Evidence that God exists

[Kyuuketsuki]

I agree with your conclusions Demonaura. I'm a Christian in the accepted sense that I follow Christ yes. With all that goes with that.

So, apparently, was Hitler ... and Myra Hyndley it seems.

I'm not talking about my own personal interpretation of heaven and hell there, the idea is widely accepted. I happen not to see the point of an afterlife, although I keep an open mind. How does that affect me here and now? Not at all as far as I can see. It ties in with the idea of the soul and that being eternal. If you read it as applying to our lives here and now, then it makes perfect sense.

Perfect sense that there's an invisible, indetectable soul that contains effectively your personality, your very essence and so on? That about right?

You know that any, half-way rational, atheist can know holes in that don't you?

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Reading Kyu's posts there seems to be no content there to reply to. Apologies Kyu if I missed something.

Adrian mentioned he think's the following statement in my first post of this thread is proof that I'm stupid: "Belief in God requires faith, doubt and questioning." Reason being ...As was pointed out, faith is the opposite of doubt/questioning.

I have covered why I think this follows, but obviously not clearly enough, so I'll try harder.



Let's agree on a definition of faith as it applies to religion, Christianity in particular. Faith is the acceptance of something we cannot know. To quote answers.com: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I think you as non theists could accept that?

I don't doubt/ question that I'm sat here in front of a computer, I know it's true, so I don't need faith. If I didn't know it was here in front of me, If I doubt/ question that it exists, then I would need faith to think it did. You see how doubt/ questioning is on the same side as faith in those statements. Not the opposing side.

Don't doubt / don't need faith. Doubt / would need faith

I see nowhere on this thread a successful refutation of this idea. If someone does, please point it out to me because I'd love to explore it.





Just a point here.. I should say I have no interest in winning some point between Christians and non Christians. I'm just interested in exploring this idea.

Many people have come in like a steamroller baited by an admittedly provocative thread title. Obviously I'm saying the opposite. I think there can be no empirical proof that the Christian God exists, and that this is a logical assertion given the above.

The anti theist mantra "give me proof" is not rendered impotent by this logic. We can possibly be more accurate in our discussions.

[athoughtfulman]

So what's your point?

That faith only exists in the presence of doubt? Great. Millions of people doubt the existence of this god all around the world then. If he were so good, big, powerful, so apparently everywhere, why does every single christian doubt him? Because they all believe by faith right? So they all doubt the existence of god? Why the hell do they believe then?

The anit-theist mantra "give me proof" is not anti-theist. It is simply logical. If someone makes a claim, we need evidence to recognise that claim. Though many atheists seem to turn it into a religion itself, atheism is simply the pursuit of reality.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Reading Kyu's posts there seems to be no content there to reply to. Apologies Kyu if I missed something.

Well I made a definition for soul, you could either agree it or tell us what the actual definition is ... either way works for me.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I think you as non theists could accept that?

That's fine but it isn't a position (a philosophy if you will) that deserves any respect and, more to the point, it's difficult to distinguish in any real sense from insanity. Why should anyone rationally treat a claim based purely on faith with respect or treat in any way as credible?

I don't doubt/ question that I'm sat here in front of a computer, I know it's true, so I don't need faith. If I didn't know it was here in front of me, If I doubt/ question that it exists, then I would need faith to think it did. You see how doubt/ questioning is on the same side as faith in those statements. Not the opposing side. Don't doubt / don't need faith. Doubt / would need faith

That could be interpreted as a strawman (though I don't think you intended that way) because it has little or no relevance to the issue under discussion. It's a bit like Wiki ... it's a great resource for non-contentious issues (brilliant, marvellous, can't fault it) but when it gets to contentious issues (such as the existence of Jesus Christ, faith, souls etc. etc.) it is little more than a debate forum with those that should loudest holding sway over the current status of the article.

In essence I would say you have to compare the specific faith-based claim with other claims which is why we attack such claims with science (as we indeed would ALL other claims).

Science is a methodology that is essentially characterised by doubt ... religion is not, religion is more about finding ways to justify what you want to believe.

I see nowhere on this thread a successful refutation of this idea. If someone does, please point it out to me because I'd love to explore it.

Then I would say you are either blind or being deliberately obfuscative ... not only do I think my answer above deals directly with what you are saying but I think others have said similar things.

Just a point here.. I should say I have no interest in winning some point between Christians and non Christians. I'm just interested in exploring this idea.

Good for you but surely you'd be better off exploring gobbledegook in a forum that specialises in it?

Many people have come in like a steamroller baited by an admittedly provocative thread title. Obviously I'm saying the opposite. I think there can be no empirical proof that the Christian God exists, and that this is a logical assertion given the above.

But it isn't logical ... it is just another claim and no more deserving of any merit than any other. To think otherwise constitutes special pleading.

The anti theist mantra "give me proof" is not rendered impotent by this logic. We can possibly be more accurate in our discussions.

I believe that observable evidence will always be the way to proceed on claims of any type but I am unsure how one can be more accurate on the subject of something that cannot be demonstrated.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

So what's your point?

That faith only exists in the presence of doubt? Great. Millions of people doubt the existence of this god all around the world then. If he were so good, big, powerful, so apparently everywhere, why does every single christian doubt him? Because they all believe by faith right? So they all doubt the existence of god? Why the hell do they believe then?

The anit-theist mantra "give me proof" is not anti-theist. It is simply logical. If someone makes a claim, we need evidence to recognise that claim. Though many atheists seem to turn it into a religion itself, atheism is simply the pursuit of reality.

Thanks for the reply thoughtful. I don't think any of that questions the proposition.

ALL people doubt the existance of God yes. How CAN'T they???

"Because they all believe by faith right?" - you used to believe in God - did you have any empirical evidence?

Did you have faith in his existence and the assurity of his existence despite the lack of empirical evidence? ..of course you did! That's how it works. It's no different for anyone else. You only want it to be. Suddenly you're making an unreasonable request for the impossible.

Atheism seems to be the denial of rationality, holding up science as the only explanation for everything that doesn't concern it as well as that which does.

---

Hi Kyu

Reading Kyu's posts there seems to be no content there to reply to. Apologies Kyu if I missed something.

Well I made a definition for soul, you could either agree it or tell us what the actual definition is ... either way works for me.

I posted about this a couple of times on the soul thread. Hope that's ok.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I think you as non theists could accept that?

That's fine but it isn't a position (a philosophy if you will) that deserves any respect and, more to the point, it's difficult to distinguish in any real sense from insanity. Why should anyone rationally treat a claim based purely on faith with respect or treat in any way as credible?

My claims either way are not the topic of this thread. Faith in God is incredible to the unbeliever, I don't see how it can't be. I'll state: That logic follows.

I don't doubt/ question that I'm sat here in front of a computer, I know it's true, so I don't need faith. If I didn't know it was here in front of me, If I doubt/ question that it exists, then I would need faith to think it did. You see how doubt/ questioning is on the same side as faith in those statements. Not the opposing side. Don't doubt / don't need faith. Doubt / would need faith

That could be interpreted as a strawman (though I don't think you intended that way) because it has little or no relevance to the issue under discussion. It's a bit like Wiki ... it's a great resource for non-contentious issues (brilliant, marvellous, can't fault it) but when it gets to contentious issues (such as the existence of Jesus Christ, faith, souls etc. etc.) it is little more than a debate forum with those that should loudest holding sway over the current status of the article.

I think the "Don't doubt / don't need faith. Doubt / would need faith" bit holds. It's core to the discussion to me. also, Adrian is saying that this doesn't follow.

In essence I would say you have to compare the specific faith-based claim with other claims which is why we attack such claims with science (as we indeed would ALL other claims).

Can you only compare faith based claims with other faith based claims? (honest question, I don't know). I would think you would have to. How can you compare a faith claim with a fact claim? Sure, fact claims can be questioned, but the line of reasoning possibly doesn't suit faith based claims at all.
Would you have to apply some parallel links to establish truth? Christianity implores followers to test and question to see if something is correct or not. It's how you could come to the conclusion that action A would be bad for you, where action B would be good and action C would be borderline.

Science is a methodology that is essentially characterised by doubt ... religion is not, religion is more about finding ways to justify what you want to believe.

I think that's incorrect. We can all fool ourselves; but for atheism and it's opposite I think fooling yourself is always undesirable.

I think this kind of statement is from the "applied to you, bad, applied to me, good" school of thought.

I see nowhere on this thread a successful refutation of this idea. If someone does, please point it out to me because I'd love to explore it.

Then I would say you are either blind or being deliberately obfuscative ... not only do I think my answer above deals directly with what you are saying but I think others have said similar things.

I've tried to answer every point. Please tell me if I've missed one.

I know an awful lot about atheism, but I think non Christians are actually extremely naive about Christianity, and make claims which are vastly illogical. I include Richard Dawkins in that group.

Just a point here.. I should say I have no interest in winning some point between Christians and non Christians. I'm just interested in exploring this idea.

Good for you but surely you'd be better off exploring gobbledegook in a forum that specialises in it?

No, here's just fine

Seriously, I'm interested in seeing what atheists think about this. It mildly occurs to me to take this discussion onto a Christian forum, but I don't feel the need to yet.

This forum, existing for 'atheists', is held together by discussion on gobbledegook (to you). It's what you're interested is it not? I am like minded in that I also find the subject fascinating, and find I can discuss topics that interest me, with people who mainly disagree. I think that's great. Hopefully we can be friends, whilst at the same time having lively discussions. I hope you wouldn't want to continue in your ignorance, if you had any, and learn what a real Christian actually thinks rather than addressing a stereotype.

Many people have come in like a steamroller baited by an admittedly provocative thread title. Obviously I'm saying the opposite. I think there can be no empirical proof that the Christian God exists, and that this is a logical assertion given the above.

But it isn't logical ... it is just another claim and no more deserving of any merit than any other. To think otherwise constitutes special pleading.

So don't discuss it then. I think I can securely claim that there has not been empirical evidence of God's existence that is known to mankind. We can speculate about the future, but that seems beside the point, and deals with an idea. I'm talking about something we can know. We're talking solid fact here, none of which, I'm 100% certain, exists. Unless you know different of course.

The anti theist mantra "give me proof" is not rendered impotent by this logic. We can possibly be more accurate in our discussions.

I believe that observable evidence will always be the way to proceed on claims of any type but I am unsure how one can be more accurate on the subject of something that cannot be demonstrated.

It can be demonstrated by the lack of observable evidence surely. I think the conclusion should be absolute and not woolly. What do you think?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Thanks for the reply thoughtful. I don't think any of that questions the proposition.

And again, I would say you are either blind or being deliberately obfuscative.

ALL people doubt the existance of God yes. How CAN'T they???

"Because they all believe by faith right?" - you used to believe in God - did you have any empirical evidence?

And again, religion is more about finding ways to justify what you want to believe ... IMO you just reinterpret your own views to fool yourself that you are actually doubting. It's a bit like when theists claim that belief is the harder path ... it's rubbish, it's easy to believe, it's harder (much harder) to remain sceptical.

Atheism seems to be the denial of rationality, holding up science as the only explanation for everything that doesn't concern it as well as that which does.

And all you appear to be doing is advancing some kind of version of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) which is rubbish because there is nothing currently accepted as real that isn't supported by some kind of scientifically analysable evidence

I posted about this a couple of times on the soul thread. Hope that's ok.

Not trying to be funny but do I have to read through an entire thread to find the definition and how hard is it to copy & paste your own stuff?

My claims either way are not the topic of this thread. Faith in God is incredible to the unbeliever, I don't see how it can't be. I'll state: That logic follows.

My comments were precisely on the topic of evidence for "God" so please ... stop dodging the questions, try answering them.

I think the "Don't doubt / don't need faith. Doubt / would need faith" bit holds. It's core to the discussion to me. also, Adrian is saying that this doesn't follow.

Again nice dodge ... since when was Adrian's opinion mine?

Can you only compare faith based claims with other faith based claims? (honest question, I don't know). I would think you would have to. How can you compare a faith claim with a fact claim? Sure, fact claims can be questioned, but the line of reasoning possibly doesn't suit faith based claims at all.

A claim is a claim regardless of whether it is based in fact or faith ... faith is fine if you keep it to yourself but the moment you try (as you have done) to advance it as some kind of truth or propose it as having some kind of merit in a public forum then it should be treated exactly he same as any other claim.

Would you have to apply some parallel links to establish truth? Christianity implores followers to test and question to see if something is correct or not. It's how you could come to the conclusion that action A would be bad for you, where action B would be good and action C would be borderline.

No it doesn't, at least not in any significant way ... it certainly doesn't ask believers to question whether there is or is not a god. You're going to have to explain what you meant by the stuff on parallel links.

I think that's incorrect. We can all fool ourselves; but for atheism and it's opposite I think fooling yourself is always undesirable.

The proper approach from a scientific POV to ANY claim is scepticism and what is scepticism? It is a form of doubt. The proper approach for a believer to a core religious claim is faith without question.

I think this kind of statement is from the "applied to you, bad, applied to me, good" school of thought.

Whut?

I've tried to answer every point. Please tell me if I've missed one.

As I said others have answered you on this several times before as have I ... IMO that means you are either blind (and I do not think you are) or obfuscative.

I know an awful lot about atheism, but I think non Christians are actually extremely naive about Christianity, and make claims which are vastly illogical. I include Richard Dawkins in that group.

That would be the No True Scotsman fallacy then.

This forum, existing for 'atheists', is held together by discussion on gobbledegook (to you). It's what you're interested is it not? I am like minded in that I also find the subject fascinating, and find I can discuss topics that interest me, with people who mainly disagree. I think that's great. Hopefully we can be friends, whilst at the same time having lively discussions. I hope you wouldn't want to continue in your ignorance, if you had any, and learn what a real Christian actually thinks rather than addressing a stereotype.

I don't deny that religion is of interest to me ... friendship with theists isn't I'm afraid. TBH I don't think you're a "real Christian" since you are quite evidently somewhat freer in your interpretation of scripture than many others ... it's fine to be like that but it doesn't exactly make you representative of Christianity as a whole.

So don't discuss it then. I think I can securely claim that there has not been empirical evidence of God's existence that is known to mankind. We can speculate about the future, but that seems beside the point, and deals with an idea. I'm talking about something we can know. We're talking solid fact here, none of which, I'm 100% certain, exists. Unless you know different of course.

It can be demonstrated by the lack of observable evidence surely. I think the conclusion should be absolute and not woolly. What do you think?[/

You see I don't get that ... you have to have a seriously warped sense of logic to interpret the complete absence of evidence as some kind of logical proof that there is a god.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Thanks for the reply thoughtful. I don't think any of that questions the proposition.

And again, I would say you are either blind or being deliberately obfuscative.

It's my thread! Can't I say what it's about then!?!

ALL people doubt the existance of God yes. How CAN'T they???

"Because they all believe by faith right?" - you used to believe in God - did you have any empirical evidence?

And again, religion is more about finding ways to justify what you want to believe ... IMO you just reinterpret your own views to fool yourself that you are actually doubting. It's a bit like when theists claim that belief is the harder path ... it's rubbish, it's easy to believe, it's harder (much harder) to remain sceptical.

Totally disagree. Do YOU think it's harder not to believe in God than not!? (I jest). How is it harder to remain skeptical? I take it you have full on experience as a practicing Christian to be able to level that accusation at me then?

Atheism seems to be the denial of rationality, holding up science as the only explanation for everything that doesn't concern it as well as that which does.

And all you appear to be doing is advancing some kind of version of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) which is rubbish because there is nothing currently accepted as real that isn't supported by some kind of scientifically analysable evidence

If you demand that this isn't a case of that, then yes.

I posted about this a couple of times on the soul thread. Hope that's ok.

Not trying to be funny but do I have to read through an entire thread to find the definition and how hard is it to copy & paste your own stuff?

Well yes, seeing this is not the topic here, I think that's reasonable. It's not like you aren't contributing on that thread too. Why not keep threads on topic.

My claims either way are not the topic of this thread. Faith in God is incredible to the unbeliever, I don't see how it can't be. I'll state: That logic follows.

My comments were precisely on the topic of evidence for "God" so please ... stop dodging the questions, try answering them.

This thread is about the idea that faith isn't provable ...it's my thread!! I answered you out of politeness there.

I think the "Don't doubt / don't need faith. Doubt / would need faith" bit holds. It's core to the discussion to me. also, Adrian is saying that this doesn't follow.

Again nice dodge ... since when was Adrian's opinion mine?

You stated that this was off topic, and I said why it wasn't, and what brought it to light once more.

Can you only compare faith based claims with other faith based claims? (honest question, I don't know). I would think you would have to. How can you compare a faith claim with a fact claim? Sure, fact claims can be questioned, but the line of reasoning possibly doesn't suit faith based claims at all.

A claim is a claim regardless of whether it is based in fact or faith ... faith is fine if you keep it to yourself but the moment you try (as you have done) to advance it as some kind of truth or propose it as having some kind of merit in a public forum then it should be treated exactly he same as any other claim.

It isn't the subject of the faith that I'm advancing, but the assertion by non-theists that faith requires evidence, and I'm discussing that in a way that works for scientific/ factual/ evidence based probing.

Would you have to apply some parallel links to establish truth? Christianity implores followers to test and question to see if something is correct or not. It's how you could come to the conclusion that action A would be bad for you, where action B would be good and action C would be borderline.

No it doesn't, at least not in any significant way ... it certainly doesn't ask believers to question whether there is or is not a god. You're going to have to explain what you meant by the stuff on parallel links.

I think you misinterpret. Assurity from faith is different from knowing fact. I'd have to look it up, and you can rightly call me on it, but I assure you this is right.. God hates subservience in the way of people not questioning him. To him those people are spiritually dead. They have no spiritual life. To question proves you are alive and searching. that's the point. How could (spiritual) death and inactivity ever equate to life in all it's fullness? It just makes no sense.

You said claims have to be tested - by parallel links I meant that surely you have to test like for like. testing against dissimilar subjects would be nonsensical perhaps.

I think that's incorrect. We can all fool ourselves; but for atheism and it's opposite I think fooling yourself is always undesirable.

The proper approach from a scientific POV to ANY claim is scepticism and what is scepticism? It is a form of doubt. The proper approach for a believer to a core religious claim is faith without question.

Absolutely disagree.

I've tried to answer every point. Please tell me if I've missed one.

As I said others have answered you on this several times before as have I ... IMO that means you are either blind (and I do not think you are) or obfuscative.

Yet you still fail to point this out.

I know an awful lot about atheism, but I think non Christians are actually extremely naive about Christianity, and make claims which are vastly illogical. I include Richard Dawkins in that group.

That would be the No True Scotsman fallacy then.

Nope. that would be answered by the statement: "Christianity is an aim and not a destination". Here I'm talking lack of knowledge of something, not an unreachable ideal.

This forum, existing for 'atheists', is held together by discussion on gobbledegook (to you). It's what you're interested is it not? I am like minded in that I also find the subject fascinating, and find I can discuss topics that interest me, with people who mainly disagree. I think that's great. Hopefully we can be friends, whilst at the same time having lively discussions. I hope you wouldn't want to continue in your ignorance, if you had any, and learn what a real Christian actually thinks rather than addressing a stereotype.

I don't deny that religion is of interest to me ... friendship with theists isn't I'm afraid. TBH I don't think you're a "real Christian" since you are quite evidently somewhat freer in your interpretation of scripture than many others ... it's fine to be like that but it doesn't exactly make you representative of Christianity as a whole.

That's very discriminatory of you.

Studying the Bible, or related topic to infinite depth does not qualify you to have any authority on Christianity. Only experiencing actual Christianity as a fully paid up member does. I'm honoured of course that you would resort to trying to belittle my claim of Christian to win an argument.

So don't discuss it then. I think I can securely claim that there has not been empirical evidence of God's existence that is known to mankind. We can speculate about the future, but that seems beside the point, and deals with an idea. I'm talking about something we can know. We're talking solid fact here, none of which, I'm 100% certain, exists. Unless you know different of course.

It can be demonstrated by the lack of observable evidence surely. I think the conclusion should be absolute and not woolly. What do you think?[/

You see I don't get that ... you have to have a seriously warped sense of logic to interpret the complete absence of evidence as some kind of logical proof that there is a god.

*calm* ...I'm not trying to claim that - that is a separate topic. How can you repeatedly not get that. I'm gonna whip out the circular argument material on you in a bit if you don't stop! </joke>

Do you, or do you not agree with me. Answer the question.

[athoughtfulman]

So what's your point?

That faith only exists in the presence of doubt? Great. Millions of people doubt the existence of this god all around the world then. If he were so good, big, powerful, so apparently everywhere, why does every single christian doubt him? Because they all believe by faith right? So they all doubt the existence of god? Why the hell do they believe then?

The anit-theist mantra "give me proof" is not anti-theist. It is simply logical. If someone makes a claim, we need evidence to recognise that claim. Though many atheists seem to turn it into a religion itself, atheism is simply the pursuit of reality.

Thanks for the reply thoughtful. I don't think any of that questions the proposition.

ALL people doubt the existance of God yes. How CAN'T they???

"Because they all believe by faith right?" - you used to believe in God - did you have any empirical evidence?

Did you have faith in his existence and the assurity of his existence despite the lack of empirical evidence? ..of course you did! That's how it works. It's no different for anyone else. You only want it to be. Suddenly you're making an unreasonable request for the impossible.

Atheism seems to be the denial of rationality, holding up science as the only explanation for everything that doesn't concern it as well as that which does.

---

Uh, what? How does it not question the proposition?

I did have faith despite lack of empirical evidence. I realise that's how it works. Thats the reason I'm no longer a christian! I was no longer comfortable believing in something for which their is no empirical evidence. Far from being the denial of rationality, atheism seeks the evidence. Part of being an atheist is being willing to change your views if new evidence comes out of something. If there were evidence of god, I would believe in god. We simply must follow the evidence.

Faith? That's how it works? It sure does. With no evidence, there's no way else for it to work. I could make a request for empirical evidence of all manner of things which don't exist, for example: the easter bunny, santa claus, or unicorns, or allah, or gaia, or anything. What makes your religion and it's lack of empirical evidence any greater than anything else lacking empirical evidence?

If there is a reason why believing in christianity with faith is justified, please elaborate.

[fr0d0]

You seem to agree with me thoughtful, so I can't debate you on the subject of this thread..

Your plea for justification I'd request we save for another topic. I want to keep this on on track. Once we go down the road of answering everyones questions on life, the universe and everything, the point of this thread would be lost in the mire, I hope you can appreciate this.

Thanks.

[athoughtfulman]

Ok ok.

So we agree on what atheism is.

To keep on point then, what evidence do you look at when believing in god? Is there none and it's just faith? Or is the some sort of fact you look at?

I'm interested.