Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Rahn127]

Well then let's add more to the supernatural cake frosting by piling on Nana scopic infinity soul power sponges.

Each one can absorb and remove all the power of any gods that have ever tried to exist.

They absorb all souls, demons, angels, realms of mystic or divine nature.

Basically they keep the universe clean from all the bullshit that humans create.

[GrandizerII]

You know as well as I do that one does not have to posit a formal, logical argument in order to engage in fallacious reasoning, Steve.  I asked you to describe the method you use to distinguish a supernatural cause from an ‘as of yet unexplained’ natural cause. Your answer included a real life example; that if people first prayed for a child with cancer, and then the cancer disappeared, that could be a good reason to think the cause of the healing was supernatural. You and I both know that, “because the second event followed the first” is a faulty reason to think the second event was caused by the first. Your methodology, at least in this one particular instance, is invalid by way of fallacious reasoning. I don’t see that there is much to dispute here.

Your mistake is the larger set of reasons/beliefs that form the context. It's inductive reasoning based on the fact that brain tumors do not generally disappear on their own, the belief that God exists, the belief that God can heal, and the belief that prayer is part of that process as outlined in the NT to effect that intervention. As in any inductive argument, the premises are probabilistic and the conclusions still may not be true. In fact, perhaps the prayers did nothing to change the outcome--that God would have healed him anyway for some other reason. I said before, we cannot know for sure, there is no way to prove it.

Couple things to point out:

1. Cancer can disappear without a belief in god. You can't be so selective that you only look at one grid of the four-grid square of hits/misses. In fact, tumors in many cases have been observed to disappear right after bacterial (and other) types of infections. So it could mean that certain infections, given perhaps certain genetic predispositions, could lead to a spontaneous remission/regression of tumors.

2. If you're going to resort to Bayesian reasoning, you really have to do it right. And it's really important to be intellectually honest as you conduct such reasoning. In this world that we observe, we have observed that as our knowledge progresses in the various fields of science, naturalism progressively grows in explanatory power when it comes to the workings of, and in, this world. Whereas supernaturalism has continually been declining in explanatory power when it comes to such phenomena. This lends more credence to naturalistic explanations than it does to supernaturalism, and so we should also take this into consideration when trying to estimate all the various probabilities concerned. Furthermore, we haven't seen much, if any, clear [relatively unquestionable] evidence in this world that points to supernaturalism better than naturalism.

Entities that exist and are therefore part of a greater reality that are not bound by the laws of nature that govern the universe. Worldviews that belief it the existence of the supernatural have a particular framework that provide context to the interaction.

But, as LFC keeps pointing out, that context doesn't provide much clarity at all. It's almost as if it's necessarily vague partly because people make this shit up themselves and can't do any better than that to establish the supernatural.

Of course I believe in free will. So do most people...because...that is what we experience every waking moment of the day. If you are dualist, you believe the mind is a separate thing  from the brain. My particular worldview holds that that mind is our soul and that it will continue to exist after we die.

Which seems to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

[SteveII]

Here's a start...

P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
     In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
     a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
     b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
     c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
     d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
     e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
     f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
     g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
     h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
     i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
     j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
     k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
     l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural. Bayes showed us that that more data points that you have that infer a conclusion, the higher the probability the conclusion is true. Additionally, you can apply the math the other direction and examine the probability of these events all happening/reasoning given that the supernatural does not exist. I think there has also been sufficient connections made between cause and effect to understand the framework.

Okay, Steve, I'm going to table P1-P5 because unless you profess that the Bhagavad Gita proves the existence of Vishnu, you cannot say that what is written in the Bible is any sort of proof for God.

Come on. You're smart enough to realize that the Bhagavad Gita is not like the 27 documents of the NT in authorship, personal attestations, proximity the the events and/or eyewitnesses, in content, in context, in just about every other category of historical analysis. I'm really surprised you made such a silly point. 

P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).

P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).

In the year 200 B.C. the average Jew thought that it rained because God made it rain. The average Greek thought it rained because Zeus made it rain. What made water fall from the sky periodically must've been quite the mystery (ie. most likely no naturalistic explanation forthcoming). None of them could have predicted that centuries later scientists would work out the water cycle. Why anything (including our universe) exists at all IS rather puzzling and interesting to ponder. But this is god of the gaps reasoning--aka argument from ignorance. --next.

They key in each of those premises is the statement "and most likely none forthcoming". Why is that different than 200BC people? Because P6, P7 and P8 are not actually scientific questions that might be answered by science. They are metaphysical questions. They are beyond our investigation because they are beyond our laws of nature and our ability to investigate. THis is important, any theory that goes further back than our own universe's laws is metaphysics. Since these are metaphysically-based premises and have their own reason structure behind them, they are not god-of-the-gaps or and argument from ignorance. P9 is mind-body dualism. THis is what we intuitively believe and experience and that is all that is needed for proper justification to think this is true. 

P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.

Funny how Plato didn't invoke God to explain morality though, right? In fact, he said that using such an approach to understand morality is wrongheaded from the start (see Euthyphro). If moral Platonism is evidence for theism how come myself (and many others) are moral Platonists, yet don't believe in God? Furthermore, math is an objective set of principles, yet is not derived from any evolutionary process. What of it? How is it evidence for God?

Euthyphro is a false dilemma. The point is that most people believe there exists objective moral truths (as you seem to). However, there is no rational basis to claim they are objective. They do not exist necessarily--they are contingent on conscious minds that formed a particular way. Contingent abstract concepts are not objective. Yet, we insist they exist. My contention is that inherent in our consciousness is a commitment to objective morality (whether we can ascertain it completely or not). That is not an evolutionary trait. In fact evolution would have it just the opposite. 

P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)

Next.

P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)

There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of UFO reports. Does this prove that they are among us? I fail to see what this proposition is trying to say.[/quote]

P11, P12 and P13 are conclusions derived from the premises mentioned. 

P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

This one is kind of interesting. I reject that the supernatural has better explanatory powers... I mean... the proposition started strong and then drifted into god of the gaps again. Think of people in the middle ages who attributed milk curdling prematurely to a "hag's curse." Without a proper background of knowledge concerning bacterial cultures, the hag's curse has a great deal of explanatory power. But that doesn't make it the correct explanation. The first part of the prop is quite interesting, though. "Naturalism is insufficient." I might even agree with you here, if I were allowed a broad interpretation of the statement. And it's one of the reasons I hold theism to be logically tenable.

So first part of P13 has a point. The rest not so much. If you think I've missed something, feel free to point out my error.

So, you are fine with your insufficient worldview that will not/can not explain everything. It is a fact that my worldview answer more questions than yours does. It is not god-of-the-gaps because I have complete arguments behind each premise that I have argued at length elsewhere.

[vulcanlogician]

So, you are fine with your insufficient worldview that will not/can not explain everything.

Yes. Yes I am. Because I'd rather not resort to erroneous beliefs simply to be furnished with an explanation.

I will get to the rest of what you said later, but I wanted to get that out of the way first.

[OakTree500]

SteveII, unfortunately [for you I suppose] the bible cannot be taken as evidence for anything, because it is nothing more that stories that nobody can 100% confirm. We do know that much of the NT was written LONG after Jesus was supposed to have been alive, and all via word of mouth type stuff. Various sections were altered as well, (the Resurrection was added to the story a long time after it was first reported for example). That and of course all the "magic" type shit that happens, which 100% is false, because of course it bloody well is.

[Pat Mustard]

@Steve:

You say this

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

as if it's been proven that there is anything beyond rwality. There isn't.

You cannot have your prejudices and beliefs declared truth by fiat, you have to prove them true.

[SteveII]

SteveII, unfortunately [for you I suppose] the bible cannot be taken as evidence for anything, because it is nothing more that stories that nobody can 100% confirm. We do know that much of the NT was written LONG after Jesus was supposed to have been alive, and all via word of mouth type stuff. Various sections were altered as well, (the Resurrection was added to the story a long time after it was first reported for example). That and of course all the "magic" type shit that happens, which 100% is false, because of course it bloody well is.

Unfortunately [for all of us I suppose], you don't know what you are talking about. 

When have I used the term 'Bible'? Be more accurate. I mentioned the 27 first century documents that we call the NT. What do you mean by "LONG"? All the NT documents were written within the life of eyewitnesses and possible rebuttal witnesses. The resurrection was certainly believed from day one because there were churches throughout the Roman empire that were receiving letters 20 years later describing their common belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Why would there have existed churches with such a belief PRIOR to any of the surviving documents we have? Additionally, you have to dismiss the entire book of Acts--which chronicled the events of the early church.  What reasons do you give for that? 

Additionally, why say "100% confirm"? Who demands that standard? Not anyone I know.

And, BTW, your last sentence is a perfect example of question begging.

[OakTree500]

SteveII, unfortunately [for you I suppose] the bible cannot be taken as evidence for anything, because it is nothing more that stories that nobody can 100% confirm. We do know that much of the NT was written LONG after Jesus was supposed to have been alive, and all via word of mouth type stuff. Various sections were altered as well, (the Resurrection was added to the story a long time after it was first reported for example). That and of course all the "magic" type shit that happens, which 100% is false, because of course it bloody well is.

Unfortunately [for all of us I suppose], you don't know what you are talking about. 

When have I used the term 'Bible'? Be more accurate. I mentioned the 27 first century documents that we call the NT. What do you mean by "LONG". All the NT documents were written within the life of eyewitnesses and possible rebuttal witnesses. The resurrection was certainly believed from day one because there were churches throughout the Roman empire that were receiving letters 20 years later describing their common belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Why would there have existed churches with such a belief PRIOR to any of the surviving documents we have? Additionally, you have to dismiss the entire book of Acts--which chronicled the events of the early church.  What reason's do you give for that? 

Additionally, why say "100% confirm"? Who demands that standard? Not anyone I know.

Ok then, the New Testament, [much like the old one] is full of shit.

From my understanding, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but some of the gospels are written by: A) people that never met Jesus or wrote their story some time after the initial events. You say it's based on eye witness reports and possible rebuttal witnesses, but that isnt' enough really is it. And even then, if these people who wrote the books all knew each other, who's to say if they didn't just "invent" a character and write about his fictional life?

One or more of those people could easily have made up various events, and the story compiled? I mean we just have no way of knowing at all. And to take anything in a 2000 year old book full of magic (Healing people in the way it suggest, that never happened. I'm sorry, but it's a flat out lie) if down right dishonest to your self. Outside of this book, or parts of the books for the NT and OT to be fair, we have no REAL creadible evidence that ANY of it happened. The New Testament itself is not evidence of anything. It's akin to any other story of fiction that is based in a real world setting: You know the places, but the people involved/the events are fictional.

The Resurrection was supposedly added some 200 years later to the preexisting story of "Jesus died for our sins". From what I have read, the ending of "mark" has been edited several times over the years, with evidence to back that up as well, so again, how can you take it seriously? 
Edit to add: Evidence for the changing of endings - to Mark:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Ev...e_8_ending

100% confirm = REAL world evidence. Find the tomb he was buried in. Find a trace of DNA, SOMETHING that actually ties down what this book says to anything you say happened. It doenst exist. The romans kept VERY good records, and there is no record of this ever happening.


Edit to add: And, BTW, your last sentence is a perfect example of question begging. - ? I dont understand this at all. Again if you take that seriously, good for you. Jesus didn't walk on water, he didn't feed 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish, he did not turn water into win, he didn't heal the blind........he didn't do any of those things, A) because IT IS 100% IMPOSSIBLE to do that, at least in the manner the NT suggests and B) because it is most liklely that jesus didn't exist at all in the first place.

[GrandizerII]

SteveII, unfortunately [for you I suppose] the bible cannot be taken as evidence for anything, because it is nothing more that stories that nobody can 100% confirm. We do know that much of the NT was written LONG after Jesus was supposed to have been alive, and all via word of mouth type stuff. Various sections were altered as well, (the Resurrection was added to the story a long time after it was first reported for example). That and of course all the "magic" type shit that happens, which 100% is false, because of course it bloody well is.

All the NT documents were written within the life of eyewitnesses and possible rebuttal witnesses.

This doesn't mean that the accounts purely relied on first-hand testimonies of these eyewitnesses, or that the eyewitnesses altogether witnessed everything that is mentioned in the accounts from Jesus' birth to ministry to death and resurrection. It also doesn't mean that these "possible rebuttal witnesses" could have had access to, or awareness of, these documents at the time.

The resurrection was certainly believed from day one because there were churches throughout the Roman empire that were receiving letters 20 years later describing their common belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

No, that's a non-sequitur. There is no reason to suggest it was certainly believed from day one. It may have been a decade later (or whatever) when this doctrine of the resurrection started to emerge.

Additionally, you have to dismiss the entire book of Acts--which chronicled the events of the early church.  What reasons do you give for that?

The authenticity of Acts has been called into question by many biblical scholars, and for a combination of good reasons.

From Wikipedia:

Acts agrees with Paul's letters on the major outline of Paul's career: as Saul he is converted and becomes Paul the Christian missionary and apostle, establishing new churches in Asia Minor and the Aegean and struggling to free Gentile Christians from the Jewish Law. There are also agreements on many incidents, such as Paul's escape from Damascus, where he is lowered down the walls in a basket. But details of these same incidents are frequently seen as contradictory: for example, according to Paul it was a pagan king who was trying to arrest him in Damascus, but according to Luke it was the Jews (2 Corinthians 11:33 and Acts 9:24). Acts speaks of "Christians" and "disciples", but Paul never uses either term, and it is striking that Acts never brings Paul into conflict with the Jerusalem church and places Paul under the authority of the Jerusalem church and its leaders, especially James and Peter (Acts 15 vs. Galatians 2). Acts omits much from the letters, notably Paul's problems with his congregations (internal difficulties are said to be the fault of the Jews instead), and his apparent final rejection by the church leaders in Jerusalem (Acts has Paul and Barnabas deliver an offering that is accepted, a trip that has no mention in the letters). There are also alleged major differences between Acts and Paul on Christology (the understanding of Christ's nature), eschatology (understanding of the "last things"), and apostleship.

So it seems like the Book of Acts was revisionist work that aimed to provide a more positive image of the early Christian church, one of unity as opposed to conflict among the church leaders.

[SteveII]

Unfortunately [for all of us I suppose], you don't know what you are talking about. 

When have I used the term 'Bible'? Be more accurate. I mentioned the 27 first century documents that we call the NT. What do you mean by "LONG". All the NT documents were written within the life of eyewitnesses and possible rebuttal witnesses. The resurrection was certainly believed from day one because there were churches throughout the Roman empire that were receiving letters 20 years later describing their common belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Why would there have existed churches with such a belief PRIOR to any of the surviving documents we have? Additionally, you have to dismiss the entire book of Acts--which chronicled the events of the early church.  What reason's do you give for that? 

Additionally, why say "100% confirm"? Who demands that standard? Not anyone I know.

Ok then, the New Testament, [much like the old one] is full of shit.

From my understanding, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but some of the gospels are written by: A) people that never met Jesus or wrote their story some time after the initial events. You say it's based on eye witness reports and possible rebuttal witnesses, but that isnt' enough really is it. And even then, if these people who wrote the books all knew each other, who's to say if they didn't just "invent" a character and write about his fictional life?

One or more of those people could easily have made up various events, and the story compiled? 

Leaving aside Luke--who said what he was setting out to do, how do you know who wrote the other three gospels--that they never met Jesus? The fact that there were churches and 27 individual documents that support each other's claims is GOLD to a historian. The events surrounding the life a Jesus have more evidence and more attestations than any other series of events in all of ancient history. 

Your theory that it was a conspiracy has been tried before. There is absolutely no evidence for it AND it is stupid to think the first century Christians acted and sacrificed as they did for something they knew to be a lie and was to any Jew the most grievous sin imaginable--blasphemy. No one takes that theory seriously. 

I mean we just have no way of knowing at all. And to take anything in a 2000 year old book full of magic (Healing people in the way it suggest, that never happened. I'm sorry, but it's a flat out lie) if down right dishonest to your self. Outside of this book, or parts of the books for the NT and OT to be fair, we have no REAL creadible evidence that ANY of it happened. The New Testament itself is not evidence of anything. It's akin to any other story of fiction that is based in a real world setting: You know the places, but the people involved/the events are fictional.

I'll address this below.

The Resurrection was supposedly added some 200 years later to the preexisting story of "Jesus died for our sins". From what I have read, the ending of "mark" has been edited several times over the years, with evidence to back that up as well, so again, how can you take it seriously? 
Edit to add: Evidence for the changing of endings - to Mark:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Ev...e_8_ending

Um, Um, First, did you actually bother to read Mark 16:1-8 (before your so-called "added ending"). Perhaps you should do that and then tell me that the resurrection was added 200 years later. 

Second, perhaps you can then peruse through all the other 26 first-century documents--look for references on resurrection--they all have it or refer to concepts that require it. Then get back to me about your made-up 200 year nonsense.  In case you want to make the claim that they were all re-written, no scholar of any standing believes that. Bart Ehrman (and atheist textual critic) thinks that they are all 99% as they originally were. 

100% confirm = REAL world evidence. Find the tomb he was buried in. Find a trace of DNA, SOMETHING that actually ties down what this book says to anything you say happened. It doenst exist. The romans kept VERY good records, and there is no record of this ever happening.

Setting aside that finding any of those things today would prove nothing, 99.9% of history of events and people is conveyed in writing. You don't know what someone did, thought, said, believed by archaeology. Also, 99.99% of all historical documents do not survive. Here's a question, how many references to Hannibal are their that were dated within his lifetime. Do you believe Hannibal did the things ascribed to him? Why? We don't have any "REAL world evidence". 

Edit to add: And, BTW, your last sentence is a perfect example of question begging. - ? I dont understand this at all. Again if you take that seriously, good for you. Jesus didn't walk on water, he didn't feed 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish, he did not turn water into win, he didn't heal the blind........he didn't do any of those things, A) because IT IS 100% IMPOSSIBLE to do that, at least in the manner the NT suggests and B) because it is most liklely that jesus didn't exist at all in the first place.

Question begging is circular reasoning (which you just double-down on). Here's the basics of your reasoning:

1. Miracles can't happen
2. The NT contains miracles
3. Therefore the NT cannot be true because it contains miracles

You have assumed your conclusion in your first premise. I know, I know, it takes away 80% of your argument, but stop anyway. 

BTW, there is almost no ancient history scholar that believes that Jesus never existed. Even atheist scholars don't bother to claim that nonsense.