What counts as evidence for God?

[Jim Jam Flim Flam]

Science can prove a negative within guidelines.

The issue posed for this thread is how you can prove or disprove that given certain guideline and how to define what you are looking for.

Which is the issue, we can define a living creature like a leprechaun based on what we know of Biology and other factors. How do you define a ghost? How do you define a god?

Proving a negative is very possible if you can define exactly what you are looking for.

The issue with the proving or disproving a god of some sort is, what is defined by him? I agree with the a chunk of this but more so the issue is defining what that is which is the main problem with science disproving or proving it. There are no guidelines nor ways to tell, if there are any.

You are correct that proving a negative is possible, but the God of the bible, and almost any god, exists beyond the natural realm. Science deals exclusively with natural phenomena. Even though he may interact with the material world by answering prayers and things like that, that is still not evidence for God, as any number of reasons could be attributed to that. We can disprove the God of the bible according to known laws, because there are logical contradictions that would make it impossible for him to exist according to understood laws of physics, but if he exists in the supernatural realm he is not bound by anything, and therefore cannot be disproved. We can prove that Noah's flood did not happen, or that the earth is not as old as it is accounted for in Genesis, but we still cannot disprove the existence of God. If we define God as he is defined in the Bible, that is supernatural, we cannot disprove him.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

You are correct that proving a negative is possible, but the God of the bible, and almost any god, exists beyond the natural realm. Science deals exclusively with natural phenomena. Even though he may interact with the material world by answering prayers and things like that, that is still not evidence for God, as any number of reasons could be attributed to that. We can disprove the God of the bible according to known laws, because there are logical contradictions that would make it impossible for him to exist according to understood laws of physics, but if he exists in the supernatural realm he is not bound by anything, and therefore cannot be disproved. We can prove that Noah's flood did not happen, or that the earth is not as old as it is accounted for in Genesis, but we still cannot disprove the existence of God. If we define God as he is defined in the Bible, that is supernatural, we cannot disprove him.

Except there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the God of Young-Earth Creationism cannot feasibly exist in our world, at least not without the last 50+ years of geological and biological science being incorrect in this regard, and there's also no plausible explanation to suggest any sort of supernatural realms exist outside of the pseudoscientific nonsense of ghosts. There's many things wrong with the idea of the YEC version of God, and here's some of them;

• Signs that many people use to point to the existance of God, such as near-death experiences, are most likely due to the mind itself and how it functions, and does not definitively mean that He exists.
  
  
• If God does exist, he would have to exist in the form of the Old Earth Creationist's version, as it makes no sense to have animals as complicated as orcas living alongside very primitive animals like Anomalocaris.
  
  
• Adaptation (also called "natural selection") has been observed multiple times in the wild, most famously with Darwin's finches. Why would animals need to adapt to changes at all if God were to create them as they were, perfectly suited for their environment?
  
  
• The classification of animals as the Bible says is entirely inaccurate; for example, making birds and crocodiles separate "kinds" from dinosaurs is highly problematic. Additionally, grouping bats with birds is also extremely problematic. Seeing as how the Bible is supposedly the word of God transcribed, that poses big issues.
  
  
• The entire idea of a metaphysical world beyond death is unprovable, as no living being has been able to return from death to prove it's existance. This entire idea hinges on faith, and as such is unscientific at it's core; as science requires hard evidence to accept such radical ideas.
  
  
• There's no flying way in the name of Darwin that two single people can reproduce to make a viable population without heavy incest and inbreeding, which causes genetic defects and all sorts of other nasty side-effects. Cheetahs have the same problem, it's called a genetic bottleneck. Also, dirt is not able to make living humans. That should be obvious.
  
  
• Additionally, any ecosystem comprised entirely of herbivorous animals would not last very long at all; predators are a requirement for the stability of an ecosystem, as too much herbivores leads to lots of dead wasteland with nothing to control the population.

 

[Jim Jam Flim Flam]

Except there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the God of Young-Earth Creationism cannot feasibly exist in our world, at least not without the last 50+ years of geological and biological science being incorrect in this regard, and there's also no plausible explanation to suggest any sort of supernatural realms exist outside of the pseudoscientific nonsense of ghosts. There's many things wrong with the idea of the YEC version of God, and here's some of them;

• Signs that many people use to point to the existance of God, such as near-death experiences, are most likely due to the mind itself and how it functions, and does not definitively mean that He exists.
  
  
• If God does exist, he would have to exist in the form of the Old Earth Creationist's version, as it makes no sense to have animals as complicated as orcas living alongside very primitive animals like Anomalocaris.
  
  
• Adaptation (also called "natural selection") has been observed multiple times in the wild, most famously with Darwin's finches. Why would animals need to adapt to changes at all if God were to create them as they were, perfectly suited for their environment?
  
  
• The classification of animals as the Bible says is entirely inaccurate; for example, making birds and crocodiles separate "kinds" from dinosaurs is highly problematic. Additionally, grouping bats with birds is also extremely problematic. Seeing as how the Bible is supposedly the word of God transcribed, that poses big issues.
  
  
• The entire idea of a metaphysical world beyond death is unprovable, as no living being has been able to return from death to prove it's existance. This entire idea hinges on faith, and as such is unscientific at it's core; as science requires hard evidence to accept such radical ideas.
  
  
• There's no flying way in the name of Darwin that two single people can reproduce to make a viable population without heavy incest and inbreeding, which causes genetic defects and all sorts of other nasty side-effects. Cheetahs have the same problem, it's called a genetic bottleneck. Also, dirt is not able to make living humans. That should be obvious.
  
  
• Additionally, any ecosystem comprised entirely of herbivorous animals would not last very long at all; predators are a requirement for the stability of an ecosystem, as too much herbivores leads to lots of dead wasteland with nothing to control the population.

The issue I find when discussing this with YEC is that I can throw all of these facts you listed at them, and many, many more, but they will say that because God exists beyond the natural world he is not bound by anything, including human logic, so everything I pick apart in the bible is useless because we are like dogs and God is like man. They say humans are so inferior to God that we cannot even grasp the scope of his knowledge and wisdom, and that what he does may not make sense but that he is there nonetheless. It seems to me this claim was designed specifically to be impossible to disprove.
You are absolutely correct that Young Earth Creationism has been disproved by even more the the past 50 years of geological, biological, fossil and radiocarbon dating evidence, but no matter how ridiculous a "supernatural realm" is, we cannot disprove it. It is an un-falsifiable claim.
You and I would say that if the Bible is wrong on nearly everything, that would suggest it was written by men and not inspired by a divine being, but others do not see it that way, and there is nothing we can say that totally disproves their idea of a supernatural god, although we can point out every flaw in the Bible, or for that matter, any Holy book.

 

[FlusteredBat]

The issue I find when discussing this with YEC is that I can throw all of these facts you listed at them, and many, many more, but they will say that because God exists beyond the natural world he is not bound by anything, including human logic, so everything I pick apart in the bible is useless because we are like dogs and God is like man. They say humans are so inferior to God that we cannot even grasp the scope of his knowledge and wisdom, and that what he does may not make sense but that he is there nonetheless. It seems to me this claim was designed specifically to be impossible to disprove.
You are absolutely correct that Young Earth Creationism has been disproved by even more the the past 50 years of geological, biological, fossil and radiocarbon dating evidence, but no matter how ridiculous a "supernatural realm" is, we cannot disprove it. It is an un-falsifiable claim.
You and I would say that if the Bible is wrong on nearly everything, that would suggest it was written by men and not inspired by a divine being, but others do not see it that way, and there is nothing we can say that totally disproves their idea of a supernatural god, although we can point out every flaw in the Bible, or for that matter, any Holy book.

How the heck do you know that "God exists beyond the natural world" (what does that even mean?) and "is not bound by anything"? You're ascribing attributes to things which you simultaneously admit cannot be measured or observed.

Unfalsifiability represents anti-truth, not potential for truth!

How about "invisible leprechaun + Godzilla = frying pan" where each term is forever undefined? So ridiculous that it's not even wrong, just anti-true.

 

[Jim Jam Flim Flam]

How the heck do you know that "God exists beyond the natural world" (what does that even mean?) and "is not bound by anything"? You're ascribing attributes to things which you simultaneously admit cannot be measured or observed.

Unfalsifiability represents anti-truth, not potential for truth!

How about "invisible leprechaun + Godzilla = frying pan" where each term is forever undefined? So ridiculous that it's not even wrong, just anti-true.

When you say "so ridiculous that it's not even wrong" that is exactly the point I am trying to make. You said, "You're ascribing attributes to things which you simultaneously admit cannot be measured or observed." which also illustrates my point - if we cannot measure or observe it, can we say anything about it? We seem to agree unfalsifiable claims are ridiculous. When I say, "God exists beyond the natural world" and things like that, I am just repeating what Christians have said when describing their God, and I would agree with you that these statements are ridiculous, but the concept of the Judeo-christian God is still impossible to completely disprove. That certainly does not give it any credibility though.

 

[FlusteredBat]

When you say "so ridiculous that it's not even wrong" that is exactly the point I am trying to make. You said, "You're ascribing attributes to things which you simultaneously admit cannot be measured or observed." which also illustrates my point - if we cannot measure or observe it, can we say anything about it? We seem to agree unfalsifiable claims are ridiculous. When I say, "God exists beyond the natural world" and things like that, I am just repeating what Christians have said when describing their God, and I would agree with you that these statements are ridiculous, but the concept of the Judeo-christian God is still impossible to completely disprove. That certainly does not give it any credibility though.

I could say that a Mcfliggerisplock might exist. When asked--what's a Mcfliggerisplock? I say--It's something which cannot be detected in any way and remains forever undefined. What the hell does a Mcfliggerisplock add to our understanding of the universe?

 

[Whia]

When you say "so ridiculous that it's not even wrong" that is exactly the point I am trying to make. You said, "You're ascribing attributes to things which you simultaneously admit cannot be measured or observed." which also illustrates my point - if we cannot measure or observe it, can we say anything about it? We seem to agree unfalsifiable claims are ridiculous. When I say, "God exists beyond the natural world" and things like that, I am just repeating what Christians have said when describing their God, and I would agree with you that these statements are ridiculous, but the concept of the Judeo-christian God is still impossible to completely disprove. That certainly does not give it any credibility though.

No it isn't. The Judeo-Christian god is purported to manifest itself in reality in a number of ways. When it fails to do so in every single way, that god as it is defined has been summarily disproven. A "god" may still exist, and Christians may still believe in it all the while acknowledge the aforementioned, but this being simply is not the god of the bible.

 

[Jim Jam Flim Flam]

I could say that a Mcfliggerisplock might exist. When asked--what's a Mcfliggerisplock? I say--It's something which cannot be detected in any way and remains forever undefined. What the hell does a Mcfliggerisplock add to our understanding of the universe?

I agree with you completely on that point. Such ideas add nothing to our understanding, and in most cases end up doing far more harm than any type of good.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Except there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the God of Young-Earth Creationism cannot feasibly exist in our world, at least not without the last 50+ years of geological and biological science being incorrect in this regard, and there's also no plausible explanation to suggest any sort of supernatural realms exist outside of the pseudoscientific nonsense of ghosts. There's many things wrong with the idea of the YEC version of God, and here's some of them;

• Signs that many people use to point to the existance of God, such as near-death experiences, are most likely due to the mind itself and how it functions, and does not definitively mean that He exists.
  
  
• If God does exist, he would have to exist in the form of the Old Earth Creationist's version, as it makes no sense to have animals as complicated as orcas living alongside very primitive animals like Anomalocaris.
  
  
• Adaptation (also called "natural selection") has been observed multiple times in the wild, most famously with Darwin's finches. Why would animals need to adapt to changes at all if God were to create them as they were, perfectly suited for their environment?
  
  
• The classification of animals as the Bible says is entirely inaccurate; for example, making birds and crocodiles separate "kinds" from dinosaurs is highly problematic. Additionally, grouping bats with birds is also extremely problematic. Seeing as how the Bible is supposedly the word of God transcribed, that poses big issues.
  
  
• The entire idea of a metaphysical world beyond death is unprovable, as no living being has been able to return from death to prove it's existance. This entire idea hinges on faith, and as such is unscientific at it's core; as science requires hard evidence to accept such radical ideas.
  
  
• There's no flying way in the name of Darwin that two single people can reproduce to make a viable population without heavy incest and inbreeding, which causes genetic defects and all sorts of other nasty side-effects. Cheetahs have the same problem, it's called a genetic bottleneck. Also, dirt is not able to make living humans. That should be obvious.
  
  
• Additionally, any ecosystem comprised entirely of herbivorous animals would not last very long at all; predators are a requirement for the stability of an ecosystem, as too much herbivores leads to lots of dead wasteland with nothing to control the population.

These points seem specifically targeted at a creationist viewpoint.

What would you say to a person who was christian but wasn't a beleiver of the creationist viewpoint that was narrowed down off an older faulty way to measure time?

No it isn't. The Judeo-Christian god is purported to manifest itself in reality in a number of ways. When it fails to do so in every single way, that god as it is defined has been summarily disproven. A "god" may still exist, and Christians may still believe in it all the while acknowledge the aforementioned, but this being simply is not the god of the bible.

You are correct that proving a negative is possible, but the God of the bible, and almost any god, exists beyond the natural realm. Science deals exclusively with natural phenomena. Even though he may interact with the material world by answering prayers and things like that, that is still not evidence for God, as any number of reasons could be attributed to that. We can disprove the God of the bible according to known laws, because there are logical contradictions that would make it impossible for him to exist according to understood laws of physics, but if he exists in the supernatural realm he is not bound by anything, and therefore cannot be disproved. We can prove that Noah's flood did not happen, or that the earth is not as old as it is accounted for in Genesis, but we still cannot disprove the existence of God. If we define God as he is defined in the Bible, that is supernatural, we cannot disprove him.

What I have been saying here was more so, you can prove a negative to be correct but for it to work in science you have to set rules ad guidelines for it so people don't play super nitpick with it.

There is no toad in my cup of coffee here, that is true for that right there. It is universally true? Yes because I focused my definition.

If I said, there is no toad in a cup of coffee, that could be true somewhere else.

More or less is where I was going with this.

Saying we can prove he doesn't exist is possible to answer if you do such, doing so in a universal way, is one we can't. Which was more or less what I was going for.

The issue with evidence to prove it here would tricky since again, how do we define this? Even if we could narrow down which one was the truth, if there is one, how do we define what matter he is made of, where he came from, if he comes from another plane, how does he interact with us?

That is where things get tricky and something I think is better related with the question presented originally. How do you essentially prove something which all we can base it on is guesses of the concept at this point.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

This is a few decades late but I remembered this when I popped in, so I'll reply real quick.

This is assuming of course that would be the optimal way to do it. With this, there would be no development on our own nor reason to act on our own.

So do you think that in heaven we'll have no reason to act on our own because things will be perfect? If perfection is good later, why isn't it good now? If imperfection is bad later, why is it good now? Are horrific acts of molestation, murder, natural disasters, disease, etc. really the "optimal way to do it", and that to think otherwise is an assumption? What is "development on our own" even mean and why is it so important that everything that should not be excused--everything that shouldn't be given purpose or reason (abhorrent theodicies and prayers), is allowed in?

I'm not sure where the idea of not knowing means suicide is more likely, which your statement "As opposed to people thinking suicide is okay because they don't see any eternal reason for them existing due to the lack of information?" seems to imply very directly.

I'm not just implying it, that's exactly my point that I'm making that is meant to be contrary to your own, or rather makes your point moot. Nihilism is a thing, hopelessness, depression, and if really there's one benefit of religion, it's a tool that can be used to think "Okay things suck, but it'll get better for sure if I make it to the end." Ideally different reasoning would be inserted there in my opinion, but it's better than nothing!

The argument that the knowledge of the afterlife is being withheld strategically so people value life more doesn't hold much water because for every drop it can hold we could say that a contrary argument, the one that says that strategically INFORMING humanity that not only eternal life, but the chance for a better one, exists, people who'd otherwise give up on existing could stand back up and move forward.

Christianity strongly suggests life is an important gift, not something to waste. If we assume a Christian god in this situation of course.

This only strengthens the argument against yours and instead for mine that an informing God would keep people alive better than ones who could never know that Christianity is true.

The plan has to involve humans or living creatures of some variety for a plan to make sense. Part of this paragraph, suggests also that a god in this situation gets something out of it. What if is plan actually is for use in some shape or form. If the plan involved development that would at least have some sense since why develop anything in a perfect paradise.

If you were a God at the beginning of everything/nothing, what would you do? Would it be like this? Would anything in the Bible of in any of the other religions and their associated texts have happened? Consider the scenario in various levels of potency.

By things I mean potential and possible idea of what could be raised here, I'm purposely leaving an open door on this point. I'm considering possibilities and situations.

What possibilities and situations???? Once a Christian says "Oh, well there's gotta be some reasoning for it because God did it/let it happen" then discourse promptly ends.

Your last paragraph is applying human standards to a situation like this, and I'm not sure why since parenthood has a lot of key difference to this sort of situation. Even more so if we ignore potential set standard and rules followed by which a potential god would set-up.

The Christian God is literally called Father and is expressed to have such a relationship with humanity, and it was not the first nor last one to use parental symbolism with their deities. And once more, if human standards cannot be applied to standards being applied to humans (what?), then this God is irrational and certainly not kind.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

So do you think that in heaven we'll have no reason to act on our own because things will be perfect? If perfection is good later, why isn't it good now? If imperfection is bad later, why is it good now? Are horrific acts of molestation, murder, natural disasters, disease, etc. really the "optimal way to do it", and that to think otherwise is an assumption? What is "development on our own" even mean and why is it so important that everything that should not be excused--everything that shouldn't be given purpose or reason (abhorrent theodicies and prayers), is allowed in?

Nah, I doubt a situation like that would remove free will. It wouldn't make sense to remove choice after it was given for people to act on their own.

Perfection without learning for ourselves what is good and bad ultimately does not teach us anything, nor do we learn about anything if it just given to us. Without struggle, how would we learn and become better as people? Without bad things happening to us, how would we even know what that is?

It would say that makes more sense and ultimately causes progress both emotionally, and all of us as a whole.

I'm not just implying it, that's exactly my point that I'm making that is meant to be contrary to your own, or rather makes your point moot. Nihilism is a thing, hopelessness, depression, and if really there's one benefit of religion, it's a tool that can be used to think "Okay things suck, but it'll get better for sure if I make it to the end." Ideally different reasoning would be inserted there in my opinion, but it's better than nothing!

The argument that the knowledge of the afterlife is being withheld strategically so people value life more doesn't hold much water because for every drop it can hold we could say that a contrary argument, the one that says that strategically INFORMING humanity that not only eternal life, but the chance for a better one, exists, people who'd otherwise give up on existing could stand back up and move forward.

This still doesn't work because you are still influencing how they would act with such information.

You tell people they get reincarnated, suddenly they might be more influenced to try at the reborn lottery to get a better life.
You tell them nothing happens, suddenly they cling to it and might even do to extremes to hold onto it.
You tell people everyone goes to heaven no matter what, then they believe they can do anything.

Any of these scenarios directly influence how people will act and change it for the worse in many ways. If you want people to respect life, why would informing them to absolute certainty of what happens be for the better?

This only strengthens the argument against yours and instead for mine that an informing God would keep people alive better than ones who could never know that Christianity is true.

You need to give more context or reasoning here, otherwise you aren't telling me a direct reasoning for why this is true. rather you are just stating your opinion but giving me nothing to discuss on the matter.

If you were a God at the beginning of everything/nothing, what would you do? Would it be like this? Would anything in the Bible of in any of the other religions and their associated texts have happened? Consider the scenario in various levels of potency.

I'd have people live and choose for themselves what to do.

If new text pops up, let it. They decide what to do.

What possibilities and situations???? Once a Christian says "Oh, well there's gotta be some reasoning for it because God did it/let it happen" then discourse promptly ends.

I said I was opening up discussion on an idea. You seem to be suggesting here that even doing that is a bad thing.

I don't like that.

The Christian God is literally called Father and is expressed to have such a relationship with humanity, and it was not the first nor last one to use parental symbolism with their deities. And once more, if human standards cannot be applied to standards being applied to humans (what?), then this God is irrational and certainly not kind.

You are against implying strict guidelines for this and making it clear it has to be on a human level with no other possibilities to be opened here.

 

[7HXYZZ]

Okay. The scientific community agrees that the Big Bang happened, so shoving all religious debate aside, I'd like to take a step back and look at a bigger picture. Going all the way back to the beginning of time -- assuming there was a singularity -- everything flows back into one single 'God' particle. How did it get here? Space is nothing -- only a medium. The only way we can measure space is by referencing seperate objects. It's my belief that the void of space has no matter, but it still 'exists' because we can travel around in it, etc. So-- this begs the next question. If space is a void medium that 'exists', and the 'God' particle came from a single finite point somewhere in it, why did it appear? How did it appear? And for that matter, because a void medium can only be proven to exist by points of reference, nothing else would have existed at the time of the singularity, meaning that there was literally nothing in existence at the time of the Big Bang.

So, to bring it back to the debate topic: What counts as evidence for a God? I say that existence itself is a miracle in and of itself, and who/whatever allows us to exist we should give thanks, silent or no. I think existence itself is proof of a God, or an otherwise all-powerful entity.

If someone would bring me up to speed on the 13 pages of debate on the matter, I'd be much obliged. It seemed as though most of it was mired in religious specificity.

Willing to become enlightened,
Cheers,
7H

 

[Sehnsucht]

Going all the way back to the beginning of time -- assuming there was a singularity -- everything flows back into one single 'God' particle. How did it get here? Space is nothing -- only a medium. The only way we can measure space is by referencing seperate objects. It's my belief that the void of space has no matter, but it still 'exists' because we can travel around in it, etc. So-- this begs the next question. If space is a void medium that 'exists', and the 'God' particle came from a single finite point somewhere in it, why did it appear? How did it appear? And for that matter, because a void medium can only be proven to exist by points of reference, nothing else would have existed at the time of the singularity, meaning that there was literally nothing in existence at the time of the Big Bang.

Howdy.

Some thoughts on all this, from the perspective of the scientific somewhat-literate:

The How and/or Why of the Big Bang is currently an open question. The Big Bang theory proper only serves to describe the way the universe evolved from T=0. At the very first "moment" of the Big Bang, you would have had a (possibly infinitely dense) singularity, which then proceeded to balloon exponentially. In this respect, your comment here:

"And for that matter, because a void medium can only be proven to exist by points of reference, nothing else would have existed at the time of the singularity, meaning that there was literally nothing in existence at the time of the Big Bang"

Is inaccurate, going by the current science. At the very "first" moment, there was something, not nothing.

The cause of this expansion? The anchor of this singularity state? Was there actually "anything" "before" the Big Bang? These are the questions that confound us. The reason has to do in part with tools, in part with language, and in part with ourselves. We are utterly of causality, of space and time. Our brains, our senses, our experiences are all shaped by and emergent from space and time (and entropy, and force interaction, and evolution, and etc.). We can't escape the bounds of our own perspective.

So how are we to meaningfully discuss what comes "before" time, or "outside" of space? Much like the laws of physics before a black hole, our language breaks down as we approach the Big Bang singularity. Maybe there was nothing "before" T=0. Maybe there was. With our current tools, all we can say is that we hit a literal wall some near 13.7 billion years into the past. What lies beyond? Who knows. Our current tools are modeled after causality, because like us, they are emergent of causality. But it looks like the origin of the universe is beyond our causal frame of reference. So unless we get better tools or a more creative perspective, we're going to remain at a standstill on this age-old question.

As a causal being in a causal world, I'm inclined to think there is a cause for the Big Bang. Some kind of foundational principle that animated the Big Bang. Perhaps this principle is timeless. Perhaps we have an infinite cycle of recurring universes. What I do find less simple to grasp is the notion that, at the fundamental level, this was all set into motion not by a something, but by a someone. Because deliberate creation entails intention, and intention entails personhood -- an entity that is self-aware. And given what we know of personhood, one wonders how exactly such an entity could even exist.

So, to bring it back to the debate topic: What counts as evidence for a God? I say that existence itself is a miracle in and of itself, and who/whatever allows us to exist we should give thanks, silent or no. I think existence itself is proof of a God, or an otherwise all-powerful entity.

Eh. (As yet) unexplained =/= miraculous. I mean, one can describe this whole existence as miraculous, if by "miraculous" you mean "so improbable that it may as well be impossible". I'm less willing to make that kind of correlation, though, because I'm totally unaware of the odds involved in the equation.

How could anyone really determine the "likelihood" of this universe existence, without first understanding much more than we currently do about how they form? I can't say this universe is "astronomically improbable", any more than I can say it's exceedingly probable. As a result, I find it all impressive and often amazing, but never miraculous. Unless I'm using "miraculous" for poetic hyperbole, I'm not in a position to describe my existence in that way.

I also have long scratched my head at the notion of giving "thanks" to God, or whichever deity caused my existence. This is because I did not consent to my own creation. Or if I did, I have no memory of it.

It's like my parents. I had no say in whether they conceived me. But they did. Should I be grateful that they gave me life? Hindsight is 20/20, and in retrospect, now being alive and having experienced living, I can say that I enjoy being alive (the instinct of survival may be q huge bias, though that's another discussion). So I suppose, by extension, I am grateful that I was given life.

But I cannot say this life is a "gift", or be thankful for it on those terms. When I give a gift to you, I seek to do you a kindness, knowing (or hoping) that you will appreciate it as a kindness. And you, being a self-aware fellow, are able to express gratitude, because you know what this gift entails for you, and you know what it entailed for me in getting it, and you know what it entails for our relationship.

When we give presents to an infant, do we expect gratitude? Likely not, because a baby can'5 express gratitude. They are not realized people yet. They may experience some reward and pleasure in their brain upon receiving gifts, but do they even have any awareness of what it means? I wouldn't expect so.

I would not be a realized person when I was a babe, certainly not before my own creation. And this is the paradox. Someone wanted to grant "me" the gift of existence, but I am the gift. I don't exist, but someone wants to gift me to myself, so they create me, and that existence is a gift given to myself. And I am supposed to be grateful for this, somehow? Or feel indebted?

It's like if I came up to you, stuck a Christmas gift ribbon on your shirt, and said "Happy Holidays, from me to you!". A bit absurd, like throwing the horse before the carriage.

When you move the goalpost from your parents to God, the same logic, and thus the same issues, apply. In retrospect, I can be grateful that I am alive, and so can extend a certain gratitude to God for making it happen. But it still has, if not insidious undertones, then certainly absurd ones. It's like Gepetto and Pinocchio.

Look at me, God! I'm a Real Boy now!

 

[Brawl4Lyfe6969]

Brawl, brawl graced us with its existence, finally ridding us of the plague that was the melee competitive scene. Curing the ailments of wave dashing and much more. The fact this game exists is proof that God does inspire men and create pure art through them.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

Here's an interesting topic to bring up; how would a Young Earth Creationist rationalize the idea that bird feathers and crocodile scutes are both derived from the same structure? Surely, if the two are totally different kinds, there's no reason for God to have given both of them the ability to produce feathers, especially if one of them isn't even using them in the first place.

 

[Baby_Sneak]

Ima just see this since these types of debates are really pointless since it gets you nowhere (you can't prove any deity exist since they would be outside our natural realm and there're couldn't be tested and proved through the scientific method). Now, if the God of the bible existed (I believe he does absolutely, Christian here), why would he attempt to leave evidence for his existence for people to see? Isn't that going against one of his most important principles (which is faith btw, belief in something despite the condition or future being unknown)? If God left cold, hard evidence for his existence, there would be no need for faith; it would be scientifically proven and everybody in the world would become Christians wouldn't they? Of course, nobody would want to burn in the lake of fire. But, he wanted us to have faith and trust in him and in the unknown to test us and he constantly does this in order to sharpen us up as people.

 

[Whia]

If evidence had no part in your acceptance of god's existence, then what exactly led you to that conclusion?

 

[Sucumbio]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

 

[Whia]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

Assuming this is a response to me, it doesn't really answer the question.

 

[Sucumbio]

Ah, to elaborate Faith (and only faith) leads to the aforementioned conclusion. That is quintessential Fideism.

 

[Whia]

I figured that was what you meant, that still doesn't answer the question.

 

[Sucumbio]

Your question is: if one needs no evidence to believe in God, on what basis do you believe?
Answer: pure faith

If I misinterpreted your question then I apologize amd would ask that you restate the conclusion he made as you see it. As I see it he concludes that God wishes for his followers to believe in him without proof. If that is the issue you have (as in where does he get THAT idea) well it's taught from various passages in the Bible that man cannot even know the full extent of his own heart, nor another person's heart let alone the infinite heart of God. Dogmatic explanation. Which goes to Fideism because without unwavering Faith in God and his teachings and therefore by extension the teachings of the Church, there IS no foundation for belief.

 

[_Keno_]

Very little debate/discussion can be done on that. The definition of Faith itself makes it impossible. No point even trying.

And yet in many cases, anecdotal experiences can be quite convincing to some people. I personally take zero stock in them, but some people are awed by them and believe all of them. I'm even sure that some people really do believe in their own experiences sometimes (although I'm also certain a lot of things are entirely made up), but it really comes down to people's interpretation. If someone believes the hand of God came down and let someone go into cancer remission, so be it. I think it was the doctor and luck.


Anyways, it's been a while since I've been here,so I'll just say my two concepts that really sustain my security in atheism. I haven't bothered thinking about religion in a serious manner in a while.

1. The existence of multiple religions, where people of all religions report intensely religious experiences. They can't all be correct without all their holy books being false.

2. Lack of personally explainable events. Events that are simply chance don't count. I've never seen anything mystical or whatnot. As far as I'm concerned, the world is exactly the way I would expect it to be if there were no God(s).

 

[Whia]

Your question is: if one needs no evidence to believe in God, on what basis do you believe?
Answer: pure faith

If I misinterpreted your question then I apologize amd would ask that you restate the conclusion he made as you see it. As I see it he concludes that God wishes for his followers to believe in him without proof. If that is the issue you have (as in where does he get THAT idea) well it's taught from various passages in the Bible that man cannot even know the full extent of his own heart, nor another person's heart let alone the infinite heart of God. Dogmatic explanation. Which goes to Fideism because without unwavering Faith in God and his teachings and therefore by extension the teachings of the Church, there IS no foundation for belief.

The issue is that "I don't need evidence, only faith" sounds an awful lot like trying to weasel out of your burden of proof, except that doesn't work because between the two states of not being convinced of X and being convinced of X, something must necessarily occupy that intermediate stage (unless you just openly admit you chose Christianity arbitrarily). I'm asking what that something is - I'm asking how he came to his conclusion. "Faith" is not an explanation, it's barely even a coherent statement when it's written out. "Faith convinced me god exists." What does that even mean? Why do you have faith? What was the genesis of your faith? Etc. Because the very act of reaching a conclusion automatically presupposes the interjection of some kind of evidence, no matter how arguably weak it may be.

 

[Baby_Sneak]

If evidence had no part in your acceptance of god's existence, then what exactly led you to that conclusion?

Personal miracles.

 

[Sucumbio]

The issue is that "I don't need evidence, only faith" sounds an awful lot like trying to weasel out of your burden of proof, except that doesn't work because between the two states of not being convinced of X and being convinced of X, something must necessarily occupy that intermediate stage (unless you just openly admit you chose Christianity arbitrarily). I'm asking what that something is - I'm asking how he came to his conclusion. "Faith" is not an explanation, it's barely even a coherent statement when it's written out. "Faith convinced me god exists." What does that even mean? Why do you have faith? What was the genesis of your faith? Etc. Because the very act of reaching a conclusion automatically presupposes the interjection of some kind of evidence, no matter how arguably weak it may be.

Ah, well Fideism isn't exactly satisfying to a skeptic, so yes in a way it definitely weasels out of proof but in the sense that it requires none, rather it rejects thr idea that proof can be trusted because of how unimaginably complex a higher diety is.

As for how he specifically came to his personal decision to have this faith in the first place, ie sunday school, religious parents or friends, self taught, etc. well yah I can't answer that.

 

[Whia]

Personal miracles.

Which, while not independently verifiable, is in fact a form of evidence. So, to recap:

• God deliberately chooses to not leave evidence of his existence because he (arbitrarily) places paramount importance on faith
• God, nonetheless, has provided you with evidence of his existence, thereby rendering faith of no-to-minimal use

You're sort of talking out both sides of your mouth, so to speak.

 

[Baby_Sneak]

Which, while not independently verifiable, is in fact a form of evidence. So, to recap:

• God deliberately chooses to not leave evidence of his existence because he (arbitrarily) places paramount importance on faith
• God, nonetheless, has provided you with evidence of his existence, thereby rendering faith of no-to-minimal use

You're sort of talking out both sides of your mouth, so to speak.

lol no
Personal miracles varies between person to person along with different interpretations. These interpretations, when treated under a completely objective light, are as reliable as the testimonies in the Salem witch trials.

 

[Sucumbio]

Eh, those are two different types of evidence. When the Fidiest says I need only Faith they mean that hard science is unnecessary and illusory. Miracles are signs, not evidence in the scientific sense (because they are not testable normally). Besides at which point we're borderline debating semantics. One could say the very world around us is both miraculous and "evidence" of God but only if you "believe" It's such. Pretty much every question can be answered "because faith" and if witnessing a personal miracle is what started the journey itself then that too is answered the same way. "my faith tells me i witnessed a miracle."

 

[Whia]

lol no
Personal miracles varies between person to person along with different interpretations. These interpretations, when treated under a completely objective light, are as reliable as the testimonies in the Salem witch trials.

So the evidence that led you to your conclusion is, by your own admission, so poor it's negligible. Why then do you adhere to said conclusion?

"Because I have faith" presumably.

So then why have faith?

"Personal miracles."

And round and round we go.

This, by the way, is ignoring the implications it has for the nature of your god - arguments you've surely heard before.

Eh, those are two different types of evidence. When the Fidiest says I need only Faith they mean that hard science is unnecessary and illusory. Miracles are signs, not evidence in the scientific sense (because they are not testable normally). Besides at which point we're borderline debating semantics. One could say the very world around us is both miraculous and "evidence" of God but only if you "believe" It's such. Pretty much every question can be answered "because faith" and if witnessing a personal miracle is what started the journey itself then that too is answered the same way. "my faith tells me i witnessed a miracle."

I never said it was or had to be scientific evidence. Anecdotes and personal revelation in whatever form, albeit questionable as they are, are still evidence by definition.

If you interpret these miracles through the lens of your faith, but your faith is the product of said miracles, then, well, the problem speaks for itself.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Here's an interesting topic to bring up; how would a Young Earth Creationist rationalize the idea that bird feathers and crocodile scutes are both derived from the same structure? Surely, if the two are totally different kinds, there's no reason for God to have given both of them the ability to produce feathers, especially if one of them isn't even using them in the first place.

Technically a lot of animals share traits with each other, like four chambered hearts.

While I get what you are saying, you are sort of picking at something super specific to make a point. And while I am not a Young Earth Creationist, I don't think it is a strong one.

You are raising a point that if Young Earth Creationists are right then why do two animals very different from one another have the same trait, which that in itself would be explained as "It was designed that way"

You are trying to argue that it is evolution over time, but in turn aren't making a strong arguement for it when both sides could explain it.

To further go at this, yes in past species Crocs are considered to be something that did produce feathers in the past, they don't now.

This is from what I remember but scutes are the plating over bird feet and the skin plating over crocodiles, Dinosaurs might have in the past but Crocodile scutes can't do that.

 

[Baby_Sneak]

So the evidence that led you to your conclusion is, by your own admission, so poor it's negligible. Why then do you adhere to said conclusion?

"Because I have faith" presumably.

So then why have faith?

"Personal miracles."

And round and round we go.

This, by the way, is ignoring the implications it has for the nature of your god - arguments you've surely heard before.


I never said it was or had to be scientific evidence. Anecdotes and personal revelation in whatever form, albeit questionable as they are, are still evidence by definition.

If you interpret these miracles through the lens of your faith, but your faith is the product of said miracles, then, well, the problem speaks for itself.

All I'm just saying is those personal miracles are not strong enough to completely do away with doubt. Everybody doubts God at times, believes and non-believers. And he knows this, that's why he put an emphasis on faith, to believe and trust him.

 

[_Keno_]

If I may ask, what personal miracles occurred for you that are convincing? People of all religions report personal miracles (including throughout history). Are they all correct?

I personally think that people interpret experiences the way they want to believe, but nevertheless, miracle stories are fun to hear. I get to listen to them all the time, being from the dead-center of the Bible Belt.

The next time you experience a personal miracle, I challenge you to TRY to find another explanation. It's mostly impossible for people to do it after-the-fact, no matter how clear they think the event was. Memory is not as accurate as people tend to think.

 

[FlusteredBat]

A belief in miracles betrays one's capacity for humility, that is to become an exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Murlough]

Ima just see this since these types of debates are really pointless since it gets you nowhere (you can't prove any deity exist since they would be outside our natural realm and there're couldn't be tested and proved through the scientific method). Now, if the God of the bible existed (I believe he does absolutely, Christian here), why would he attempt to leave evidence for his existence for people to see? Isn't that going against one of his most important principles (which is faith btw, belief in something despite the condition or future being unknown)? If God left cold, hard evidence for his existence, there would be no need for faith; it would be scientifically proven and everybody in the world would become Christians wouldn't they? Of course, nobody would want to burn in the lake of fire. But, he wanted us to have faith and trust in him and in the unknown to test us and he constantly does this in order to sharpen us up as people.

But why is faith an important principle? Faith is pointless when He makes us a specific way. He knows very well who will believe and who won't so why is faith, something He has full control over, a factor?

 

[Sehnsucht]

But why is faith an important principle? Faith is pointless when He makes us a specific way. He knows very well who will believe and who won't so why is faith, something He has full control over, a factor?

Free Will, yo. Gotta factor the Free Will.

We have to free willingly choose to trust in God and/or believe in God and/or accept God's love and grace because [reasons], or else the value and/or purpose of human existence becomes null and void due to [reasons].

After all, God created us, as well as all else that is, because [reasons]. To engage fully in a reciprocal relationship with our Creator is the ultimate pursuit of all living things, for [reasons].

And that is the [reasons] for the importance of faith.

 

[davidvkimball]

I'm a big fan of the "uncaused cause" and "unmoved mover" arguments by Aristotle, who, although he was a polytheist, made some interesting discoveries about evidence for a sovereign God.

 

[_Keno_]

The "uncaused cause" argument is honestly just lazy. It's one in a series of ancient religious ideas that "If we don't know why, then it must have been God!"

It also assumes that there was a first cause, which isn't necessarily true. Even if we found that to be true, slapping "God" on it mindlessly isn't great philosophy.

 

[Sehnsucht]

The "uncaused cause" argument is honestly just lazy. It's one in a series of ancient religious ideas that "If we don't know why, then it must have been God!"

It also assumes that there was a first cause, which isn't necessarily true. Even if we found that to be true, slapping "God" on it mindlessly isn't great philosophy.

There may be something like an Uncaused Cause, in the sense that there is an ultimate ontological foundation for everything.

But to get from that to a creator-person, much less a personal God whom we ought to worship and/or structure our lives around, is another matter.

Aquinas expanded on these Aristotelian arguments in his Quinque Viae. As per Aquinas, these arguments are not meant to be taken individually, but as a whole. But even then, the obstacle remains -- to get to the conclusion of a personal God.

 

[_Keno_]

But to get from that to a creator-person, much less a personal God whom we ought to worship and/or structure our lives around, is another matter.

I guess I should have been more specific, but that is exactly what I was referring to when I said it was lazy. The jump is made purely due to an absence of other options, which is fallacious.

Aquinas expanded on these Aristotelian arguments in his Quinque Viae. As per Aquinas, these arguments are not meant to be taken individually, but as a whole. But even then, the obstacle remains -- to get to the conclusion of a personal God.

Eh, well you still have to discuss each of them one by one. Regardless of how it was meant to be taken, the arguments either stand on their own or not. I suppose it was just meant to be more convincing when taken altogether.