Evidence for God?

[MarkDuffy]

What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.

What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?

Trust and multiple independent sources. Then there is outside peer review.

Believers & non-believers both agree on sunsets.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.

Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.

When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.

Says you...somehow I suspect you have never attempted such a "number crunching" , and you just said that because it sounded good.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.

Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.

When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.

The universe is no different than a computer program. The only difference is that we are self-conscious and characters in computer games are not.

You're doing this wrong. It is incumbent upon you to argue and prpvide evidence that, for instance, we live in the design of a designer. Simply restating your authoritative claim does not accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite, as it removes any credibility you have (in that you present yourself as at least somewhat omniscient, somehow aware of absolute triths that you cannot prove) and sidesteps any compelling rationale or evidence.

There is certainly plenty of evidence of design, but I don't feel like searching for all of the scholarly articles that make the arguments. Besides, I presume you've already looked at them and dismissed them all.

There are no scholarly articles which provide evidence of design. Sorry, but you magical thinkers hamstrung yourselves the moment you introduced magic into the picture. By saying that things can happen irrespective of determinism or evidence, you have denied the idea that the truth of those ideas can be supported by evidence. Evidence reiles on determinism, and you have assumed determinism either does not exist or only exists to a point.

 

[MarkDuffy]

It is also possible that unicorns exist in the 5th dimension...

And guys like you would have us believe that the universe created itself and then a volcano farted and life was born.

No, I would have you believe that it is possible that no higher intelligence was requured either for the creation of the universe or the genesis of life. Big difference. Let's make a deal: You don't misrepresent me, and I won't misrepresent you. Mmmmkay?

I think ANYTHING is possible but, for a variety of reason, I BELIEVE that a creator created the universe as well as us.

How old is the earth and how do you explain the fossil record?

 

[Boss]

Again -- third time now -- your analogy merely demonstrates that it is POSSIBLE that gods exist, and we are simply ignorant of all the evidence of this. I agree, that may be the case. which puts us in perfect agreement, so far as the meaning and value of your analogy. you have provided a rational basis for agnostic theism, NOT for theism.

Uhmmmmm..... This might come as a shock to you but I don't think anyone is going to offer you proof that God exists here. If that is what you expected or that's why you're here, you're probably going to be disappointed.

If all I ever accomplished in my analogy was to convince the blind man that it's possible a sunset or rainbow is beautiful, that would be a success for me. Especially if he were being an obnoxious dick splash, insulting me and mocking me for believing a fantasy and such.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....

Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.

Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.

He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.

All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...

But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"

Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.

Is he correct?

The optical system of our eyes is very narrow. We have invented machines to detect & even use the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. We even impressively invented machines to see the tiny that we cannot see and the far away we also cannot see.

Your analogy is false. If he is intelligent he knows what others see. He does not believe what others imagine.

He doesn't know what "see" means. It's a sense he has never experienced. You can explain it to him all you like, you can tell him that he is wrong and just because he can't see it doesn't mean it's not there... but he knows not what you're talking about.

I used the analogy to illustrate a point. You are incapable of "seeing" what others see. For you, no matter what anyone says or any evidence offered that isn't within your range of physical senses, it simply doesn't matter.

I am very capable of understanding what others think they understand. We have had 2000 years of God evidence. I am not impressed, especially by the abandonment. As I have posted, bring back your God. Science wants an interview.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"This might come as a shock to you but I don't think anyone is going to offer you proof that God exists here."

That's not shocking to me at all, as I am of the ind that nobody could ever do such a thing. Again, magical thinkers hamstrung themselves in regards to evidence the moment they introduced magic into the argument.

"If all I ever accomplished in my analogy was to convince the blind man that it's possible a sunset or rainbow is beautiful, that would be a success for me."

well, it appears we are in agreement on the meaning and usefulness of the analogy.

 

[Boss]

What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.

What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?

Trust and multiple independent sources. Then there is outside peer review.

Believers & non-believers both agree on sunsets.

I've got lots of testimonials from people who believe God exists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

testimonies are anecdotal. They do not go on the same shelf as objective evidence. you are going down the rabbit hole of false equivalence... you aren't elevating anecdotal evidence about God, you are trying to undermine the idea that evidence can exist at all. The end of your argument is a non-deterministic , absurd world where you think it's valid to jump off your roof and expect to "fall up", because, hey, all "opinions" are equal, and these are all just opinions.

No.

 

[Boss]

I am very capable of understanding what others think they understand. We have had 2000 years of God evidence. I am not impressed, especially by the abandonment. As I have posted, bring back your God. Science wants an interview.

Well the blind guy isn't impressed hearing about the beauty of the sunset either.

 

[Boss]

testimonies are anecdotal. They do not go on the same shelf as objective evidence. you are going down the rabbit hole of false equivalence... you aren't elevating anecdotal evidence about God, you are trying to undermine the idea that evidence can exist at all. The end of your argument is a non-deterministic , absurd world where you think it's valid to jump off your roof and expect to "fall up", because, hey, all "opinions" are equal, and these are all just opinions.

No.

Well that's where my analogy with the blind man comes in. To him, all your evidence for the beauty of a sunset is anecdotal because he doesn't have the ability to see. Much like him, you are spiritually blind. You simply can't see and we can't explain it to you in a way you can comprehend it. You keep demanding the type of evidence we don't have.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

testimonies are anecdotal. They do not go on the same shelf as objective evidence. you are going down the rabbit hole of false equivalence... you aren't elevating anecdotal evidence about God, you are trying to undermine the idea that evidence can exist at all. The end of your argument is a non-deterministic , absurd world where you think it's valid to jump off your roof and expect to "fall up", because, hey, all "opinions" are equal, and these are all just opinions.

No.

Well that's where my analogy with the blind man comes in. To him, all your evidence for the beauty of a sunset is anecdotal because he doesn't have the ability to see. Much like him, you are spiritually blind. You simply can't see and we can't explain it to you in a way you can comprehend it. You keep demanding the type of evidence we don't have.

Your analogy fails in that the blind man would not be exhibiting "faith" to believe the sunset exists. The blind man would be exhibiting TRUST, built on evidence (e.g., the success of science in every other aspect of his life, the idea that a sunset is plausible and makes sense in light of everything else we know about the world, that is to say becomes yet another piece of mutually supportive evidence in a mountain of mutually supportive evidence). Else he would be just as likely to accept the assertion there is a pink dragon breathing rainbows in the sky as he would a sunset. But he isn't just as likely, as one belief is built on trust while the other would be built on faith.

 

[MarkDuffy]

But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.

Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.

When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.

The universe is no different than a computer program. The only difference is that we are self-conscious and characters in computer games are not.

You're doing this wrong. It is incumbent upon you to argue and prpvide evidence that, for instance, we live in the design of a designer. Simply restating your authoritative claim does not accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite, as it removes any credibility you have (in that you present yourself as at least somewhat omniscient, somehow aware of absolute triths that you cannot prove) and sidesteps any compelling rationale or evidence.

There is certainly plenty of evidence of design, but I don't feel like searching for all of the scholarly articles that make the arguments. Besides, I presume you've already looked at them and dismissed them all.

There are no scholarly articles which provide evidence of design. Sorry, but you magical thinkers hamstrung yourselves the moment you introduced magic into the picture. By saying that things can happen irrespective of determinism or evidence, you have denied the idea that the truth of those ideas can be supported by evidence. Evidence reiles on determinism, and you have assumed determinism either does not exist or only exists to a point.

I might be sorry I posted this, but it has never stopped me before!

We have learned in science that the "rules" don't always apply. We had to learn a new physics for the very small (quantum level) and it also appears that we need a new physics for the very massive (black holes and the big bang singularity).

Many aspects of science appear to be magic, so I cannot as a scientist rule out magic per se. I just need better evidence. I will always admit as a scientist that I cannot deny the possibility of a God. Just not their God. God just begs the question. The believers must have a creation of God narrative or they are not addressing the creation question at all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Many aspects of science appear to be magic, so I cannot as a scientist rule out magic per se."

That is specious... the second statement does not follow from the first. Scientists MUST rule out magic (when performing science), because determinism must be assumed. If no cause-effect determinism, then there is no such thing as evidence. We would be unable to make any predictions about anything. We would be unable to demonstrate any causal relationship. there would be no physical laws, and no theories which yielded useful predictions.

Magic is magic, and science is science they do not and cannot overlap. they are opposites.

 

[Boss]

testimonies are anecdotal. They do not go on the same shelf as objective evidence. you are going down the rabbit hole of false equivalence... you aren't elevating anecdotal evidence about God, you are trying to undermine the idea that evidence can exist at all. The end of your argument is a non-deterministic , absurd world where you think it's valid to jump off your roof and expect to "fall up", because, hey, all "opinions" are equal, and these are all just opinions.

No.

Well that's where my analogy with the blind man comes in. To him, all your evidence for the beauty of a sunset is anecdotal because he doesn't have the ability to see. Much like him, you are spiritually blind. You simply can't see and we can't explain it to you in a way you can comprehend it. You keep demanding the type of evidence we don't have.

Your analogy fails in that the blind man would not be exhibiting "faith" to believe the sunset exists. The blind man would be exhibiting TRUST, built on evidence (e.g., the success of science in every other aspect of his life, the idea that a sunset is plausible and makes sense in light of everything else we know about the world). Else he would be just as likely to accept the assertion there is a pink dragon breathing rainbows in the sky as he would a sunset. But he isn't just as likely, as one belief is built on trust while the other would be built on faith.

What evidence? You've not presented any to a blind man.

Trust and faith are synonyms.

 

[MarkDuffy]

"This might come as a shock to you but I don't think anyone is going to offer you proof that God exists here."

That's not shocking to me at all, as I am of the ind that nobody could ever do such a thing. Again, magical thinkers hamstrung themselves in regards to evidence the moment they introduced magic into the argument.

"If all I ever accomplished in my analogy was to convince the blind man that it's possible a sunset or rainbow is beautiful, that would be a success for me."

well, it appears we are in agreement on the meaning and usefulness of the analogy.

The problem with magic, is were does it end? Believers, even Boss who loves to use the spirit cop out admits spirit is created with human birth, then never dies. That is a LOT of spirits that have built up over the years.

Once you allow magic, science becomes meaningless & pointless.

 

[MarkDuffy]

What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.

What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?

Trust and multiple independent sources. Then there is outside peer review.

Believers & non-believers both agree on sunsets.

I've got lots of testimonials from people who believe God exists.

Yeah, and few of them actually agree. There are zillions of different visions of God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

testimonies are anecdotal. They do not go on the same shelf as objective evidence. you are going down the rabbit hole of false equivalence... you aren't elevating anecdotal evidence about God, you are trying to undermine the idea that evidence can exist at all. The end of your argument is a non-deterministic , absurd world where you think it's valid to jump off your roof and expect to "fall up", because, hey, all "opinions" are equal, and these are all just opinions.

No.

Well that's where my analogy with the blind man comes in. To him, all your evidence for the beauty of a sunset is anecdotal because he doesn't have the ability to see. Much like him, you are spiritually blind. You simply can't see and we can't explain it to you in a way you can comprehend it. You keep demanding the type of evidence we don't have.

Your analogy fails in that the blind man would not be exhibiting "faith" to believe the sunset exists. The blind man would be exhibiting TRUST, built on evidence (e.g., the success of science in every other aspect of his life, the idea that a sunset is plausible and makes sense in light of everything else we know about the world). Else he would be just as likely to accept the assertion there is a pink dragon breathing rainbows in the sky as he would a sunset. But he isn't just as likely, as one belief is built on trust while the other would be built on faith.

What evidence? You've not presented any to a blind man.

Trust and faith are synonyms.

I described the evidence, to wit: the success of other scientific endeavors, which foments a trust in science. Also, the fact that the description of our solar system fits into the mountain of mutually supportive evidence that is our scientific knowledge of the universe, much of which does not require sight to understand.

i am not claiming these things are definitive proof that there is a sunset, I am saying they represent evidence that a person can bet on to trust something. Again, there is a reason a blind person would be more likely to believe the existence of a sunset, as described by scientists, than to believe that a pink dragon were flying across the sky, breating rainbows. that reason is trst vs. faith, pure and simple.

this unsettles you, because you are now forced to either admit that there is a stark, qualitative difference between trust and faith, or you must take the untenable position of equating them (despite your desire to do so, you will find it very difficult,i.e. impossible).

eventually, you will be forced to admit that faioth simply does not go on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge. And, faith is NOT trust. i have TRUST my car will start tomorrow morning, not "faith".

 

[Boss]

I might be sorry I posted this, but it has never stopped me before!

We have learned in science that the "rules" don't always apply. We had to learn a new physics for the very small (quantum level) and it also appears that we need a new physics for the very massive (black holes and the big bang singularity).

Many aspects of science appear to be magic, so I cannot as a scientist rule out magic per se. I just need better evidence. I will always admit as a scientist that I cannot deny the possibility of a God. Just not their God. God just begs the question. The believers must have a creation of God narrative or they are not addressing the creation question at all.

It's already been explained to you why the Creator doesn't require creation. It's not PHYSICAL. Only physical things require creation. The word literally means "to bring into a state of being or existence."

Quantum physics raises another interesting point. It mathematically predicts up to 11 dimensions. That's 7 more than we're capable of interacting with as humans. So if these dimensions exist, why can't God reside in one or more of them?

 

[Boss]

What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.

What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?

Trust and multiple independent sources. Then there is outside peer review.

Believers & non-believers both agree on sunsets.

I've got lots of testimonials from people who believe God exists.

Yeah, and few of them actually agree. There are zillions of different visions of God.

I imagine few people would agree on the most beautiful sunset they have ever seen.