Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Natachan]

This is a far more interesting conversation. What it sounds like you’re talking about is mental conditioning. The specific example you’ve given, that of a person with an eating disorder, is an interesting one.

Does the person with the eating disorder think they have a problem? Often they do. They know that their weight is unhealthy, that their eating habits are destructive, but that isn’t the problem. For them this isn’t a matter of believing a false thing, there’s something else going on. And we need to deal with that first.

A better example is of Winston in the novel 1984. He comes to believe that 2+2=5 if big brother says it is. Or that the regime really does improve the lives of people. This belief is due to being fed lies, which he can not know the truth of, and of physical torture. Winston’s beliefs aren’t conscious choices. They are obligate based on his conditions.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1873725' dateline='1546251000']
I have noticed a trend in theists.
The argument seems to be that anything existing at all is evidence for god.

It is a stupid argument and a sign of desperation.

What is more likely some natural phenomenon created the universe or a supernatural being? The natural process wins hands down. We can witness natural processes everyday but no supernatural process has ever been proven to exist.


And there is never an explanation of why the supernatural is a better answer, they just assert that it is.


They never say how the supernatural being did the creating, where it was where it got the stuff, it just did coz its awesome (apparently).


It is a non-answer, a childs answer to complex issues and seems to need no proof to support it in the simplistic eyes of believers.

It's actually a true statement, but inconclusive to many people who choose not to understand.

No it isn't. See I can just state things too.

What you're suggesting is more desperation.  The "something from nothing" nonsense doesn't hold weight.  Just wishful thinking from people who don't want to believe there is a God.

What is with this "don't want to believe" nonsense. I have no choice but to not believe because I find it silly.

Something cannot come from nothing through natural processes.  The claims suggesting it can have been debunked and debunked some more every time someone tries to suggest how it may have happened.  Matter cannot be created or destroyed through any natural process.  This is known as the "Conservation of Mass."

Ok then, tell me how god did it? where did it get the stuff? what process did it use? where was it before it did all this? what is god made of?
I want evidence for all your answers.

I would guess that you don't have any.

Now we're supposed to ignore science to accommodate the atheists?

No but then science does not support the idea of a god, or indeed anything supernatural.

The "idea" if you can even call it that that god did it is supremely unhelpful, it has no explanatory use at all.

It is the thoughts of the childhood of our species and should have been jetisoned along with believing in the bogieman long ago.

[Peebothuhlu]

 
   
 Wha.... ?
"...When we had no way to record said events... "
"... Nowadays we have calendar systems for..."

 We now have calenders.... So now we have history... Which we only have from when we have calendaers... ?

 I do not understand. Please, expand upon these thoughts M4X.

Not at work.

No, it's not about "having history", it's about "attributing dates" to history.  Big difference.

 Okay.

So... archaeologist and anthropologists are doing so.

With lots of really clever and cool scinecy stuff to do so.

Yay.

Not at work.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You have GOD on your side and you can't prove it exists? Incompetent godling you have there.

We've already been through this on the thread.


I can't make anyone believe anything because we have self-determination and I can't impose belief in someone's mind no matter what I show or tell them.

You could ask for proof of a duck, I could hand you a duck, and by your own self-determination could tell me it wasn't a real duck, and that I'm trying to fool you with a decoy.  I could sit in on the floor and let it walk around, and you could tell me it was battery operated.  I could hack it open and show you its organs, and you could simply accuse me of putting it all in an empty shell, sewing it up, and presenting it.  I'm sure you wouldn't, but by your own self-determination you could because I can't force something into your mind.

No. I could, but I won't. That leaves you with just the usual bullshit.

[brewer]

Respectfully, I disagree in part.  People may be compelled, but that doesn't always mean they will.  For example, people who condition themselves with lies.  At some point they assume the lie to be true.  I'll just throw out the example of people who are anorexic or bulimic.  Objectively we can tell they are not at a healthy weight, but the person will often go to extreme measures to maintain or continually drop lower than their current unhealthy weight.   You can even educate them and still many will disagree.  However, some will start to see it objectively and get treatment.  Even then, there is still an internal struggle and they will often act on it accordingly.

Then according to your analogy you have the equivalent of the mind of an anorexic, not about food, but with god or religion?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I have noticed a trend in theists.
The argument seems to be that anything existing at all is evidence for god.

It is a stupid argument and a sign of desperation.

What is more likely some natural phenomenon created the universe or a supernatural being? The natural process wins hands down. We can witness natural processes everyday but no supernatural process has ever been proven to exist.


And there is never an explanation of why the supernatural is a better answer, they just assert that it is.


They never say how the supernatural being did the creating, where it was where it got the stuff, it just did coz its awesome (apparently).


It is a non-answer, a childs answer to complex issues and seems to need no proof to support it in the simplistic eyes of believers.

It's actually a true statement, but inconclusive to many people who choose not to understand.

No it isn't. See I can just state things too.

What you're suggesting is more desperation.  The "something from nothing" nonsense doesn't hold weight.  Just wishful thinking from people who don't want to believe there is a God.

What is with this "don't want to believe" nonsense. I have no choice but to not believe because I find it silly.

Something cannot come from nothing through natural processes.  The claims suggesting it can have been debunked and debunked some more every time someone tries to suggest how it may have happened.  Matter cannot be created or destroyed through any natural process.  This is known as the "Conservation of Mass."

Ok then, tell me how god did it? where did it get the stuff? what process did it use? where was it before it did all this? what is god made of?
I want evidence for all your answers.

I would guess that you don't have any.

Now we're supposed to ignore science to accommodate the atheists?

No but then science does not support the idea of a god, or indeed anything supernatural.

The "idea" if you can even call it that that god did it is supremely unhelpful, it has no explanatory use at all.

It is the thoughts of the childhood of our species and should have been jetisoned along with believing in the bogieman long ago.

- I didn't just "state something" just because.  If you claim I did, then prove it.
- So because you had an emotional experience, you chose to discount something.  Got it.
- What you attempted is known as Whataboutism, or the tu quoque fallacy.  Of course you mixed it in with a false premise.
So I'm supposed to assert information about an assertion I didn't make.  Got it again.  You are a most assuredly a genius, but in your own mind.  *rolls eyes*

---

We've already been through this on the thread.


I can't make anyone believe anything because we have self-determination and I can't impose belief in someone's mind no matter what I show or tell them.

You could ask for proof of a duck, I could hand you a duck, and by your own self-determination could tell me it wasn't a real duck, and that I'm trying to fool you with a decoy.  I could sit in on the floor and let it walk around, and you could tell me it was battery operated.  I could hack it open and show you its organs, and you could simply accuse me of putting it all in an empty shell, sewing it up, and presenting it.  I'm sure you wouldn't, but by your own self-determination you could because I can't force something into your mind.

No. I could, but I won't. That leaves you with just the usual bullshit.

Could what?  If you've already convinced yourself of one possible conclusion, then what else is there

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You don't know that. I know that you are convinced and obstinate.

[downbeatplumb]

- I didn't just "state something" just because.  If you claim I did, then prove it.

Ok then, this is what you said.


"It's actually a true statement, but inconclusive to many people who choose not to understand."


That was the whole thing, just a basic assertion with nothing to back it up. In fact you have never actually provided anything that anyone could look at tell what you think god is or how it did its whatever have you.

- So because you had an emotional experience, you chose to discount something.  Got it.

I'm sorry, what are you referring to?

- What you attempted is known as Whataboutism, or the tu quoque fallacy.  Of course you mixed it in with a false premise.
So I'm supposed to assert information about an assertion I didn't make.  Got it again.  You are a most assuredly a genius, but in your own mind.  *rolls eyes*

What you are doing is evading all my questions.
I have not pointed and said "what about such and such" I have just asked for evidence or coherent definitions.

Your continued non-supply of either is the issue.

So do you have a coherent definition of god and evidence to back it up or not?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

- I didn't just "state something" just because.  If you claim I did, then prove it.

Ok then, this is what you said.


"It's actually a true statement, but inconclusive to many people who choose not to understand."


That was the whole thing, just a basic assertion with nothing to back it up. In fact you have never actually provided anything that anyone could look at tell what you think god is or how it did its whatever have you.

- So because you had an emotional experience, you chose to discount something.  Got it.

I'm sorry, what are you referring to?

- What you attempted is known as Whataboutism, or the tu quoque fallacy.  Of course you mixed it in with a false premise.
So I'm supposed to assert information about an assertion I didn't make.  Got it again.  You are a most assuredly a genius, but in your own mind.  *rolls eyes*

What you are doing is evading all my questions.
I have not pointed and said "what about such and such" I have just asked for evidence or coherent definitions.

Your continued non-supply of either is the issue.

So do you have a coherent definition of god and evidence to back it up or not?

I wasn't "just stating something" for no reason, and I didn't suggest any or all people must accept my statement.  However, many people, and not just Christians, see it as cause and effect.  So the effect is seen as evidence.  Do I expect you to assume that as evidence?  No.  I expect you to decide for yourself.

I'm not going out of my way to evade any of your questions, but a lot of them are separate issues, and they are a distraction to what is being discussed.  If the focal point goes from one or two, to five or more, it can significantly complicate the discussion.  I'm happy to respond to things, but I know for me personally, my head is going to get a bit frazzled from trying to address too many things at once.

[downbeatplumb]

Ok then, this is what you said.


"It's actually a true statement, but inconclusive to many people who choose not to understand."


That was the whole thing, just a basic assertion with nothing to back it up. In fact you have never actually provided anything that anyone could look at tell what you think god is or how it did its whatever have you.



I'm sorry, what are you referring to?



What you are doing is evading all my questions.
I have not pointed and said "what about such and such" I have just asked for evidence or coherent definitions.

Your continued non-supply of either is the issue.

So do you have a coherent definition of god and evidence to back it up or not?

I wasn't "just stating something" for no reason, and I didn't suggest any or all people must accept my statement.  However, many people, and not just Christians, see it as cause and effect.  So the effect is seen as evidence.  Do I expect you to assume that as evidence?  No.  I expect you to decide for yourself.

I'm not going out of my way to evade any of your questions, but a lot of them are separate issues, and they are a distraction to what is being discussed.  If the focal point goes from one or two, to five or more, it can significantly complicate the discussion.  I'm happy to respond to things, but I know for me personally, my head is going to get a bit frazzled from trying to address too many things at once.

Ok then, lets start simple.

Define god.