section shoving it in anyone's face. I have very little in the way of supernatural beliefs; I am happy to admit my ignorance and assume I will not get most of the answers in this life. Just because I haven't seen anything to convince me your belief in god, or anyone else's, is correct doesn't mean it's not possible, I accept that. However, almost all the evidence I've ever heard given for the existence of god has been entirely subjective, in large part because god is ill-defined (even if that is a matter of god being of such scope it is beyond human understanding).

To clarify, I do not claim you have no evidence, simply that I have not seen any objective evidence. Saying an event is evidence of god, without defining what god even is, isn't enough for me to believe. Anyone else might claim that event is evidence of what they believe god to be, or evidence of multiple gods, or evidence of fate, or karma, or the work of guardian spirits. Like I said in my earlier post, it may just be that our thought processes don't work the same way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Requiring verification, whatever you think that means, is a way to reject any evidence anyone presents.

Game over.

This is just the typical faith-based question-begging appeal to faith required by those who insist that there is evidence of God's existence.

You are just seeing what you believe.

You're just making the fatuous demand that I must dismiss any notion that anything called "evidence" can be demonstrated to not be evidence.

Not happening.

You are demanding belief in the existence of your God (first) as the premise for establishing evidence of His existence.

That's intellectually invalid, and disingenuous.

Sigh.

Can you show me where I am bagging for approval? Am I tossing all sorts of things out and demanding you accept them as proof? Am I demanding that you dismiss the fact that science tells us the Earth is billions of years old? Am I demanding you dismiss the fact that evolution is real? In fact, where the fuck am I demanding that you believe in God?

The problem here is not that I am being disingenuous, it is that you are being close minded. Why else resort to strawman arguments?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To be more serious, QW, I think you need to be able to define god to present anything of credible, objective evidence of god's existence. By saying you don't feel able to define god, you are basically saying the Christmas cease-fire is evidence of something....but that's all. Not evidence of god, really, because you can't define god, but evidence of something you are unsure what it is, that you have decided to call god.

Faith, belief in god or the supernatural, these are extremely subjective, personal things. I understand the desire to show people who don't believe as you do WHY you hold your beliefs, but it's always good to step back and remember that what may seem obvious to you is not so to someone else. As a non-believer, I've had that problem many times; I just don't understand how people make the connection from an event, like the Christmas cease-fire, to god without being dishonest with themselves. Clearly our thought processes don't follow the same path. It doesn't make either of us wrong, but it also doesn't mean whatever evidence someone provides to prove their beliefs is objective rather than subjective.

Why do I have to stop and define God? Wouldn't it be arrogant of me to define something I do not fully understand?

Do I have to define my neighbor in order to tell you about him? Is my inability to tell you his political belief somehow make my knowledge that he lives next door to me less credible?

The problem here is not my ability to provide evidence, it is your definition of credible. You are quite willing to accept my unsupported word that I have a neighbor without me actually proving I do. The explanation for this is quite simple, we live in a world where the thought that a person does not actually have a neighbor is more incredible that an unsupported assertion that they do.

When it comes to a discussion of the existence of God some people insist on a level of proof they do not apply to anything else. To them, this is no different than a belief that everyone has neighbors. It is the world they live in, and to think anything else requires a level of proof that goes beyond credible and reaches the level that actually requires a person to eliminate all other possible explanations, even ones that are absurd. That is completely unreasonable, and is indicative of extreme bias and being close minded.

Please note that, throughout this thread, I have not tried to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I have been taking the time to urge you, and others, to do exactly what you are saying I should do.

Step back, examine your beliefs and prejudices, admit them, and open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong. My faith, my belief in God, is a working hypothesis. I examine all the evidence available, test it against my faith, and see what happens. One day I might stumble across something that will prove me wrong, until then I will keep believing because faith, as a working hypothesis, explains more than disbelief does.

Working hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Me pointing to the Christmas Truce is not me being dishonest, it is but one piece of evidence I have for my faith. The fact that you, and others, reject it out of hand is proof of your bias and dishonesty. I freely admit that, by itself, it does not prove anything, but it is certainly evidence of something.

Open your mind, and look around. Examine the evidence that is all around you. you might be surprised at what you find.

Others have brought up some points I might have, so I'll skip a lot. I will say that you need to define god only in the context of this conversation, and your claim that you have evidence of god's existence; it seems unreasonable to claim evidence of a thing without being able to say what that thing actually is. I'm not saying the definition needs to be extraordinarily detailed, simply that the word god isn't well-defined enough to really provide evidence for. Is this a god of one of the major religions? A single all-powerful god such as those religions claim, or one of a pantheon more like some of the ancient religions? Is god an intelligent being, or more a force without will behind it? etc.. I have similar issues with many claims of supernatural beings/forces/phenomena. Without at least a halfway decent definition, what seems like evidence to you is nothing of the sort to someone without your beliefs. To try and make an analogy, if someone heard a strange noise in their home and said it was the work of spirits, I would ask just what they mean by spirits, in part because that definition might explain why they believe that noise was the work of spirits and not a more mundane event. It's unlikely to make me believe them, but at least I might understand why they consider it evidence of their belief.

I did not mean to give the impression you are forcing your beliefs on anyone. You can believe in whatever god or gods you wish and I'm fine with it. I don't consider you discussing your beliefs on a message board in the religion section shoving it in anyone's face. I have very little in the way of supernatural beliefs; I am happy to admit my ignorance and assume I will not get most of the answers in this life. Just because I haven't seen anything to convince me your belief in god, or anyone else's, is correct doesn't mean it's not possible, I accept that. However, almost all the evidence I've ever heard given for the existence of god has been entirely subjective, in large part because god is ill-defined (even if that is a matter of god being of such scope it is beyond human understanding).

To clarify, I do not claim you have no evidence, simply that I have not seen any objective evidence. Saying an event is evidence of god, without defining what god even is, isn't enough for me to believe. Anyone else might claim that event is evidence of what they believe god to be, or evidence of multiple gods, or evidence of fate, or karma, or the work of guardian spirits. Like I said in my earlier post, it may just be that our thought processes don't work the same way.

Damn.

Science has evidence that dark matter and dark energy exists. There is not a single scientists anywhere that can tell you what either of these things are because they are terms coined to name an observed phenomena. There is not enough matter in the universe to hold it together, yet it is not falling apart. Something is doing it, why not call it dark matter? Established theory and proven observation has proven how much energy is being emitted by all the source of energy there are in the universe. We know exactly what that energy will add up to, and can measure it. Another problem, there is more energy out there than we can account for. A lot more. Dark energy.

You are holding me to a standard that is higher than the standard that science imposes on itself. Me being honest and admitting I do not understand something is proof that I am approaching this rationally, and examining the evidence.

Most of the evidence is, as you said, subjective. That does not, however, make it invalid. It does, however, make it harder to objectify, which is why I rarely try.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Why do I have to stop and define God? Wouldn't it be arrogant of me to define something I do not fully understand?

Do I have to define my neighbor in order to tell you about him? Is my inability to tell you his political belief somehow make my knowledge that he lives next door to me less credible?

The problem here is not my ability to provide evidence, it is your definition of credible. You are quite willing to accept my unsupported word that I have a neighbor without me actually proving I do. The explanation for this is quite simple, we live in a world where the thought that a person does not actually have a neighbor is more incredible that an unsupported assertion that they do.

When it comes to a discussion of the existence of God some people insist on a level of proof they do not apply to anything else. To them, this is no different than a belief that everyone has neighbors. It is the world they live in, and to think anything else requires a level of proof that goes beyond credible and reaches the level that actually requires a person to eliminate all other possible explanations, even ones that are absurd. That is completely unreasonable, and is indicative of extreme bias and being close minded.

Please note that, throughout this thread, I have not tried to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I have been taking the time to urge you, and others, to do exactly what you are saying I should do.

Step back, examine your beliefs and prejudices, admit them, and open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong. My faith, my belief in God, is a working hypothesis. I examine all the evidence available, test it against my faith, and see what happens. One day I might stumble across something that will prove me wrong, until then I will keep believing because faith, as a working hypothesis, explains more than disbelief does.

Working hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Me pointing to the Christmas Truce is not me being dishonest, it is but one piece of evidence I have for my faith. The fact that you, and others, reject it out of hand is proof of your bias and dishonesty. I freely admit that, by itself, it does not prove anything, but it is certainly evidence of something.

Open your mind, and look around. Examine the evidence that is all around you. you might be surprised at what you find.

Others have brought up some points I might have, so I'll skip a lot. I will say that you need to define god only in the context of this conversation, and your claim that you have evidence of god's existence; it seems unreasonable to claim evidence of a thing without being able to say what that thing actually is. I'm not saying the definition needs to be extraordinarily detailed, simply that the word god isn't well-defined enough to really provide evidence for. Is this a god of one of the major religions? A single all-powerful god such as those religions claim, or one of a pantheon more like some of the ancient religions? Is god an intelligent being, or more a force without will behind it? etc.. I have similar issues with many claims of supernatural beings/forces/phenomena. Without at least a halfway decent definition, what seems like evidence to you is nothing of the sort to someone without your beliefs. To try and make an analogy, if someone heard a strange noise in their home and said it was the work of spirits, I would ask just what they mean by spirits, in part because that definition might explain why they believe that noise was the work of spirits and not a more mundane event. It's unlikely to make me believe them, but at least I might understand why they consider it evidence of their belief.

I did not mean to give the impression you are forcing your beliefs on anyone. You can believe in whatever god or gods you wish and I'm fine with it. I don't consider you discussing your beliefs on a message board in the religion section shoving it in anyone's face. I have very little in the way of supernatural beliefs; I am happy to admit my ignorance and assume I will not get most of the answers in this life. Just because I haven't seen anything to convince me your belief in god, or anyone else's, is correct doesn't mean it's not possible, I accept that. However, almost all the evidence I've ever heard given for the existence of god has been entirely subjective, in large part because god is ill-defined (even if that is a matter of god being of such scope it is beyond human understanding).

To clarify, I do not claim you have no evidence, simply that I have not seen any objective evidence. Saying an event is evidence of god, without defining what god even is, isn't enough for me to believe. Anyone else might claim that event is evidence of what they believe god to be, or evidence of multiple gods, or evidence of fate, or karma, or the work of guardian spirits. Like I said in my earlier post, it may just be that our thought processes don't work the same way.

Damn.

Science has evidence that dark matter and dark energy exists. There is not a single scientists anywhere that can tell you what either of these things are because they are terms coined to name an observed phenomena. There is not enough matter in the universe to hold it together, yet it is not falling apart. Something is doing it, why not call it dark matter? Established theory and proven observation has proven how much energy is being emitted by all the source of energy there are in the universe. We know exactly what that energy will add up to, and can measure it. Another problem, there is more energy out there than we can account for. A lot more. Dark energy.

You are holding me to a standard that is higher than the standard that science imposes on itself. Me being honest and admitting I do not understand something is proof that I am approaching this rationally, and examining the evidence.

Most of the evidence is, as you said, subjective. That does not, however, make it invalid. It does, however, make it harder to objectify, which is why I rarely try.

Hey! You never discuss issues this nicely and intelligently with me! I'm hurt! How are we ever going to be BFF's?

 

[InDoctriNation]

Why do I have to stop and define God? Wouldn't it be arrogant of me to define something I do not fully understand?

Do I have to define my neighbor in order to tell you about him? Is my inability to tell you his political belief somehow make my knowledge that he lives next door to me less credible?

The problem here is not my ability to provide evidence, it is your definition of credible. You are quite willing to accept my unsupported word that I have a neighbor without me actually proving I do. The explanation for this is quite simple, we live in a world where the thought that a person does not actually have a neighbor is more incredible that an unsupported assertion that they do.

When it comes to a discussion of the existence of God some people insist on a level of proof they do not apply to anything else. To them, this is no different than a belief that everyone has neighbors. It is the world they live in, and to think anything else requires a level of proof that goes beyond credible and reaches the level that actually requires a person to eliminate all other possible explanations, even ones that are absurd. That is completely unreasonable, and is indicative of extreme bias and being close minded.

Please note that, throughout this thread, I have not tried to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I have been taking the time to urge you, and others, to do exactly what you are saying I should do.

Step back, examine your beliefs and prejudices, admit them, and open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong. My faith, my belief in God, is a working hypothesis. I examine all the evidence available, test it against my faith, and see what happens. One day I might stumble across something that will prove me wrong, until then I will keep believing because faith, as a working hypothesis, explains more than disbelief does.

Working hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Me pointing to the Christmas Truce is not me being dishonest, it is but one piece of evidence I have for my faith. The fact that you, and others, reject it out of hand is proof of your bias and dishonesty. I freely admit that, by itself, it does not prove anything, but it is certainly evidence of something.

Open your mind, and look around. Examine the evidence that is all around you. you might be surprised at what you find.

Others have brought up some points I might have, so I'll skip a lot. I will say that you need to define god only in the context of this conversation, and your claim that you have evidence of god's existence; it seems unreasonable to claim evidence of a thing without being able to say what that thing actually is. I'm not saying the definition needs to be extraordinarily detailed, simply that the word god isn't well-defined enough to really provide evidence for. Is this a god of one of the major religions? A single all-powerful god such as those religions claim, or one of a pantheon more like some of the ancient religions? Is god an intelligent being, or more a force without will behind it? etc.. I have similar issues with many claims of supernatural beings/forces/phenomena. Without at least a halfway decent definition, what seems like evidence to you is nothing of the sort to someone without your beliefs. To try and make an analogy, if someone heard a strange noise in their home and said it was the work of spirits, I would ask just what they mean by spirits, in part because that definition might explain why they believe that noise was the work of spirits and not a more mundane event. It's unlikely to make me believe them, but at least I might understand why they consider it evidence of their belief.

I did not mean to give the impression you are forcing your beliefs on anyone. You can believe in whatever god or gods you wish and I'm fine with it. I don't consider you discussing your beliefs on a message board in the religion section shoving it in anyone's face. I have very little in the way of supernatural beliefs; I am happy to admit my ignorance and assume I will not get most of the answers in this life. Just because I haven't seen anything to convince me your belief in god, or anyone else's, is correct doesn't mean it's not possible, I accept that. However, almost all the evidence I've ever heard given for the existence of god has been entirely subjective, in large part because god is ill-defined (even if that is a matter of god being of such scope it is beyond human understanding).

To clarify, I do not claim you have no evidence, simply that I have not seen any objective evidence. Saying an event is evidence of god, without defining what god even is, isn't enough for me to believe. Anyone else might claim that event is evidence of what they believe god to be, or evidence of multiple gods, or evidence of fate, or karma, or the work of guardian spirits. Like I said in my earlier post, it may just be that our thought processes don't work the same way.

Damn.

Science has evidence that dark matter and dark energy exists. There is not a single scientists anywhere that can tell you what either of these things are because they are terms coined to name an observed phenomena. There is not enough matter in the universe to hold it together, yet it is not falling apart. Something is doing it, why not call it dark matter? Established theory and proven observation has proven how much energy is being emitted by all the source of energy there are in the universe. We know exactly what that energy will add up to, and can measure it. Another problem, there is more energy out there than we can account for. A lot more. Dark energy.

You are holding me to a standard that is higher than the standard that science imposes on itself. Me being honest and admitting I do not understand something is proof that I am approaching this rationally, and examining the evidence.

Most of the evidence is, as you said, subjective. That does not, however, make it invalid. It does, however, make it harder to objectify, which is why I rarely try.

Yes, scientists observed that the universe was expanding at a much faster rate than it should be, and that galaxies don't appear to contain enough matter to be held together. Therefore they posited that there must be some form of energy accelerating the expansion of the universe and there must be some form of matter that is keeping the galaxies together. Other than that, scientists have no clue as to the nature of this strange energy or matter, or whether those words are even accurately descriptive of the phenomena that is taking place. It's possible that Einstein could have just made some kind of error in his General Theory of Relativity that will be realized in years to come that could explain the cosmological motion. Who knows.

The only thing that is subjective about what the scientists have done in this case is the names they chose for the missing "matter" and "energy." Otherwise it seems pretty damn objective to me, and perfectly reasonable given the observations that have been made.

Now, I'm curious about what scientific observations you have made that suggest a supernatural deity must be at work in the cosmos. You claim that it is a scientific process, so have you considered putting pencil to paper and submitting your paper for peer review? The best way to see if you have a viable scientific theory is to have scientists examine your work and send it back to you for revision.

 

[Photonic]

The OP sounds to me to be of the mind that atheists cause the hate of atheism.

That is almost exactly like saying it's the fault of women for getting raped.

 

[Photonic]

Others have brought up some points I might have, so I'll skip a lot. I will say that you need to define god only in the context of this conversation, and your claim that you have evidence of god's existence; it seems unreasonable to claim evidence of a thing without being able to say what that thing actually is. I'm not saying the definition needs to be extraordinarily detailed, simply that the word god isn't well-defined enough to really provide evidence for. Is this a god of one of the major religions? A single all-powerful god such as those religions claim, or one of a pantheon more like some of the ancient religions? Is god an intelligent being, or more a force without will behind it? etc.. I have similar issues with many claims of supernatural beings/forces/phenomena. Without at least a halfway decent definition, what seems like evidence to you is nothing of the sort to someone without your beliefs. To try and make an analogy, if someone heard a strange noise in their home and said it was the work of spirits, I would ask just what they mean by spirits, in part because that definition might explain why they believe that noise was the work of spirits and not a more mundane event. It's unlikely to make me believe them, but at least I might understand why they consider it evidence of their belief.

I did not mean to give the impression you are forcing your beliefs on anyone. You can believe in whatever god or gods you wish and I'm fine with it. I don't consider you discussing your beliefs on a message board in the religion section shoving it in anyone's face. I have very little in the way of supernatural beliefs; I am happy to admit my ignorance and assume I will not get most of the answers in this life. Just because I haven't seen anything to convince me your belief in god, or anyone else's, is correct doesn't mean it's not possible, I accept that. However, almost all the evidence I've ever heard given for the existence of god has been entirely subjective, in large part because god is ill-defined (even if that is a matter of god being of such scope it is beyond human understanding).

To clarify, I do not claim you have no evidence, simply that I have not seen any objective evidence. Saying an event is evidence of god, without defining what god even is, isn't enough for me to believe. Anyone else might claim that event is evidence of what they believe god to be, or evidence of multiple gods, or evidence of fate, or karma, or the work of guardian spirits. Like I said in my earlier post, it may just be that our thought processes don't work the same way.

Damn.

Science has evidence that dark matter and dark energy exists. There is not a single scientists anywhere that can tell you what either of these things are because they are terms coined to name an observed phenomena. There is not enough matter in the universe to hold it together, yet it is not falling apart. Something is doing it, why not call it dark matter? Established theory and proven observation has proven how much energy is being emitted by all the source of energy there are in the universe. We know exactly what that energy will add up to, and can measure it. Another problem, there is more energy out there than we can account for. A lot more. Dark energy.

You are holding me to a standard that is higher than the standard that science imposes on itself. Me being honest and admitting I do not understand something is proof that I am approaching this rationally, and examining the evidence.

Most of the evidence is, as you said, subjective. That does not, however, make it invalid. It does, however, make it harder to objectify, which is why I rarely try.

Yes, scientists observed that the universe was expanding at a much faster rate than it should be, and that galaxies don't appear to contain enough matter to be held together. Therefore they posited that there must be some form of energy accelerating the expansion of the universe and there must be some form of matter that is keeping the galaxies together. Other than that, scientists have no clue as to the nature of this strange energy or matter, or whether those words are even accurately descriptive of the phenomena that is taking place. It's possible that Einstein could have just made some kind of error in his General Theory of Relativity that will be realized in years to come that could explain the cosmological motion. Who knows.

The only thing that is subjective about what the scientists have done in this case is the names they chose for the missing "matter" and "energy." Otherwise it seems pretty damn objective to me, and perfectly reasonable given the observations that have been made.

Now, I'm curious about what scientific observations you have made that suggest a supernatural deity must be at work in the cosmos. You claim that it is a scientific process, so have you considered putting pencil to paper and submitting your paper for peer review? The best way to see if you have a viable scientific theory is to have scientists examine your work and send it back to you for revision.

To be fair it would be considered a postulation or a hypothesis, as no verifiable evidence exists to state that reality needs the extra explanation of supernatural influence.

All observations point to supernatural influence as an extra, unneeded description of how things work.

 

[IndependntLogic]

The OP sounds to me to be of the mind that atheists cause the hate of atheism.

That is almost exactly like saying it's the fault of women for getting raped.

Dude, for like the 20th time, I was referring to some atheists here. Hence "Atheists often post...".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Others have brought up some points I might have, so I'll skip a lot. I will say that you need to define god only in the context of this conversation, and your claim that you have evidence of god's existence; it seems unreasonable to claim evidence of a thing without being able to say what that thing actually is. I'm not saying the definition needs to be extraordinarily detailed, simply that the word god isn't well-defined enough to really provide evidence for. Is this a god of one of the major religions? A single all-powerful god such as those religions claim, or one of a pantheon more like some of the ancient religions? Is god an intelligent being, or more a force without will behind it? etc.. I have similar issues with many claims of supernatural beings/forces/phenomena. Without at least a halfway decent definition, what seems like evidence to you is nothing of the sort to someone without your beliefs. To try and make an analogy, if someone heard a strange noise in their home and said it was the work of spirits, I would ask just what they mean by spirits, in part because that definition might explain why they believe that noise was the work of spirits and not a more mundane event. It's unlikely to make me believe them, but at least I might understand why they consider it evidence of their belief.

I did not mean to give the impression you are forcing your beliefs on anyone. You can believe in whatever god or gods you wish and I'm fine with it. I don't consider you discussing your beliefs on a message board in the religion section shoving it in anyone's face. I have very little in the way of supernatural beliefs; I am happy to admit my ignorance and assume I will not get most of the answers in this life. Just because I haven't seen anything to convince me your belief in god, or anyone else's, is correct doesn't mean it's not possible, I accept that. However, almost all the evidence I've ever heard given for the existence of god has been entirely subjective, in large part because god is ill-defined (even if that is a matter of god being of such scope it is beyond human understanding).

To clarify, I do not claim you have no evidence, simply that I have not seen any objective evidence. Saying an event is evidence of god, without defining what god even is, isn't enough for me to believe. Anyone else might claim that event is evidence of what they believe god to be, or evidence of multiple gods, or evidence of fate, or karma, or the work of guardian spirits. Like I said in my earlier post, it may just be that our thought processes don't work the same way.

Damn.

Science has evidence that dark matter and dark energy exists. There is not a single scientists anywhere that can tell you what either of these things are because they are terms coined to name an observed phenomena. There is not enough matter in the universe to hold it together, yet it is not falling apart. Something is doing it, why not call it dark matter? Established theory and proven observation has proven how much energy is being emitted by all the source of energy there are in the universe. We know exactly what that energy will add up to, and can measure it. Another problem, there is more energy out there than we can account for. A lot more. Dark energy.

You are holding me to a standard that is higher than the standard that science imposes on itself. Me being honest and admitting I do not understand something is proof that I am approaching this rationally, and examining the evidence.

Most of the evidence is, as you said, subjective. That does not, however, make it invalid. It does, however, make it harder to objectify, which is why I rarely try.

Hey! You never discuss issues this nicely and intelligently with me! I'm hurt! How are we ever going to be BFF's?

Because you are an idiot, and Montrovant is a polar bear.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Others have brought up some points I might have, so I'll skip a lot. I will say that you need to define god only in the context of this conversation, and your claim that you have evidence of god's existence; it seems unreasonable to claim evidence of a thing without being able to say what that thing actually is. I'm not saying the definition needs to be extraordinarily detailed, simply that the word god isn't well-defined enough to really provide evidence for. Is this a god of one of the major religions? A single all-powerful god such as those religions claim, or one of a pantheon more like some of the ancient religions? Is god an intelligent being, or more a force without will behind it? etc.. I have similar issues with many claims of supernatural beings/forces/phenomena. Without at least a halfway decent definition, what seems like evidence to you is nothing of the sort to someone without your beliefs. To try and make an analogy, if someone heard a strange noise in their home and said it was the work of spirits, I would ask just what they mean by spirits, in part because that definition might explain why they believe that noise was the work of spirits and not a more mundane event. It's unlikely to make me believe them, but at least I might understand why they consider it evidence of their belief.

I did not mean to give the impression you are forcing your beliefs on anyone. You can believe in whatever god or gods you wish and I'm fine with it. I don't consider you discussing your beliefs on a message board in the religion section shoving it in anyone's face. I have very little in the way of supernatural beliefs; I am happy to admit my ignorance and assume I will not get most of the answers in this life. Just because I haven't seen anything to convince me your belief in god, or anyone else's, is correct doesn't mean it's not possible, I accept that. However, almost all the evidence I've ever heard given for the existence of god has been entirely subjective, in large part because god is ill-defined (even if that is a matter of god being of such scope it is beyond human understanding).

To clarify, I do not claim you have no evidence, simply that I have not seen any objective evidence. Saying an event is evidence of god, without defining what god even is, isn't enough for me to believe. Anyone else might claim that event is evidence of what they believe god to be, or evidence of multiple gods, or evidence of fate, or karma, or the work of guardian spirits. Like I said in my earlier post, it may just be that our thought processes don't work the same way.

Damn.

Science has evidence that dark matter and dark energy exists. There is not a single scientists anywhere that can tell you what either of these things are because they are terms coined to name an observed phenomena. There is not enough matter in the universe to hold it together, yet it is not falling apart. Something is doing it, why not call it dark matter? Established theory and proven observation has proven how much energy is being emitted by all the source of energy there are in the universe. We know exactly what that energy will add up to, and can measure it. Another problem, there is more energy out there than we can account for. A lot more. Dark energy.

You are holding me to a standard that is higher than the standard that science imposes on itself. Me being honest and admitting I do not understand something is proof that I am approaching this rationally, and examining the evidence.

Most of the evidence is, as you said, subjective. That does not, however, make it invalid. It does, however, make it harder to objectify, which is why I rarely try.

Yes, scientists observed that the universe was expanding at a much faster rate than it should be, and that galaxies don't appear to contain enough matter to be held together. Therefore they posited that there must be some form of energy accelerating the expansion of the universe and there must be some form of matter that is keeping the galaxies together. Other than that, scientists have no clue as to the nature of this strange energy or matter, or whether those words are even accurately descriptive of the phenomena that is taking place. It's possible that Einstein could have just made some kind of error in his General Theory of Relativity that will be realized in years to come that could explain the cosmological motion. Who knows.

The only thing that is subjective about what the scientists have done in this case is the names they chose for the missing "matter" and "energy." Otherwise it seems pretty damn objective to me, and perfectly reasonable given the observations that have been made.

Now, I'm curious about what scientific observations you have made that suggest a supernatural deity must be at work in the cosmos. You claim that it is a scientific process, so have you considered putting pencil to paper and submitting your paper for peer review? The best way to see if you have a viable scientific theory is to have scientists examine your work and send it back to you for revision.

Do you have some problem with reading comprehension? I did not say it is unreasonable, I said no one actually knows what it is, and they made up terms to describe it. I was refuting the argument that, unless something can be defined, no one can actually point to evidence it exists. Unless you can point me to someone who can actually define dark matter and energy my post stands.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The OP sounds to me to be of the mind that atheists cause the hate of atheism.

That is almost exactly like saying it's the fault of women for getting raped.

Which is one of the things that make the OP an idiot.

 

[LOki]

Requiring verification, whatever you think that means, is a way to reject any evidence anyone presents.

Game over.

This is just the typical faith-based question-begging appeal to faith required by those who insist that there is evidence of God's existence.

You are just seeing what you believe.

You're just making the fatuous demand that I must dismiss any notion that anything called "evidence" can be demonstrated to not be evidence.

Not happening.

You are demanding belief in the existence of your God (first) as the premise for establishing evidence of His existence.

That's intellectually invalid, and disingenuous.

Sigh.

Can you show me where I am bagging for approval?

You believe I said you're "begging for approval"; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not say this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I said you were "begging for approval." Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

Am I tossing all sorts of things out and demanding you accept them as proof? Am I demanding that you dismiss the fact that science tells us the Earth is billions of years old? Am I demanding you dismiss the fact that evolution is real? In fact, where the fuck am I demanding that you believe in God?

You believe I said you're "demanding that believe in God"; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not say this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I said you were "demanding that believe in God." Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

I am saying that you said this:

My faith, my belief in God, is a working hypothesis. I examine all the evidence available, test it against my faith, and see what happens. One day I might stumble across something that will prove me wrong, until then I will keep believing because faith, as a working hypothesis, explains more than disbelief does.

Your belief that God exists is unfounded in evidence; it is faith. You are demanding that your faith is valid evidence--it is not.

You say you test your faith against valid evidence, and your stoic denial of valid evidence is the measure of the validity of your "evidence"--i.e. your faith.

Your belief in God is not even a working hypothesis. You provided a link to a definition of the notion; you should really give it a good read.

The only acceptable "evidence" for the faithful is faith. Which is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

I am saying you're question-begging, and the evidence is verifiable.

And your denial of that evidence will just strengthen your faith that I'm wrong.

The problem here is not that I am being disingenuous, it is that you are being close minded. Why else resort to strawman arguments?

You believe I am making strawman arguments; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not do this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I made strawman arguments. Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

It is disingenuous. It is intellectually invalid. Your position from faith is closed-minded. The evidence of that closed-mindedness is made manifest by the means by which faith is validated--by the stoic denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Your denial of the verifiable evidence will strengthen your faith that I am wrong.

 

[Photonic]

Game over.

This is just the typical faith-based question-begging appeal to faith required by those who insist that there is evidence of God's existence.

You are just seeing what you believe.

You're just making the fatuous demand that I must dismiss any notion that anything called "evidence" can be demonstrated to not be evidence.

Not happening.

You are demanding belief in the existence of your God (first) as the premise for establishing evidence of His existence.

That's intellectually invalid, and disingenuous.

Sigh.

Can you show me where I am bagging for approval?

You believe I said you're "begging for approval"; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not say this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I said you were "begging for approval." Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

You believe I said you're "demanding that believe in God"; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not say this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I said you were "demanding that believe in God." Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

I am saying that you said this:

My faith, my belief in God, is a working hypothesis. I examine all the evidence available, test it against my faith, and see what happens. One day I might stumble across something that will prove me wrong, until then I will keep believing because faith, as a working hypothesis, explains more than disbelief does.

Your belief that God exists is unfounded in evidence; it is faith. You are demanding that your faith is valid evidence--it is not.

You say you test your faith against valid evidence, and your stoic denial of valid evidence is the measure of the validity of your "evidence"--i.e. your faith.

Your belief in God is not even a working hypothesis. You provided a link to a definition of the notion; you should really give it a good read.

The only acceptable "evidence" for the faithful is faith. Which is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

I am saying you're question-begging, and the evidence is verifiable.

And your denial of that evidence will just strengthen your faith that I'm wrong.

The problem here is not that I am being disingenuous, it is that you are being close minded. Why else resort to strawman arguments?

You believe I am making strawman arguments; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not do this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I made strawman arguments. Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

It is disingenuous. It is intellectually invalid. Your position from faith is closed-minded. The evidence of that closed-mindedness is made manifest by the means by which faith is validated--by the stoic denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Your denial of the verifiable evidence will strengthen your faith that I am wrong.

So you can't have belief founded in fact?

Interesting viewpoint. Incorrect of course but interesting you should say that.

 

[Montrovant]

Why do I have to stop and define God? Wouldn't it be arrogant of me to define something I do not fully understand?

Do I have to define my neighbor in order to tell you about him? Is my inability to tell you his political belief somehow make my knowledge that he lives next door to me less credible?

The problem here is not my ability to provide evidence, it is your definition of credible. You are quite willing to accept my unsupported word that I have a neighbor without me actually proving I do. The explanation for this is quite simple, we live in a world where the thought that a person does not actually have a neighbor is more incredible that an unsupported assertion that they do.

When it comes to a discussion of the existence of God some people insist on a level of proof they do not apply to anything else. To them, this is no different than a belief that everyone has neighbors. It is the world they live in, and to think anything else requires a level of proof that goes beyond credible and reaches the level that actually requires a person to eliminate all other possible explanations, even ones that are absurd. That is completely unreasonable, and is indicative of extreme bias and being close minded.

Please note that, throughout this thread, I have not tried to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I have been taking the time to urge you, and others, to do exactly what you are saying I should do.

Step back, examine your beliefs and prejudices, admit them, and open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong. My faith, my belief in God, is a working hypothesis. I examine all the evidence available, test it against my faith, and see what happens. One day I might stumble across something that will prove me wrong, until then I will keep believing because faith, as a working hypothesis, explains more than disbelief does.

Working hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Me pointing to the Christmas Truce is not me being dishonest, it is but one piece of evidence I have for my faith. The fact that you, and others, reject it out of hand is proof of your bias and dishonesty. I freely admit that, by itself, it does not prove anything, but it is certainly evidence of something.

Open your mind, and look around. Examine the evidence that is all around you. you might be surprised at what you find.

Others have brought up some points I might have, so I'll skip a lot. I will say that you need to define god only in the context of this conversation, and your claim that you have evidence of god's existence; it seems unreasonable to claim evidence of a thing without being able to say what that thing actually is. I'm not saying the definition needs to be extraordinarily detailed, simply that the word god isn't well-defined enough to really provide evidence for. Is this a god of one of the major religions? A single all-powerful god such as those religions claim, or one of a pantheon more like some of the ancient religions? Is god an intelligent being, or more a force without will behind it? etc.. I have similar issues with many claims of supernatural beings/forces/phenomena. Without at least a halfway decent definition, what seems like evidence to you is nothing of the sort to someone without your beliefs. To try and make an analogy, if someone heard a strange noise in their home and said it was the work of spirits, I would ask just what they mean by spirits, in part because that definition might explain why they believe that noise was the work of spirits and not a more mundane event. It's unlikely to make me believe them, but at least I might understand why they consider it evidence of their belief.

I did not mean to give the impression you are forcing your beliefs on anyone. You can believe in whatever god or gods you wish and I'm fine with it. I don't consider you discussing your beliefs on a message board in the religion section shoving it in anyone's face. I have very little in the way of supernatural beliefs; I am happy to admit my ignorance and assume I will not get most of the answers in this life. Just because I haven't seen anything to convince me your belief in god, or anyone else's, is correct doesn't mean it's not possible, I accept that. However, almost all the evidence I've ever heard given for the existence of god has been entirely subjective, in large part because god is ill-defined (even if that is a matter of god being of such scope it is beyond human understanding).

To clarify, I do not claim you have no evidence, simply that I have not seen any objective evidence. Saying an event is evidence of god, without defining what god even is, isn't enough for me to believe. Anyone else might claim that event is evidence of what they believe god to be, or evidence of multiple gods, or evidence of fate, or karma, or the work of guardian spirits. Like I said in my earlier post, it may just be that our thought processes don't work the same way.

Damn.

Science has evidence that dark matter and dark energy exists. There is not a single scientists anywhere that can tell you what either of these things are because they are terms coined to name an observed phenomena. There is not enough matter in the universe to hold it together, yet it is not falling apart. Something is doing it, why not call it dark matter? Established theory and proven observation has proven how much energy is being emitted by all the source of energy there are in the universe. We know exactly what that energy will add up to, and can measure it. Another problem, there is more energy out there than we can account for. A lot more. Dark energy.

You are holding me to a standard that is higher than the standard that science imposes on itself. Me being honest and admitting I do not understand something is proof that I am approaching this rationally, and examining the evidence.

Most of the evidence is, as you said, subjective. That does not, however, make it invalid. It does, however, make it harder to objectify, which is why I rarely try.

You seem to be saying you have very little understanding of what god is, yet you think a specific event like you mentioned is evidence of god. I'm not understanding the connection. Using the dark matter example, scientists look at what we know of the universe and say, "This doesn't make sense, there should be more matter" and so come up with the term dark matter, is that a reasonable if extremely simplistic version of events as you described? If so, would the Christmas cease-fire be evidence in a similar fashion, i.e. - "People aren't able to put aside their differences, especially in the middle of such violence, there must be some reason for it. Let's call it god."?

I was going to say more but suddenly I find myself getting ready to take a small trip, so I'll just end here for now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Game over.

This is just the typical faith-based question-begging appeal to faith required by those who insist that there is evidence of God's existence.

You are just seeing what you believe.

You're just making the fatuous demand that I must dismiss any notion that anything called "evidence" can be demonstrated to not be evidence.

Not happening.

You are demanding belief in the existence of your God (first) as the premise for establishing evidence of His existence.

That's intellectually invalid, and disingenuous.

Sigh.

Can you show me where I am bagging for approval?

You believe I said you're "begging for approval"; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not say this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I said you were "begging for approval." Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

You believe I said you're "demanding that believe in God"; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not say this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I said you were "demanding that believe in God." Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

I am saying that you said this:

My faith, my belief in God, is a working hypothesis. I examine all the evidence available, test it against my faith, and see what happens. One day I might stumble across something that will prove me wrong, until then I will keep believing because faith, as a working hypothesis, explains more than disbelief does.

Your belief that God exists is unfounded in evidence; it is faith. You are demanding that your faith is valid evidence--it is not.

You say you test your faith against valid evidence, and your stoic denial of valid evidence is the measure of the validity of your "evidence"--i.e. your faith.

Your belief in God is not even a working hypothesis. You provided a link to a definition of the notion; you should really give it a good read.

The only acceptable "evidence" for the faithful is faith. Which is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

I am saying you're question-begging, and the evidence is verifiable.

And your denial of that evidence will just strengthen your faith that I'm wrong.

The problem here is not that I am being disingenuous, it is that you are being close minded. Why else resort to strawman arguments?

You believe I am making strawman arguments; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not do this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I made strawman arguments. Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

It is disingenuous. It is intellectually invalid. Your position from faith is closed-minded. The evidence of that closed-mindedness is made manifest by the means by which faith is validated--by the stoic denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Your denial of the verifiable evidence will strengthen your faith that I am wrong.

Actually, begging the question is the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly, or explicitly, in the premise. Since I am not building a logical argument to prove that God exists, I do not have a premise, and am not supporting it with propositions, so I am not begging anything.

Feel free to totally reject my belief, and my statements. My ability to present evidence to support my statements is not predicated on anything.

You, on the other hand, have a premise that is built on the proposition that no evidence of God exists because faith is not based on evidence.

Does that clear up your confusion about who is begging the question?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Others have brought up some points I might have, so I'll skip a lot. I will say that you need to define god only in the context of this conversation, and your claim that you have evidence of god's existence; it seems unreasonable to claim evidence of a thing without being able to say what that thing actually is. I'm not saying the definition needs to be extraordinarily detailed, simply that the word god isn't well-defined enough to really provide evidence for. Is this a god of one of the major religions? A single all-powerful god such as those religions claim, or one of a pantheon more like some of the ancient religions? Is god an intelligent being, or more a force without will behind it? etc.. I have similar issues with many claims of supernatural beings/forces/phenomena. Without at least a halfway decent definition, what seems like evidence to you is nothing of the sort to someone without your beliefs. To try and make an analogy, if someone heard a strange noise in their home and said it was the work of spirits, I would ask just what they mean by spirits, in part because that definition might explain why they believe that noise was the work of spirits and not a more mundane event. It's unlikely to make me believe them, but at least I might understand why they consider it evidence of their belief.

I did not mean to give the impression you are forcing your beliefs on anyone. You can believe in whatever god or gods you wish and I'm fine with it. I don't consider you discussing your beliefs on a message board in the religion section shoving it in anyone's face. I have very little in the way of supernatural beliefs; I am happy to admit my ignorance and assume I will not get most of the answers in this life. Just because I haven't seen anything to convince me your belief in god, or anyone else's, is correct doesn't mean it's not possible, I accept that. However, almost all the evidence I've ever heard given for the existence of god has been entirely subjective, in large part because god is ill-defined (even if that is a matter of god being of such scope it is beyond human understanding).

To clarify, I do not claim you have no evidence, simply that I have not seen any objective evidence. Saying an event is evidence of god, without defining what god even is, isn't enough for me to believe. Anyone else might claim that event is evidence of what they believe god to be, or evidence of multiple gods, or evidence of fate, or karma, or the work of guardian spirits. Like I said in my earlier post, it may just be that our thought processes don't work the same way.

Damn.

Science has evidence that dark matter and dark energy exists. There is not a single scientists anywhere that can tell you what either of these things are because they are terms coined to name an observed phenomena. There is not enough matter in the universe to hold it together, yet it is not falling apart. Something is doing it, why not call it dark matter? Established theory and proven observation has proven how much energy is being emitted by all the source of energy there are in the universe. We know exactly what that energy will add up to, and can measure it. Another problem, there is more energy out there than we can account for. A lot more. Dark energy.

You are holding me to a standard that is higher than the standard that science imposes on itself. Me being honest and admitting I do not understand something is proof that I am approaching this rationally, and examining the evidence.

Most of the evidence is, as you said, subjective. That does not, however, make it invalid. It does, however, make it harder to objectify, which is why I rarely try.

You seem to be saying you have very little understanding of what god is, yet you think a specific event like you mentioned is evidence of god. I'm not understanding the connection. Using the dark matter example, scientists look at what we know of the universe and say, "This doesn't make sense, there should be more matter" and so come up with the term dark matter, is that a reasonable if extremely simplistic version of events as you described? If so, would the Christmas cease-fire be evidence in a similar fashion, i.e. - "People aren't able to put aside their differences, especially in the middle of such violence, there must be some reason for it. Let's call it god."?

I was going to say more but suddenly I find myself getting ready to take a small trip, so I'll just end here for now.

I see your problem, and it actually makes sense. My faith is based on numerous events over my entire life, some things that happened to other people I know, a study of the historical evidence, and looking at as much of the universe I can see. I consider the Christmas Truth to be evidence of God, bit, by itself, it is not enough to convince me, or anyone else. I know that, so have no problem with people who say it is not enough. I know they are willing to admit that there might be evidence of God, and I can encourage them to look around. I even encourage them to ask God for help, because God is seemingly willing to help people find Him.

I do, however, see it as a test of how open people are to discussing the evidence of God. Anyone who rejects it out of hand has already made up their mind that there is no evidence that God exists. Not much use talking to them, as I have no proof, whatever that is, that God is real.

None of that means I can actually define him, and I am not arrogant enough to try.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Damn.

Science has evidence that dark matter and dark energy exists. There is not a single scientists anywhere that can tell you what either of these things are because they are terms coined to name an observed phenomena. There is not enough matter in the universe to hold it together, yet it is not falling apart. Something is doing it, why not call it dark matter? Established theory and proven observation has proven how much energy is being emitted by all the source of energy there are in the universe. We know exactly what that energy will add up to, and can measure it. Another problem, there is more energy out there than we can account for. A lot more. Dark energy.

You are holding me to a standard that is higher than the standard that science imposes on itself. Me being honest and admitting I do not understand something is proof that I am approaching this rationally, and examining the evidence.

Most of the evidence is, as you said, subjective. That does not, however, make it invalid. It does, however, make it harder to objectify, which is why I rarely try.

Hey! You never discuss issues this nicely and intelligently with me! I'm hurt! How are we ever going to be BFF's?

Because you are an idiot, and Montrovant is a polar bear.

LOL! Okay THAT'S IT! You are NOT getting mailed fruitcake and meatloaf for Christmas!