Evidence God Exists: Part II

[leo-rcc]

That's for sure. But Shell B is special.

Am not. I don't even have to wear a helmet.

Then you are a better person than I.

[AngelThMan]

Angel, you see these things as 'clues that god exists', because you already believe that god exists. That is the definition of a presupposed conclusion. What we are all trying to tell you is that none of these things are actual, demonstrable evidence that god exists. Unless you already believe in god.

You can say that about anything. Let's say someone believes in the benefits of yoga, and another person feels it's useless. The yogi cannot make an argument for yoga because it will be deemed a presupposed conclusion. Nevermind that the argument could reveal a truth.

[Paul the Human]

The benefit of yoga can be demonstrated. The comparison is faulty. A preconceived conclusion and a conclusion based upon demonstrable evidence are two different things.

[AngelThMan]

The benefit of yoga can be demonstrated...

How? Conclusively, I mean.

[Paul the Human]

Conclusively is not the issue. The issue is that there is evidence to support one side and none to support the other. You have tried to present evidence that god exists. Instead, you have provided evidence that if you believe god exists... then you believe god exists... despite, or even in spite of, the evidence (or lack thereof). Not knowing the answer does not make the answer god. Not having a scientific explanation does not mean there is not one.

---

I would like to add that a lack of evidence for the existence of god(s) does not mean that god(s) do not exist any more than the evidence to support a scientific conclusion means that conclusion is correct. But nothing you have presented to this point qualifies as "Evidence". That's what I'm trying to tell you.

[Samson]

I'm still waiting on this, so called, evidence, other than a "Goddidit" argument.

I can not and will not state that Science will someday find evidence of a god hypothesis. However, in stating that, I will never "Blindly" conclude that since Science can not do this at this point in time, then x,y, & z, must be this, this and this.....

If Science worked and thought as your original post did Angel, then we would still be wondering what the hell an Earthquake is.

[AngelThMan]

Conclusively is not the issue. The issue is that there is evidence to support one side and none to support the other. You have tried to present evidence that god exists. Instead, you have provided evidence that if you believe god exists... then you believe god exists... despite, or even in spite of, the evidence (or lack thereof). Not knowing the answer does not make the answer god. Not having a scientific explanation does not mean there is not one.

---

I would like to add that a lack of evidence for the existence of god(s) does not mean that god(s) do not exist any more than the evidence to support a scientific conclusion means that conclusion is correct. But nothing you have presented to this point qualifies as "Evidence". That's what I'm trying to tell you.

I feel there's some bias in your reply. You say it's not evidence based on your belief, which is what you've said I'm doing.

You also cleverly avoided my question. How are yoga's benefits demonstrable without a suggestion of presupposition?

Off-topic: Been meaning to tell you, awesome avatar. Hilarious!

[Paul the Human]

I feel there's some bias in your reply. You say it's not evidence based on your belief, which is what you've said I'm doing.

It is not based on my belief. I'm not sure how to explain this any more clearly. Heheh. Evidence is something solid and concrete. Fossils are an example of evidence that indicates that evolution is the most likely scenario. It's not a matter of believing in fossils.

"Humans are the dominant species and can imagine there is a god" is not evidence by the scientific definition of the word. You say it points you to the conclusion that there is a god, but it points me to look at the physical, demonstrable evidence that suggests that we are a product of very successful evolution. The evidence actually suggests that god was not necessary at all. You are mistaking the definition of the word evidence.

Off-topic: Been meaning to tell you, awesome avatar. Hilarious!

Thanks! I thought he was cool and disturbing at the same time.

---

Can anyone else explain this better than I am? Please.

[Caecilian]

Angel, you see these things as 'clues that god exists', because you already believe that god exists. That is the definition of a presupposed conclusion. What we are all trying to tell you is that none of these things are actual, demonstrable evidence that god exists. Unless you already believe in god.

You can say that about anything. Let's say someone believes in the benefits of yoga, and another person feels it's useless. The yogi cannot make an argument for yoga because it will be deemed a presupposed conclusion. Nevermind that the argument could reveal a truth.

Ho hum. Another fallacious argument.

In this case the fallacy is a false analogy, based on conflating subjective and objective usefulness.

Yoga may be useful to a person (i.e. subjectively useful) regardless of whether it has any objective health benefits. When a yogi says that yoga is useful, they normally mean that it is useful to themselves. Similarly, you might find it useful to ask yourself 'What would Jesus want me to do?' when dealing with an ethical problem. The fact that this might be useful to you is a fact about your subjective experience. No one else is in a position to contradict you, since only you are you.

However, the world has an objective existence (I assume that you aren't some sort of extreme relativist), and thus knowledge of the world can be more or less objective. Scientific method is the best way that we have of arriving at more or less objective knowledge- and its based on evidence. So if a yogi claims that yoga has some sort of objective benefits, for example that it leads to reduced heart problems or better aerobic fitness, then those are claims that are testable, and require evidence to back them up.

If you were simply claiming that you found belief in God useful in your personal life, then I wouldn't be arguing with you. I might say that I get along find with being an atheist, and that I regard your religion as a crutch, but I really couldn't say much more than that. But what you're trying to show is that there are reasons to believe that God exists out there, in the objective Universe. And that requires evidence, not fallacious nonsense.

[Thor]

Abiogenesis discredited. 500 years of experiments have failed to produce life out of inanimate matter. Scientists make excuse that the earth would have to be in the same condition as it was billions of years ago for life to be produced. And that’s just what it is. An excuse after so many experiments failed. So where does life comes from if there is no God? Evolution explains the development of life, or how it evolved from point A to point B. It doesn’t explain the origin. How life itself started. Scientists' many attempts recently to synthesize ribonucleotides have failed...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...z0mbAXSyts

The lack of evidence for abiogenesis is my evidence.

Despite hundreds of years of experimentation, scientists have been unable to turn lead into gold. So where did gold come from if it was not spun out of straw by Rumpelstiltskin? The lack of evidence for turning lead into gold is my evidence. Obviously, Rumpelstiltskin made all the gold!

Now do you see how stupid your argument is?