Evidence that God exists

[Kyuuketsuki]

Kyu, I don't think evidence is required to believe in God, as in I know it's possible to believe without evidence! I mean, actually I think duh, there is no evidence so every believer's belief in God is without evidence!

I didn't say it was

Kyu

[Tiberius]

God would have to reveal itself in material form, which is never going to happen.

Indeed, and how could we distinguish this "God" from an advanced species that has mastered the control of physical reality?

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah, I was agreeing with you. I was clarifying that it SHOULD be required though.

And in case you don't know; earlier on the thread it may have sounded like I was saying it was required. But what I meant was that it should be required.

And if it's required for other things why shouldn't it be required for God?

Like if I say "Evidence is required for everything else. So It's required for God too."

I of course wouldn't mean that you need evidence to believe in God. You need faith to believe in God.

I mean that really there is no reason that it should be required any less than for anything else. To logically speaking if it's required for everything else then it should really be required for God too. Or be considered required.

Because there's no reason why it shouldn't be. What's the difference logically I mean? It's just considered a 'special case' I think. But there's nothing special about it.

If you had faith in Zeus, the IPU or the FSM that would be considered silly and treated like everything else. Faith in "God" is treated like it's a special case. But it's not special; there's nothing special about it.

If evidence is required for other things then it's required for God really; it's just people believe anyway so it's obviously NOT required TO believe; because so many people believe on faith WITHOUT evidence. So it's certainly possible! It's more than possible! Everyone who believes in God believes on faith not evidence. So it's more than possible, it's extremely common and happens all the time.

But if it's required for other things then its required for God as in the logical, rational requirements for belief in pretty much everything else (i.e, other things regarding the subject of reality tend to need evidence to really desire belief) are applicable for God too.

Logically there is no difference.

Evidence for God: None.
Evidnence for Zeus, the FSM, the IPU (and anything else there is no evidence for that you can possibly dream up): None.

Why on earth should God be given a special case?

If the requirements to believe in Zeus, the FSM and the IPU are evidence. Then the requirement is logically the same with God.

In principle its the same. In practice people don't require it; they just believe 'on faith' (i.e, irrationally; without evidence).

[Kyuuketsuki]

Why on earth should God be given a special case?

Coz he's (apparently) god hock:

Theists who argue that way (asking for their evidence to be treated somehow differently to how all other evidence is treated) are really stupid, it's just special pleading.

Kyu

[Mark]

There's equal logic in the whole story with a deity not at its center. And since the supposed deity has never shown himself or caused any known effects, what is the point of entertaining the possiblility of his existence, let alone wallowing in his worship?

Silly point. God cannot be provable or all religions are wrong. You're another that clings to this strange idea.

Calling someone's argument silly is neither very polite nor rhetorically germaine, fr0d0.

You said, "God cannot be provable or all religions are wrong." Is this supposed to be my point, or yours? It implies, "If God is provable, then all religions are wrong." I can only say that to me, that statement seems highly obtuse. I would have thought that if God were provable, then at least one religion were right. So this point certainly is not mine.

In any case, my point did not concern the question of whether it is possible to prove the existence of God. My point was that when one looks at the world, one never sees a god and one never sees any god's effects. All one ever sees is the natural world, flowing along chaotically according to fairly well understood physical and chemical principles. Nor is there any credible evidence that it has ever been otherwise. I believe I'm entitled to doubt, for instance, that a single loaf ever fed five thousand people -- not unless they got mighty small portions. Further, to put it succinctly, prayer availeth not. So what is the use of worrying about, still less worshiping, a supposed divinity that never does anything and never shows up?

"Enriching?" Well, many people find reading the Bible every day "enriching," but after you've read the whole thing once, anything further is a waste of time. There are many books besides that one that are much more deserving to be read. And which among the world's many religions would be "enriching" to study? All of them? Or do you suggest a particular one?

The bible is incredibly complex. People have dedicated lifetimes to it and only uncovered a little. I think it's foolish to say that. There are also many many expressions of the phenomenon. All are valid IMHO.

Well, my view is that too much attention has been devoted to this particular work of ancient literature, which I admit is an interesting expression of the religious ideas prevalent during the times when its various books were written, and also offers some interesting accounts of ancient history. It is certainly not a coherent work, but highly disparate texts cast into a single volume. All good literature is complex, of course, but most of the complexity of studying the Bible arises when one takes on the added burden of trying to reconcile it all with a single, coherent set of religious doctrines. That sad and hopeless task is what has cost people lifetimes of labor. No collection of literary works as obscure and varied these is able to be reconciled with a coherent set of doctrines.

Broadly, what is worth spending one's time on? I'm a USCF-rated chess master, and I find the study of the game, which is deep, to be enriching. But I wouldn't recommend it to everyone. Religion I would recommend to no one, since its a waste time to study what is transparently false.

You're entitled to your opinion. You condemn it without ever seeing the logic of it (from what you said on your intro post). Chess, I'd suggest, being a fan myself, is a much narrower discipline, perhaps suited to a certain type of mind. What is it other than purely a challenge of logic? Religion, on the other hand, offers a full life. Doesn't seem much contest.

Well, life offers a full life, doesn't it? I like to think that I have led full life, and I certainly intend to live the rest of my life as fully as I can. Nor do I think that my atheism is in any way inconsistent with this.

You'll never catch me in church on Sunday morning though, listening to some priest or pastor drone on about my obligation to give him money. No, I usually spend Sunday morning reading the New York Times and drinking a cup of black coffee.

As for the "logic" of religion, you're right, I have never perceived any, but I would be happy to listen to anyone's explanation of it.

[fr0d0]

Is it true, that stuff that's provable by evidence doesn't need logic? What is there we need to rationalise that isn't provable fact?

Belief without evidence, faith, in God is like faith (belief without evidence) in anything else I think: Very irrational.

I'm not saying anyone should be irresponsible about faith and not think about it. To rationalise and reach logical conclusions is the opposite of irrational.

Faith (including a belief in God) isn't the only thing exempt from evidence. As Kyu says, so is Maths.


@Mark: You miss my point entirely, and the point of this thread it seems. You can't keep saying "well there's no proof of God so I know he doesn't exist". It's an absurd assumption! What I am saying, if you read the OP, and repeatedly through this thread, is that belief can't be provable. Please don't keep on repeating the same thing at me, like I haven't answered it already.

No collection of literary works as obscure and varied these is able to be reconciled with a coherent set of doctrines.

Yet it is

Well, life offers a full life, doesn't it?

It has the potential to. Do you deny all wisdom? Or are you just prejudice against one particular origin? Why would anyone think themselves above advice accepted over time? I guess that's the arrogance of this modern life.

[Mark]

@Mark: You miss my point entirely, and the point of this thread it seems. You can't keep saying "well there's no proof of God so I know he doesn't exist". It's an absurd assumption! What I am saying, if you read the OP, and repeatedly through this thread, is that belief can't be provable. Please don't keep on repeating the same thing at me, like I haven't answered it already.

I am sorry if I post offtopic, but I think what I post is at least tangentially relevant here.

Let's be clear: I am not talking about proof of a god, but of any evidence at all of a god. There is no evidence at all of the Great Cosmic Horned Toad, of Baal the Destroyer, of the Olympian Pantheon, of the Earth Mother, or of the Evil Queen-Regent of All that Is. The list is endless of things for which there is no evidence. So I have as much reason to sacrifice a bowl of rotten eggs in the altar-basin of the Great Toad, to slaughter a baby on the alter of Baal or an ox on that of Zeus, to build a ring of great stones in honor of the Mother, or to give five-fold obeisance to the Evil Queen-Regent while I stand on one foot, as I do to go into a church and worship the supposed Lord of Hosts. There is no reason to pretend that any of these absurd figures actually exists, although some have been thought to exist by many people at various historical times. There are infinitely many supposed gods that demand same recognition, all on perfectly equal "logical" basis.

No collection of literary works as obscure and varied these is able to be reconciled with a coherent set of doctrines.

Yet it is

It appears that we have reached the limit of fruitful discussion of this particular point.

Well, life offers a full life, doesn't it?

It has the potential to. Do you deny all wisdom? Or are you just prejudice against one particular origin? Why would anyone think themselves above advice accepted over time? I guess that's the arrogance of this modern life.

Do I deny all wisdom? I would like to think not. I recognize, for instance, that there is a good deal of it in the Bible, and very beautifully expressed in the King James version, which is the only one in English worth reading. Then too, there's a lot of it in Moby Dick and Leaves of Grass. But if you want to talk about what's accepted, a great many religions are and have been accepted by vast numbers of people. Does this imply that one of them should be accepted, and if so, which? Or does it rather imply that religion is a form of mass delusion, and that all religions are false? To me, the latter seems self-evident.

Fundamentally, I'm not going to spend my precious time on this planet in moral and intellectual subservience to the self-appointed priesthood of a supposed god that never does anything and never shows up. To do that is to surrender the half of your humanity, and I am very sorry to see so many of my fellow human beings doing it.

[fr0d0]

I am sorry if I post offtopic, but I think what I post is at least tangentially relevant here.

Let's be clear: I am not talking about proof of a god, but of any evidence at all of a god.

Oh for goodness sake! Forgive me if I display a lack of patience here. Are you winding me up?

does it rather imply that religion is a form of mass delusion, and that all religions are false? To me, the latter seems self-evident.

That would be an incredible conclusion.

Fundamentally, I'm not going to spend my precious time on this planet in moral and intellectual subservience to the self-appointed priesthood. To do that is to surrender the half of your humanity, and I am very sorry to see so many of my fellow human beings doing it.

You have a twisted viewpoint. I think you need to go outside and smell the mustard.

[Edwardo Piet]

Faith (including a belief in God) isn't the only thing exempt from evidence. As Kyu says, so is Maths.

Well I agree in the sense that mathematics isn't something that exists physically in outside reality; that we have evidence OF.

But maths is evidently a very strong tool for helping us understand the world.

How does faith help us understand the world? Faith is belief without evidence.

How do we reason to a belief in God through faith (belief without evidence)?

If there's no evidence of "God" why believe in him any more than anything else that lacks evidence? Why is "God" a special case? And why one particular God over all the other Gods? Especially if you include all the hypothetical ones that you could possibly dream up yourself?

[Mark]

Fundamentally, I'm not going to spend my precious time on this planet in moral and intellectual subservience to the self-appointed priesthood of a supposed god that never does anything and never shows up. To do that is to surrender the half of your humanity, and I am very sorry to see so many of my fellow human beings doing it.

You have a twisted viewpoint. I think you need to go outside and smell the mustard.

In the first place, you misquoted me, and I have added in bold the portion of my remarks that you redacted, for what reason I cannot imagine. Does it bother you that the supposed god never does anything and never shows up? It certainly would bother me, if I were a religious believer.

In the second place, you really are a pill aren't you? Your rejoinder is nothing but a childish insult. Do you come here legitimately to exchange ideas, or only to score rhetorical points and, when you have no adequate rejoinder, to deal out insults?

I'm not going to bother to report this to the administrator, but I expect he'll notice it anyway.