Evidence God Exists

[Watson]

So tell me. What is it that you now see in life, as an atheist, that you did not see before as a believer? And on the flip side, what is it that I(as a believer) must be missing now?

That'll be the truth.

That is not an answer. If the truth is what I am missing than what is 'the truth'?

The world is so much more awe-inspiring and incredible just the way it is, without supernatural myths.

What supernatural myths are we talking about here, hm? At what point in my argument did I bring up anything supernatural and/or mythical? Please point me in the direction of where I suggested such things so I can elaborate upon them.

The idea of God 'poofing' everything into existence just to please himself is an insult to the universe.

Who said anything about God 'poofing' anything into existence for His own 'pleasure'?

I was a Christian in my teens, when I was depressed and confused. But my unhappiness wasn't because of being religious. I sought out religion because at the time, it was comforting, and I wanted easy answers to complex questions. Simple as that.

None of my answers have been easy, and some have been the exact opposite of comforting. In fact, were it not for my faith, I would never have faced some hard choices that were quite painful at the time. I would never have known the importance of making those choices because of my lack of faith.

I have pondered these things deeply. You seem to make the assumption, OnlyNatural, that I have given very little thought to my ideas and beliefs. On the contrary. I have thought long and hard, faced some difficult questions, and emerged on the other side to see that there was a point to seeking these things afterall.

... nothing comforting about a massive ... the bloody evolutionary struggle to survive.

I think there's quite a lot comforting in that struggle, thank you very much. I'm sorry you can't see it that way.

The real 'truth' is out there for you to learn, not hidden away in some ancient book. Becoming an atheist opened my eyes; I've never been happier and I've never looked back.

You've never looked back? Not once? Interesting and worthy of note. Because perhaps it might be worth it to look back at least one time, and see if maybe you missed something.

I know the truth is out there. I've seen it, beheld it, felt it in my very being...and it is fantastic. I must say, OnlyNatural, the only reason I responded to you was because I felt the need to word my thoughts properly for my own sake. I enjoy getting my thoughts down in words because I am a writer at heart. Were it not for that, I would not have bothered, because your's is honestly an argument and mindset that I have seen regurgitated again and again on this forum. It is, frankly, pathetic.

A lot. [to do with truth]

No. Having truth in the consolation that faith gives you doesn't equate to having truth in what you have faith in.

I'm not talking about consolation here, I'm talking about understanding.

Why not?

It's not an argument because it's credulity/incredulity at an alternative.

It's not at all incredulity. It's an application of that thing a lot of you atheists claim to hold so dear, called 'logic' with a healthy dose of 'understanding'.

How about you also refute the rest of my argument, instead of small portions of it that you are capable of picking at?

Everything else in your post depended on the two points that I criticized.

There was more to it than those two points. Apply your understanding and see the big picture of what I said. Don't just answer what's been answered a million times before.

[Minimalist]

That is not an answer. If the truth is what I am missing than what is 'the truth'?

That your god is a fucking delusion.

[downbeatplumb]

I've known him since he was about 20 and trust me, beautiful is not the word to use. hock:

Ruggedly handsome then.

[OnlyNatural]

The world is so much more awe-inspiring and incredible just the way it is, without supernatural myths.

What supernatural myths are we talking about here, hm? At what point in my argument did I bring up anything supernatural and/or mythical? Please point me in the direction of where I suggested such things so I can elaborate upon them.

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to you or your arguments. I was referring generally to belief in the supernatural (God, heaven, etc.), and the religious mythology that is based on these beliefs.

Who said anything about God 'poofing' anything into existence for His own 'pleasure'?

Perhaps that was a bit of an oversimplification. Although, looking over the first chapter of Genesis, maybe not. It's full of 'God created this and that, and saw that it was good, and he was pleased' etc. And I find that to be a gross oversimplification of the origins of the universe.

I have pondered these things deeply. You seem to make the assumption, OnlyNatural, that I have given very little thought to my ideas and beliefs. On the contrary. I have thought long and hard, faced some difficult questions, and emerged on the other side to see that there was a point to seeking these things afterall.

Again, I wasn't making any assumptions about you, nor referring to your personal beliefs. I was simply answering your question about how, as an atheist, one might see the world.

I think there's quite a lot comforting in that (evolutionary) struggle, thank you very much. I'm sorry you can't see it that way.

I said there 'might be' nothing comforting, to some people, but it depends on the individual. Personally, I think we're all extremely lucky to be here, given the odds against it. But that doesn't mean there was a god involved.

You've never looked back? Not once? Interesting and worthy of note. Because perhaps it might be worth it to look back at least one time, and see if maybe you missed something.

'I never looked back' = 'I never went back to believing in God, once I stopped believing.' Sorry if that was confusing.

But I have looked back at the beliefs I used to hold, many times. And I've thought about them a lot. But the more I analysed them, the less sense they made. And I got tired of having to compartmentalize my beliefs to keep them safe from rational thought.

I know the truth is out there. I've seen it, beheld it, felt it in my very being...and it is fantastic.

You've 'seen' it? I doubt it. You've 'felt' it? I'm sure you have, but that doesn't make it true.

I must say, OnlyNatural, the only reason I responded to you was because I felt the need to word my thoughts properly for my own sake...Were it not for that, I would not have bothered, because your's is honestly an argument and mindset that I have seen regurgitated again and again on this forum. It is, frankly, pathetic.

I'm actually happy to hear that my 'argument and mindset' is quite common on this forum. I see nothing pathetic about it; apparently, I'm among friends.

[Watson]

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to you or your arguments. I was referring generally to belief in the supernatural (God, heaven, etc.), and the religious mythology that is based on these beliefs.

So then why did you refer specifically to me if what you were saying didn't apply to me in some way? It, too, believe that the world is awe-inspiring and beautiful for many of the same reasons you probably do. And I believe in God, and a Heaven, and a Hell etc. etc. I see nothing contradictory or 'supernatural' about these beliefs, either.

Perhaps that was a bit of an oversimplification. Although, looking over the first chapter of Genesis, maybe not. It's full of 'God created this and that, and saw that it was good, and he was pleased' etc.

Why wouldn't He be pleased with the creation of he universe? I know I would be if I had just created an entire universe. It doesn't say He created the universe for the sole purpose of His own pleasure, however.

And I find that to be a gross oversimplification of the origins of the universe.

It isn't meant to be a scientific explanation of the universe, obviously. It is meant to say, simply, that God created the universe in it's entirity. That's all.

Again, I wasn't making any assumptions about you, nor referring to your personal beliefs. I was simply answering your question about how, as an atheist, one might see the world.

But you did not actually answer the question. The question was in regards to what I, as a believer, am missing out on and what you all, as atheists, now posess in the way of 'truth'. Since your answer was about you, but directed at me, I can only assume your anecdote was meant to 'show me' that I may be seeking religion because it is 'comforting' and 'easy'. You stated

I sought out religion because at the time, it was comforting, and I wanted easy answers to complex questions. Simple as that.

which does not answer the question itself about what I am missing. You merely presuppose things about why I sought religion. Hence why I responded the way I did.

I said there 'might be' nothing comforting, to some people, but it depends on the individual. Personally, I think we're all extremely lucky to be here, given the odds against it. But that doesn't mean there was a god involved.

Of course it doesn't. But you must admit that the idea of all of our trials, all our struggles and pains in life, being nothing more than a speck compared to the great struggle that is and has been the evolution of the earth is quire comforting.

But I have looked back at the beliefs I used to hold, many times. And I've thought about them a lot. But the more I analysed them, the less sense they made. And I got tired of having to compartmentalize my beliefs to keep them safe from rational thought.

As long as you've looked back before, you should be fine.

You've 'seen' it? I doubt it.

Why do you doubt it?

You've 'felt' it? I'm sure you have, but that doesn't make it true.

No, it doesn't. But if you'd had the experiences I have, you might be inclined to agree with me.

[OnlyNatural]

So then why did you refer specifically to me if what you were saying didn't apply to me in some way?

But you did not actually answer the question. The question was in regards to what I, as a believer, am missing out on and what you all, as atheists, now posess in the way of 'truth'. Since your answer was about you, but directed at me, I can only assume your anecdote was meant to 'show me' that I may be seeking religion because it is 'comforting' and 'easy'. You stated

I sought out religion because at the time, it was comforting, and I wanted easy answers to complex questions. Simple as that.

which does not answer the question itself about what I am missing. You merely presuppose things about why I sought religion. Hence why I responded the way I did.

Ok, let me start over. I seem to have created a misunderstanding, and I apologize. Your question was:

So tell me. What is it that you now see in life, as an atheist, that you did not see before as a believer? And on the flip side, what is it that I(as a believer) must be missing now?

When I answered the question, I meant to address the first part only, about how I see life as an atheist. I realize now I should have only quoted that part. I did not mean to talk about what you, specifically, are missing. If I used the word 'you,' I was referring to religious individuals and religious belief in a more general way. I should have been more specific. My anecdotes were not meant to presuppose anything about your own personal experiences.

From now on, though, I will be addressing you and your arguments.

It, too, believe that the world is awe-inspiring and beautiful for many of the same reasons you probably do. And I believe in God, and a Heaven, and a Hell etc. etc. I see nothing contradictory or 'supernatural' about these beliefs, either.

Here's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of 'supernatural:'

SUPERNATURAL:
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Why wouldn't He be pleased with the creation of he universe? I know I would be if I had just created an entire universe. It doesn't say He created the universe for the sole purpose of His own pleasure, however.

What were some of his other reasons? I'm genuinely curious.

It isn't meant to be a scientific explanation of the universe, obviously. It is meant to say, simply, that God created the universe in it's entirity. That's all.

And that still doesn't explain anything. It's an unnecessary inference based on no evidence. I like how Laplace said it:

"Sir, I had no need of that hypothesis. ("Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là", as a reply to Napoleon, who had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his book on astronomy.)

But you must admit that the idea of all of our trials, all our struggles and pains in life, being nothing more than a speck compared to the great struggle that is and has been the evolution of the earth is quire comforting.

It makes our current problems seem less significant sometimes, compared to the vastness of time and space. But eventually we do have to get back to living our lives now, because this life is all we have.

I'm curious, do you believe that God was behind the processes of evolution, or that he shaped these processes so that we could all be here today?

You've 'seen' it? I doubt it.

Why do you doubt it?

Because I've never heard of anyone presenting observable evidence of God's existence. That seems like something that would be big news. Was there something you saw that unambiguously confirmed his existence, and could not be explained in any other way? Are there other witnesses who could back you up?

You've 'felt' it? I'm sure you have, but that doesn't make it true.

No, it doesn't. But if you'd had the experiences I have, you might be inclined to agree with me.

Yet those are still subjective experiences; ie. feelings you have, thoughts that occur to you, a sense of contentment, or a sense that something has a deeper meaning. Everyone has these kinds of experiences, but not everyone attributes them to a divine source. And they are certainly not evidence that a divine source objectively exists.

[Watson]

Your question was:

So tell me. What is it that you now see in life, as an atheist, that you did not see before as a believer? And on the flip side, what is it that I(as a believer) must be missing now?

When I answered the question, I meant to address the first part only, about how I see life as an atheist. I realize now I should have only quoted that part.

Totally understandable miscommunication, don't worry about it.

Here's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of 'supernatural:'

SUPERNATURAL:
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

I suppose that, dictionary definition speaking, God and the concept of is supernatural by nature. However, I find these things to be very natural...so the idea of applying such a term to them is odd to me.

Why wouldn't He be pleased with the creation of he universe? I know I would be if I had just created an entire universe. It doesn't say He created the universe for the sole purpose of His own pleasure, however.

What were some of his other reasons? I'm genuinely curious.

I can't say I know for sure. Love is one reason that comes to mind, but I don't claim to know what the beginning and end purpose of the universe is at all. Only God knows that. And love is probably too ambiguous for you as an answer.

Basically, I don't know.

And that still doesn't explain anything. It's an unnecessary inference based on no evidence.

First of all, what evidence could they have had? They lived in a time when the extent of their scientific knowledge was very little. The Bible was not written to scientifically explain the way in which God works, but to explain the spiritual, emotional, mental, and physical processes of God and His relation to mankind.

It's like expecting a cook book to include instructions on how to roll cigarettes.

It makes our current problems seem less significant sometimes, compared to the vastness of time and space. But eventually we do have to get back to living our lives now, because this life is all we have.

I concur with that sentiment, we can't spend all of our lives speculating on these things. We either live by them or we don't. This life is the only one in which we have to experience things through our current, unique mind.

I'm curious, do you believe that God was behind the processes of evolution, or that he shaped these processes so that we could all be here today?

Yes.

Because I've never heard of anyone presenting observable evidence of God's existence.

There's a lot more of it out there than you think. You might not be looking in the right places for it, is all.

Was there something you saw that unambiguously confirmed his existence, and could not be explained in any other way?

A lot of things. I've mentioned them to many people throughout this forum many times, and been refuted every time. haha I doubt you'd be any different, so I wont bore you with the details.

Are there other witnesses who could back you up?

If by 'witnesses' you mean others experiencing similar phenomena and connecting them in similar ways, than yes. I'd say there are probably millions, if not billions, of 'witnesses' to back me up.

Yet those are still subjective experiences; ie. feelings you have, thoughts that occur to you, a sense of contentment, or a sense that something has a deeper meaning. Everyone has these kinds of experiences, but not everyone attributes them to a divine source. And they are certainly not evidence that a divine source objectively exists.

And who is to contradict me on my subjective view, or its validity? Everything we experience is subjective by nature, and must be as such. We are subjective entities. Why should one subjective claim hold anymore weight than another unless there is an objective which can be tapped into?

[OnlyNatural]

First of all, what evidence could they have had? They lived in a time when the extent of their scientific knowledge was very little. The Bible was not written to scientifically explain the way in which God works, but to explain the spiritual, emotional, mental, and physical processes of God and His relation to mankind.

How could they have had any evidence of supernatural processes and the existence of God if they didn't even understand the natural world? Religions and prophets and mythologies about gods and the afterlife have sprung up all over the world, at a time when no one had any other explanations, because they needed a way to make sense of their lives. It's apparent in the way the 'God' entity is anthropomorphized to have human-like emotions and relational needs.

I'm curious, do you believe that God was behind the processes of evolution, or that he shaped these processes so that we could all be here today?

Yes.

That's interesting. I guess for me, that would be another unnecessary inference, since the process of evolution has everything necessary to unfold by itself.

If by 'witnesses' you mean others experiencing similar phenomena and connecting them in similar ways, than yes. I'd say there are probably millions, if not billions, of 'witnesses' to back me up.

No, I don't mean other people who have certain subjective experiences and attribute them to God. I mean somebody standing next to you when you saw your unambiguous sign of God's existence, and agreed that they, too, had witnessed something divine.

And who is to contradict me on my subjective view, or its validity? Everything we experience is subjective by nature, and must be as such. We are subjective entities. Why should one subjective claim hold anymore weight than another unless there is an objective which can be tapped into?

I'm not dismissing the validity of your inner experience, I'm sure you really do feel whatever you feel. I'm saying that no subjective claim is sufficient evidence of something that exists 'out there.' There is an objective real world out there, and it can definitely be tapped into. If something's 'true for you,' then no one can argue with that, but that doesn't mean it's true for anyone else.

[Watson]

First of all, what evidence could they have had? They lived in a time when the extent of their scientific knowledge was very little. The Bible was not written to scientifically explain the way in which God works, but to explain the spiritual, emotional, mental, and physical processes of God and His relation to mankind.

How could they have had any evidence of supernatural processes and the existence of God if they didn't even understand the natural world?

First off, you are making an assumption in saying that they did not understand the natural world. You don't know that. I don't know that. They may have very well understood the way in which things worked, just not the processes by which it worked. Do you see the distinction? They didn't have microscopes like you or I have access to. They didn't have computers or radar or the instant ability to communicate through tiny machines. They were not technologically advanced, and they could not have been, for technology at the time was limited.

Second, God reveals Himself to us in many ways in this world. Their evidence would have been the same evidence you or I could behold, simply in a different timeframe. And who knows? Maybe the way in which God worked back then was much more fantastical. I don't know, and you don't know, because neither of us were there.

Religions and prophets and mythologies about gods and the afterlife have sprung up all over the world, at a time when no one had any other explanations, because they needed a way to make sense of their lives.

And? Do you claim to offer a better explanation than any of those ancient cultures? In light of the fact that you are one human being with one singular subjective viewpoint, how can you claim to have any better understanding than the societies of old?

It's apparent in the way the 'God' entity is anthropomorphized to have human-like emotions and relational needs.

I agree that many religions anthropomorphize God far too much, far too often. Just look at the Greek gods. It speaks volumes on our tendency to project human emotions and concepts onto things we do not fully understand, but not of God Himself.

(Teehee)

That's interesting. I guess for me, that would be another unnecessary inference, since the process of evolution has everything necessary to unfold by itself.

Except a reason to unfold by itself. Why?

No, I don't mean other people who have certain subjective experiences and attribute them to God. I mean somebody standing next to you when you saw your unambiguous sign of God's existence, and agreed that they, too, had witnessed something divine.

My 'unambiguous' sign of God's existence, huh? What is 'unambiguous' to me may be completely clouded and muddled for you, because you lack the necessary capacity to fully comprehend what I have experienced in the same way I have experienced it. Namely faith and understanding. But very well, I will explain.

I have had experiences in which the world around me was 'arranged' in just such a way as to lead me to my goal, or to direct me down a certain path. Not a literal path like a sidewalk, mind you, but an emotional, mental, and spiritual one. Following this path has proven to not only benefit me, but to work out in such a way as to verify the path's own correctness and arrangement. Essentially, there have been moments in my life that, when looked at as a connected phenomena, can only be explained through some sort of divine prescene at work. And the real kicker?

I was an atheist during several of these moments.

As for someone 'standing right next to me' to make my path valid, why do I need such a thing? My subjective experience is as good as the next person's. And why would you believe one person's testimony of an event over another, or as you suggest, when combined with another? My personal experiences are my own; trust that I have the capacity to understand and evaluate them in an unbiased way. I cannot present you with eyewitness testimony of what I have seen and felt, but I can direct you to individuals who have experienced similar phenomena, sometimes in ways that actually connect with my experiences.

A good friend of mine, were he able to join this conversation, could tell you all about the moments in which he and I have experienced simultaneous or connected moments of serendipity.

I'm not dismissing the validity of your inner experience, I'm sure you really do feel whatever you feel. I'm saying that no subjective claim is sufficient evidence of something that exists 'out there.' There is an objective real world out there, and it can definitely be tapped into. If something's 'true for you,' then no one can argue with that, but that doesn't mean it's true for anyone else.

Then all of science is bunk. All of our claims must be subjective because we are subjective beings. If we have no capacity to go outside of our subjective selves, then having multiple subjective claims lean towards one answer does not go anywhere in proving that that answer is true. Science relies on peer review for giving weight to its answers. But if personal experience is invalid, then science holds no weight whatsoever.

[OnlyNatural]

First off, you are making an assumption in saying that they did not understand the natural world. You don't know that. I don't know that. They may have very well understood the way in which things worked, just not the processes by which it worked. Do you see the distinction?

how can you claim to have any better understanding than the societies of old?

So you're saying they may have had a sense of how things operated, they just didn't have the science and technology to explain the specific processes at work? I have no doubt that they understood the natural world in their own way, but we've gained an incredible amount of knowledge since then, and our current understanding has evolved accordingly.

Second, God reveals Himself to us in many ways in this world. Their evidence would have been the same evidence you or I could behold, simply in a different timeframe. And who knows? Maybe the way in which God worked back then was much more fantastical. I don't know, and you don't know, because neither of us were there.

You're right, we weren't there, so we can only theorize and think about possible arguments.

In what ways do you believe God reveals himself, other than private revelation?

I sincerely doubt that things were ‘more fantastical’ in the past. Why would the laws of nature be suspended back then, but not today? What perceptive abilities did our ancestors possess, but that we have now lost? In that different time period, I suspect that people gave a great deal more weight to supernatural explanations, particularly because of the lack of other kinds of knowledge and evidence.

However, I realize that humans have long had a need to find meaning and purpose and feel connected to something beyond the natural world. A yearning for the spiritual, I guess you could say. This doesn't mean that there actually is another dimension or Great Spirit or anything, but I think it says a lot about the meaning-making and symbolizing powers of the human brain.

I agree that many religions anthropomorphize God far too much, far too often. Just look at the Greek gods. It speaks volumes on our tendency to project human emotions and concepts onto things we do not fully understand, but not of God Himself.

If there is a god, it's really not something we could ever understand. I don’t know how some religious people can insist that they know the mind of God, or they know what God wants of us, or what being in the presence of God (in the afterlife) would be like. The only way our ancestors could make this god entity comprehensible was to believe that it thought, felt and behaved at least somewhat like a human, because human motivations were the only kind they knew.

That's interesting. I guess for me, that would be another unnecessary inference, since the process of evolution has everything necessary to unfold by itself.

Except a reason to unfold by itself. Why?

Does it need to have a reason? And if it does, why must the reason involve an intelligent supernatural being?

I have had experiences in which the world around me was 'arranged' in just such a way as to lead me to my goal, or to direct me down a certain path. Not a literal path like a sidewalk, mind you, but an emotional, mental, and spiritual one. Following this path has proven to not only benefit me, but to work out in such a way as to verify the path's own correctness and arrangement.

We’re all searching for meaning and direction in our lives. We automatically look for patterns and tend to capitalize on coincidence. If you believe a certain path is the right one, and you hope that things will work out, they often do. I’ve had experiences just like you’re describing here, without attributing any of my intuitions to an outside force. I guess you make a leap of faith when you attribute it to God, because I can’t see the logical connection.

Then all of science is bunk. All of our claims must be subjective because we are subjective beings. If we have no capacity to go outside of our subjective selves, then having multiple subjective claims lean towards one answer does not go anywhere in proving that that answer is true. Science relies on peer review for giving weight to its answers. But if personal experience is invalid, then science holds no weight whatsoever.

You make a very good point. How can we ever know that anything really exists, if we’re all seeing the world from within our own subjective minds?

I still think there’s something to be said for science, however. Science is the accumulation of knowledge over hundreds and even thousands of years, and evidence is tested by many different minds working together, collaborating and confirming their findings. If a theory is found to be inconsistent or to lack observable evidence, it is not held onto because of any strong intuition that it might be true.

Religious experiences, on the other hand, can never be tested or confirmed to represent anything in the real world. There is no accumulated knowledge or evidence, only the persistent feelings and intuitions of people who are all too ready to give credit to God. And God, as a theory, can never be disproved; and as we know, an unfalsifiable argument is no argument at all.