Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Ace Otana]

When you were young you chose not to believe

Lack of belief isn't a choice. If I said I believed in god I would be lying to you and myself, because it wouldn't be true. People don't choose to not believe in something, they simply don't believe it. Also it isn't denial. It's rejection/dismissal. You say there is a god, I'm saying I don't believe you.

So either you fail to understand this or you refuse to accept it.

[Thor]

It's self-evident that murder is detrimental to society and to individual life. Also, to those who believe in God and understand His nature, it is obvious that this sort of thing is not the sort of thing God would 'tell someone to do.'

Really? What Bible do you read? Because there are numerous instances where "God" directs people to murder other (mostly innocent) people.

[Watson]

I'll bite, show me your measurements. I expect objective ones by the way, since that's what Einstein used and what you are comparing godproof to.

Did you completely ignore that I said my observations and measurements were subjective? Are you just blanking out certain words so you can demand empirical evidence for non-empirically provable of me? No wonder you're Atheist.

Your response to the sexy woman in bed not really being there, was to talk about how people act when they deny God's existence. The biggie that comes to mind is that they may respond differently than how a godbelieving society/family expects of them regarding religious issues such as church attendance, praying, teaching one's children to believe, etc. I was too narrow though, and would like to ask now, how one's reaction to not believing in a thing change the fact of whether the thing is real or not?

It doesn't have any baring on whether the thing is real or not. However, presupposing God's existence allows us to make certain predictions about human nature. Soceity's impact on this is irrelevant.

A demonstration:
-If God, then X.
-If Relativity, then black holes.

No, the world is the world. And my cat is my cat. And the lunch I ate was a lunch. Thoughts are thoughts. Beliefs are beliefs.

And my belief is that the world is the world, which is God. You don't change being who you are if you put on a hat or a shirt, you simply look different than you are.

What looks like a duck and quacks like a duck is not always a duck.

Belief in the reality of the world happens when you are presented with a very real world being there for you to touch and see and perceive in a huge way. You can't believe in an invisible universe creator until two things happen, one, that being has to be perceived in some very real way,

And for me, I have perceived it in a very real way. Oh, and stop saying 'invisible universe creator.' It makes you sound incredibly ignorant, because it's a misunderstanding of what God is and what He appears to be.

and two, one would have to be old enough to understand the concept that everything one's perceiving (the world/universe) could be created by that also perceived invisible god.

I will state as I have stated before numerous times here; wisdom is not a gift of age. And wisdom is not a gift based on how much you managed to memorize what you were taught in school, either.

It wasn't a choice.

It was.

was not was too was not was too was not ...

Lol Glad you caught on to where this would have gone...we can stop now.

[quote]The world's existence only becomes the default once it is perceived in some way.

Which in my book is through belief.

When does your god make itself known to us humans?

All the time, every time, throughout the world and throughout life. It is up to us to perceive and recognize it as such.

We are not talking about the world, which I think we can all agree is perceivable, but of your invisible god.

Yes, we all agree the world is perceivable; I am simply stating that, based on what I understand of God's nature, 'the world' and 'God' are synonymous words.

That's fair about my beliefs, I could be making it up or delusional. From your view, it must be considered anecdotal. As to predicting, I would like to suggest that that means you can't state as a fact godbelief is instinctual, even if you believe that it was for you.

Exactly. I can't state as a fact, I can only state as a belief. My point is that there are no true 'facts.'

I put stock into tons of stuff, all completely without using faith. Do you know the actual definition of the word faith?

I know the definition of the word faith; I have faith, of course I know its definition. I simply find its real definition and nature to be, more than likely, contradictory to the dictionary one. I find the dictionary definitions of real life things are usually inaccurate.

No, why would you think that? I've probably had either an average or even better than average 'early age' than most people in the world. I was just simply never someone who blindly believed others.

This is true of me, as well.

I have always trusted facts and my real perceptions over things people tell me.

I also trust my real perceptions, just as you do; I trust my emotioal responses and my senses to give me enough information to come to logical conclusions.

What puzzled me about the believers when I was a kid, was that they weren't usually wrong about things, yet they seemed to really believe this god stuff even though there were a bunch of holes in the story and the god was completely unperceivable, can't see him, hear him, etc.

So you were angry that they propogated something which you could not understand as real instead of imaginary? I understand that, it's a reasonable enough mode of thinking. However, I think you learned from the wrong people; the God I'm aware of can be seen, heard, touched, tasted and perceived in every conceivable way. You just have to recognize what you are perceiving as such, and believe in your own feelings about said perception.

Yeah, yeah, I know in your imagination you can hear him, but let's not go there.

See above.

Yikes, someone get this person a dictionary. It's the only humane thing to do people. Dial 911 on your phone. This is an emergency. Subjective personal stuff is not evidence. And faith is belief WITHOUT evidence. That's pretty much the whole point of the word.

Yes, subjective personal stuff is evidence; it's subjective, personal evidence. It proves to the subjective mind that the objective idea is there, and must be learned ona subjective basis. That is why it is subjective in the first place.

And again, screw dictionary definitions. They aren't always accurate.

-----------------

There is no such thing as 'personal' evidence.

That is a euphemism for wishful thinking and delusional thoughts.

There is no way of seperating the subjective perception from the objective reality. Thus, personal evidence is the only evidence that can really count to a subjective human being with a limited, human perspective.

I watched Bill Maher's documentary called "religulous" and a chap thought that because it started to rain the moment he wsihed it rained, that God exists and that was evidence!

That is not the kind of evidence I am talking about, in the first place. I've watched Religulous, too, it doesn't make you any smarter or better than me.

------------------

I'll accept that personally as an answer, but then it brings up another question of morality of those before a Judean type sect. In other words, the civilizations throughout our history that had moral teachings, in which, were considerably older than any type of "Judean, Christian, Islamic, sect....Almost the same type of teachings at that, and then some.....??

And that's what I am attempting to point out; these lessons recorded in the Bible, these natural 'Laws of Human Nature' are observable and learnable in the real world, so that lots of religions predating Christianity had already observed them, as well.

Live and learn lessons I get.....But again, the above sentence I put forth still comes to play and why you would label/follow to a "Christian" backing...

I find the Christian Bible and beliefs to be the most inclusive and knowledgable when it comes to those lessons on the 'Laws of Human Nature', as I called them above.

I believe you to be smart enough to acknowledge that this answer is nothing more than a "Goddidit" type response
We all have had crazy experiences throughout our lives in which are unexplained. Hell, the so called, "Dejavu" is an interesting phenomenon...But as a rational thinker, I still do not believe the "Theist Approach" is the answers to questions unanswered. (And for many reasons)....

Thank you for believing me to be smart; I believe I am, too. xP

The experiences I am refering to, however, are not simply 'Goddidit' answers at all; they are honest observations of phenomena that I have experiened and found to be compatable with the exstence of God, if not, indicative of such a conclusion.

And everything you stated in the above response, is exactly what formed a "Theist Approach" instead of trying to identify the trials and reasons for behavioral thinking.

As I said, my approach is to observe humanity and honestly look at it in comparison to God and my understanding of Him; it something doesn't fit or make sense, I attempt to find a better conclusion than the one I have come to before.

No, you believing in God and putting "IT" in "YOUR" world, is what makes sense in a world of "your"-reality, but, no more, no less.
I could state the same with any written down "God". It still does not make it true or evidential.

The world I observe is what is true and honest and perceivable; it is the same one you live in. I believe in that world without any subjective proof that it exists, only trusting my senses and their ability to give me an accurate depiction of the world around me.(Although, ironically, I'm color blind.)

God, as I understand Him, matches the observations I have made about the real world.

By your definition of "Jesus", you could say the same for every other "Preacher/Priest" out there....

And I do. I am a son of God, just like every single man on Earth is a son of God, just like Jesus was a son of God. The difference between Jesus and I is that Jesus was gifted with bein completely in-tune with God, which made him God's protege; the progidal son of God.

Or for that matter, what about Confucius or Buddha? You can say they were the "Son's of God", but would you say they were "His" protege as well...??

Confucius was simply a man who taught of life the way he thought it needed to be lived. He, like me, made observations about the world and taught about them to the best of his ability. He was not, however, gifted by God with the same closeness that Jesus was. No, he was not God's protege; he was just another son of God.

Buddha is debatable; Buddhism's beliefs are an observation of the world, just like Christianity's beliefs are an observation of the world. I believe the teachings of Jesus Christ match up with God's far more than the teachings of the Buddha.

If so, then your labeling of yourself as a "Theist" would be a bit different....

I am a theist; Christianity is a branch of theism, one I find to be more precisely in-tune with God's truth and the observations I have made about the world.

----------------

Lack of belief isn't a choice.

No, lack of belief is not a choice. Possessing belief or not, however, is.

If I said I believed in god I would be lying to you and myself, because it wouldn't be true.

This is where we differ on opinions; I believe that God is a part of you, so to claim thatyou do not believe in God is a lie to you and I; from MY point of view, at least.

People don't choose to not believe in something, they simply don't believe it. Also it isn't denial. It's rejection/dismissal. You say there is a god, I'm saying I don't believe you.

You say you don't believe me, which is a denial of belief; you are denying that you believe, I am proposing that you do.

So either you fail to understand this or you refuse to accept it.

I refuse to accept it because it is not what I have found to be the truth.

[tackattack]

A hide tag would work well watson

[Ace Otana]

No, lack of belief is not a choice. Possessing belief or not, however, is.

Going to have to agree to disagree here. Because this will only end up in circles.

This is where we differ on opinions; I believe that God is a part of you, so to claim thatyou do not believe in God is a lie to you and I; from MY point of view, at least.

Indeed, this is where our opinions differ greatly. I don't believe that a god exists and so I don't believe he is part of me or anything. So that's another agree to disagree.

You say you don't believe me, which is a denial of belief; you are denying that you believe, I am proposing that you do.

I'm not denying belief, I have no belief (I think I'd know myself better than you do). I don't think it's true. I don't believe that a god exists. Also, do you really believe that I have belief in god? Because if you do then you are dead wrong. I've never believed in god. I find it hard to understand how anyone can believe it.
Another agree to disagree.

I refuse to accept it because it is not what I have found to be the truth.

Your free as you know to believe in whatever you wish.

One thing I have found in this little discussion old chap is that our opinions differ so grealty that they are in complete opposite directions to each other.

Want a cup o' tea old boy?

[tavarish]

I find the Christian Bible and beliefs to be the most inclusive and knowledgable when it comes to those lessons on the 'Laws of Human Nature', as I called them above.

Describe these laws.

The experiences I am refering to, however, are not simply 'Goddidit' answers at all; they are honest observations of phenomena that I have experiened and found to be compatable with the exstence of God, if not, indicative of such a conclusion.

Blatantly obvious contradiction.

As I said, my approach is to observe humanity and honestly look at it in comparison to God and my understanding of Him; it something doesn't fit or make sense, I attempt to find a better conclusion than the one I have come to before.

That would be great if it wasn't riddled with rationalization.

The world I observe is what is true and honest and perceivable; it is the same one you live in. I believe in that world without any subjective proof that it exists, only trusting my senses and their ability to give me an accurate depiction of the world around me.(Although, ironically, I'm color blind.)

Your perception of the world is evidence for the view that you possess.

God, as I understand Him, matches the observations I have made about the real world.

Which are?

And I do. I am a son of God, just like every single man on Earth is a son of God, just like Jesus was a son of God. The difference between Jesus and I is that Jesus was gifted with bein completely in-tune with God, which made him God's protege; the progidal son of God.

Then he sacrificed himself to himself and went up to heaven to become himself.

Buddha is debatable; Buddhism's beliefs are an observation of the world, just like Christianity's beliefs are an observation of the world. I believe the teachings of Jesus Christ match up with God's far more than the teachings of the Buddha.

Buddhists aren't necessarily theists.

I am a theist; Christianity is a branch of theism, one I find to be more precisely in-tune with God's truth and the observations I have made about the world.

One in which you can cherry pick what you'd like to believe. Makes sense.

----------------

No, lack of belief is not a choice. Possessing belief or not, however, is.

Another obvious contradiction.

Lack of a third nipple is not a choice. Possessing a third nipple or not, however, is.


...yeah.

This is where we differ on opinions; I believe that God is a part of you, so to claim thatyou do not believe in God is a lie to you and I; from MY point of view, at least.

This is 1 step away from dictating moral code and pushing for theistic legislation - after all, God is in everyone, and we should all obey his rules.

People don't choose to not believe in something, they simply don't believe it. Also it isn't denial. It's rejection/dismissal. You say there is a god, I'm saying I don't believe you.

You say you don't believe me, which is a denial of belief; you are denying that you believe, I am proposing that you do.

A rejection of belief isn't a belief. Bald isn't a hair color.

I refuse to accept it because it is not what I have found to be the truth.

I'm pretty sure you just fail to understand.

[Fluké]

There is no such thing as 'personal' evidence.
That is a euphemism for wishful thinking and delusional thoughts.

There is no way of seperating the subjective perception from the objective reality. Thus, personal evidence is the only evidence that can really count to a subjective human being with a limited, human perspective.

There is no such thing as personal evidence. The nature of evidence is that something is proven by means of verifiable & falsifiable testing and found to be true.

What you’re talking about is personal experience! Thank goodness, it isn’t regarded as evidence for the existence of something. Personal experience is completely subjective concept and relies on something as fallible as the human mind & psyche. I often think that when people say they have had some “personal experience”, that they are being authentic about it. You have probably made up your mind about the existence of God, and it is unlikely that any argument will sway you.

The existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, and should be dealt with in scientific method – namely, science, logic & reason. Personal experience is not valid (and certainly needs to be corroborated to be taken seriously in a court room).

Carl Sagan once said “ … extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". Unfortunately, personal experiences (no matter how genuine they seemed to you) don’t satisfy that benchmark.

I watched Bill Maher's documentary called "religulous" and a chap thought that because it started to rain the moment he wsihed it rained, that God exists and that was evidence!

That is not the kind of evidence I am talking about, in the first place. I've watched Religulous, too, it doesn't make you any smarter or better than me.

This is a little presumptuous on your part. You have no idea who I am, or how much I have read on theology, science, philosophy etc … but I’m curious what that experience was that confirmed the existence of God.

You could, for instance, see an apple fail to fall the ground when thrown. That could count as personal evidence if only you witnessed it. But does that prove God exists? It only ‘proves’ that there *might* have been a disturbance in the natural order of the universe.

[downbeatplumb]

When the concept was first presented to me, at a very early age (it's one of my earliest memories), I laughed and immediately wanted to hear the details of this fun fictional cat-in-the-hat-like tale, so I asked who created God, etc. They couldn't answer these things that showed the story made no sense. My amusement turned to confusion when it seemed they were treating this tale as real, and then even a bit of anger when they expected me to treat it as real also, which is not something I've ever been likely to do since I prefer not to lie unless there is a good enough reason to.

I understand this. When you were young you chose not to believe, as somewhere down the line you were exposed to things that you chose to put more stock in than faith, belief, and God.
[/quote]

I hate this assumption that the default position is belief in god.

It is obviously false and more than a little annoying.

I never believed therefore belief is not the default position for everybody.

[tavarish]

I don't agree with a few of your points.

There is no such thing as personal evidence.

Sure there is. Subjective evidence exists as a facet or your perception - this encompasses rationale that does not necessarily apply to another's point of view or belief.

I can believe that I've seen aliens, and have evidence that is defined by my own memories and recollections. Based on my standard of evidence, this is enough for me to believe that was I experienced was genuine, but may not be enough to convince someone else, as anecdotal evidence isn't admissible as objective.

The nature of evidence is that something is proven by means of verifiable & falsifiable testing and found to be true.

Not necessarily.

here's a definition of evidence by princeton:

your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=evidence

What you’re talking about is personal experience!

Which can be a form of subjective evidence for something. Also, it's better not to link to uncited Wikipedia pages.

Thank goodness, it isn’t regarded as evidence for the existence of something. Personal experience is completely subjective concept and relies on something as fallible as the human mind & psyche.

That doesn't mean subjective experiences can't lead to subjective conclusions regarding the existence of something.

I often think that when people say they have had some “personal experience”, that they are being authentic about it. You have probably made up your mind about the existence of God, and it is unlikely that any argument will sway you.

That's been apparent for some time now.

The existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, and should be dealt with in scientific method – namely, science, logic & reason.

I understand Dawkins' point of view, but it is not limited to a scientific hypothesis, although you can treat it as such. Theists can just simply say he resides outside of the material, and the entire argument turns to crap. There are scientific elements, but it isn't only a question science has to or can answer.

Personal experience is not valid (and certainly needs to be corroborated to be taken seriously in a court room).

Agreed. Anecdotal evidence is not objective evidence without scrutiny and verification.

Carl Sagan once said “ … extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". Unfortunately, personal experiences (no matter how genuine they seemed to you) don’t satisfy that benchmark.

Sure they do - just ask the people that experienced them. They're convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This is a little presumptuous on your part. You have no idea who I am, or how much I have read on theology, science, philosophy etc … but I’m curious what that experience was that confirmed the existence of God.

I made a thread with this very topic. All I got was wishywashy bullshit ending with two vague conclusions:

1. Nothing convinced them.
2. Everything convinced them.

And somehow they tied 1 and 2 together.

You could, for instance, see an apple fail to fall the ground when thrown. That could count as personal evidence if only you witnessed it. But does that prove God exists? It only ‘proves’ that there *might* have been a disturbance in the natural order of the universe.

It still counts as personal evidence of something occurring from your perspective. Whatever you tie it to is irrelevant, as your conclusion is solely dependent on the value you assign to the evidence.

[Watson]

Very well, Ace. We agree to disagree. I'll take you up on that offer of tea!

Also, sorry for not using hide tags, everybody. >.< My posts are becoming very, very lengthy here.

--------------

Describe these laws.

I've got a better idea. Instead of me spending a lot of time that I don't have right now typing all of the ones I've learned out, why don't you go read the Bible and look for some of them there. I'm sure some of them will match up with lessons that you, too, have learned throughout your life. Unless you haven't learned anything at all, yet, and only think you have.

---

The experiences I am refering to, however, are not simply 'Goddidit' answers at all; they are honest observations of phenomena that I have experiened and found to be compatable with the exstence of God, if not, indicative of such a conclusion.

Blatantly obvious contradiction.

---

How so?

---

As I said, my approach is to observe humanity and honestly look at it in comparison to God and my understanding of Him; it something doesn't fit or make sense, I attempt to find a better conclusion than the one I have come to before.

That would be great if it wasn't riddled with rationalization.

---

I'm confused as to where rationalization is wrong...please explain.

---

The world I observe is what is true and honest and perceivable; it is the same one you live in. I believe in that world without any subjective proof that it exists, only trusting my senses and their ability to give me an accurate depiction of the world around me.(Although, ironically, I'm color blind.)

Your perception of the world is evidence for the view that you possess.

---

Exactly. And I do not claim it as being anything else but evidence for me.

Which are?

What did I say about the Bible?

Then he sacrificed himself

A part of himself; like amputating a limb to save the greater whole.

and went up to heaven to become himself.

'and went up to heaven to become whole again.' would be more accurate.

Buddhists aren't necessarily theists.

True. I have no contention with that. What is your point? lol

One in which you can cherry pick what you'd like to believe. Makes sense.

No, one in which I choose whether or not to believe in this, that, or the other thing. Man is not innerrant. Man wrote the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is not innerrant. I'm not cherry-picking if I'm believing only in the lessons I've learned and observed in the real world about humanity and God.

---

No, lack of belief is not a choice. Possessing belief or not, however, is.

Another obvious contradiction.

Lack of a third nipple is not a choice. Possessing a third nipple or not, however, is.


...yeah.

---

Well that's a stupid counter argument. Belief is something wholly different from a nipple. Belief can only be subjectively proven. A nipple could potentially be objectively proven.

---

This is where we differ on opinions; I believe that God is a part of you, so to claim thatyou do not believe in God is a lie to you and I; from MY point of view, at least.

This is 1 step away from dictating moral code and pushing for theistic legislation - after all, God is in everyone, and we should all obey his rules.

---

We should, but we don't all have to. That's why it's a choice.

People don't choose to not believe in something, they simply don't believe it. Also it isn't denial. It's rejection/dismissal. You say there is a god, I'm saying I don't believe you.

---

You say you don't believe me, which is a denial of belief; you are denying that you believe, I am proposing that you do.

A rejection of belief isn't a belief. Bald isn't a hair color.

---

A rejection of belief, if belief truly does exist, is a denial of that belief. I am proposing that the belief exists, and that I can use my understanding of that to predict what he may or may not do for denying what is truly there. Just like I can predict that a man who denies that a speeding truck is coming toward him, when it very definitely is, will not move out of the way.