Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

What and how much Evidence for God

ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2009 3:33:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
In any exchange of thoughts with atheists about God's existence, an atheist will always demand evidence.

Not that believers in God don't have evidence, but since atheists are the ones bringing up the need for evidence to convince them that there is God, it might be appropriate to inquire from atheists the following questions:

1. What is the kind of evidence they demand?

2. How much of such evidence is needed and sufficient for them to accept the existence of God?

But even before evidence, it is appropriate to inquire from them what they understand by God, so that believers and atheists can be talking about the same entity called God.

What do the atheists here say about my points here?

Ergyr
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2009 7:10:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Atheists want decisive evidence. What type of evidence is required to support the theory of gravity, or chemical bonding? The fact it exists, and it is conformable through scientific studies it exists.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2009 11:56:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
God is mere conjecture. To make me believe in it, you would have to show that one probably exists. When there are naturalistic and supernaturalistic explanations for the universe, I will side with the naturalistic explanation until there's a major indication that the universe is not naturalistic.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2009 12:08:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/18/2009 11:56:27 AM, beem0r wrote:
God is mere conjecture. To make me believe in it, you would have to show that one probably exists. When there are naturalistic and supernaturalistic explanations for the universe, I will side with the naturalistic explanation until there's a major indication that the universe is not naturalistic.

Define supernatural so we can see what you're talking about.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2009 12:38:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Supernatural:

of a form of existence which is not existence :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2009 1:08:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/18/2009 3:33:25 AM, ergyr wrote:
In any exchange of thoughts with atheists about God's existence, an atheist will always demand evidence.

Not that believers in God don't have evidence, but since atheists are the ones bringing up the need for evidence to convince them that there is God, it might be appropriate to inquire from atheists the following questions:

1. What is the kind of evidence they demand?

2. How much of such evidence is needed and sufficient for them to accept the existence of God?

But even before evidence, it is appropriate to inquire from them what they understand by God, so that believers and atheists can be talking about the same entity called God.


What do the atheists here say about my points here?




Ergyr

As for myself, I know that God exists and I define God as:

Maker of heaven and earth and everything.

I like to hear from atheists what their idea of God is, in order that I can exchange thoughts with them about the kind and quantity of evidence they need to also know God's existence as I do know.

Ergyr
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2009 1:26:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Considering how the WHOLE POINT of atheism is to not believe god exists, an atheist's idea of god is whatever one a theist brings up in a discussion, for the course of the discussion :).

It is impossible to make "Everything," as that would entail creating the potential for oneself to exist, which is a contradiction in terms.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2009 2:12:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/18/2009 7:10:21 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Atheists want decisive evidence. What type of evidence is required to support the theory of gravity, or chemical bonding? The fact it exists, and it is conformable through scientific studies it exists.

You mention two phenomena that exist even if man's brain were not existing, namely, gravity and chemical bonding.

Before anything else, I suggest that we all here abstain from the distinction between the natural order and the supernatural order.

We should all atheists and theists instead just distinguish between existence and non-existence.

This makes the universe of our discourse more simple and thus more manageable.

Next, we can and should also distinguish among existing things those that are existing only in the mind of man and those existing even and objectively outside the mind of man.

Furthermore, let us all understand by mind of man, the faculty of man which is based upon the organ of man called brain.

Thus if a man has no brain or his brain is damaged or his brain is deficient, then his mind is not existing, or his mind for being damaged or deficient cannot and thus does not work as it should work in terms specially of intelligence.

At 1/18/2009 7:10:21 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Atheists want decisive evidence. What type of evidence is required to support the theory of gravity, or chemical bonding? The fact it exists, and it is conformable through scientific studies it exists.

As I said earlier, you mention two phenomena that exist even if man's brain were not existing, namely, gravity and chemical bonding.

(Physics) gravity -- the force of attraction between all masses in the universe; especially the attraction of the earth's mass for bodies near its surface.

(Chemistry) chemical bonding -- the connection of atoms to one another forming a substance called molecule.

In the brain of man these two phenomena are stored in its database as two pieces of accepted information.

From these two pieces of accepted information in man's brain, he can use his brain to reason to the existence of things existing outside his brain, which things existing outside his brain are also now represented in his brain as additional pieces of accepted information.

Can we therefore atheists and theists here understand by evidence as:

A piece of accepted information in man's brain by which man's brain reason to the acceptance of another piece of information.

In regard to the proof of the existence of a maker of heaven and earth and everything, namely, God:

Can we bring forth the moon as a piece of accepted information in our brain by which we can reason to the existence of God as the maker of the moon, thereby adding to our brain an additional piece of accepted information in our brain, namely:

God is the maker of the moon.

In this manner, as we get more and more pieces of accepted information in our brain of the things God has made by observing things outside our brain and reasoning with our brain, can we come to a general conclusion on the basis again of reasoning in our brain:

That God the maker of heaven and earth and everything exists outside our brain but in our brain as a piece of accepted information.

Ergyr
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2009 4:28:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Can we bring forth the moon as a piece of accepted information in our brain by which we can reason to the existence of God as the maker of the moon

Maybe. Try it :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2009 3:58:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/18/2009 4:28:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Can we bring forth the moon as a piece of accepted information in our brain by which we can reason to the existence of God as the maker of the moon

Maybe. Try it :).

We know the existence of communication satellites which are manufactured by men.

This is a piece of information in our brain which our brain can use to come to additional pieces of information.

Now we also have the piece of information in our brain about th existence of the moon as a satellite of the earth.

From these two pieces of information in our brain, namely:

Communication satellites are made by men.
The moon is a satellite of the earth.

By the process of reasoning from similarity between communication satellites made by men and the moon as a satellite of the earth, similarity founded on both being satellites...

Our brain reasons intelligently to infer that the moon must be made also by some agent much greater than men.

By this process of reasoning with our brain intelligently, we can come to the inference that God is the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Ergyr
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2009 6:32:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Before anything else, I suggest that we all here abstain from the distinction between the natural order and the supernatural order.

We should all atheists and theists instead just distinguish between existence and non-existence.

Supernatural is non existence - there is no new distinction here.

Thus if a man has no brain

He is dead.

then his mind is not existing

Ones mind not existing entails ones brain is neither as ones mind is a product of the biological brain - which again makes one rather dead.

(Physics) gravity -- the force of attraction between all masses in the universe; especially the attraction of the earth's mass for bodies near its surface.

The earth has no special claim on gravity.

In the brain of man these two phenomena are stored in its database as two pieces of accepted information.

From these two pieces of accepted information in man's brain, he can use his brain to reason to the existence of things existing outside his brain, which things existing outside his brain are also now represented in his brain as additional pieces of accepted information.

Knowledge of gravity, chemical bonding first exists outside of ones brain before it is processed and known. As to what else is reasoned you are unclear of - one may make predictions as Einstein did and have them later proven - or one may make inferences from what is known already - that however is not a confirmation of a fact. Unless what is known already allows clear deductions to be made.

A piece of accepted information in man's brain by which man's brain reason to the acceptance of another piece of information.

Information arrives from multiple sources - not solely inferences which you appear to be suggesting.

In regard to the proof of the existence of a maker of heaven and earth and everything, namely, God:

Can we bring forth the moon as a piece of accepted information in our brain by which we can reason to the existence of God as the maker of the moon, thereby adding to our brain an additional piece of accepted information in our brain, namely:

God is the maker of the moon.

Um no, as we have a clear objective non inferenced knowledge of how these things occur. Not one day god zapped a moon into our orbit. Note god is nowhere in the prior reasoning - you have gone - man makes satellites and we have natural satellites - which is where it should naturally end, but instead you make an additional unfounded leap of 'and god put it there'.

In this manner, as we get more and more pieces of accepted information in our brain of the things God has made by observing things outside our brain and reasoning with our brain, can we come to a general conclusion on the basis again of reasoning in our brain:

It actually poor reasoning to assume all things are designed merely because one species can design things. One would hardly call that factual knowledge. It is in fact a certain fallacy. ;) You are confusing it seems belief with knowledge.

That God the maker of heaven and earth and everything exists outside our brain but in our brain as a piece of accepted information.

True some accept that notion and hold it as true - ones beliefs however are internal -that is your agreement with a statement- while knowledge is between you and reality (your awarenesss of a fact). That's a significant difference. They are certainly not the same thing. They are however related - knowledge results in true beliefs, however beliefs (even true) are not themselves a source of knowledge.

Note by your reasoning I can infer God must exist to make all whirlpools in a river by the fact that I can stir my finger in a basin of water and make one appear. It's clearly erronous reasoning.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2009 11:08:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/19/2009 3:58:03 AM, ergyr wrote:
At 1/18/2009 4:28:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Can we bring forth the moon as a piece of accepted information in our brain by which we can reason to the existence of God as the maker of the moon

Maybe. Try it :).

We know the existence of communication satellites which are manufactured by men.

This is a piece of information in our brain which our brain can use to come to additional pieces of information.

Now we also have the piece of information in our brain about th existence of the moon as a satellite of the earth.

From these two pieces of information in our brain, namely:

Communication satellites are made by men.
The moon is a satellite of the earth.

By the process of reasoning from similarity between communication satellites made by men and the moon as a satellite of the earth, similarity founded on both being satellites...

Our brain reasons intelligently to infer that the moon must be made also by some agent much greater than men.
Both are not communication satelllites. The reason for the making by men is the communication aspect. Fallacy of equivocation does not count as a "brain reasoning intelligently."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2009 3:56:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/19/2009 6:32:07 AM, Puck wrote:

[...]

Note by your reasoning I can infer God must exist to make all whirlpools in a river by the fact that I can stir my finger in a basin of water and make one appear. It's clearly erronous reasoning.

That is not erroneous reasoning but limited reasoning with only one example.

You have to gather more data.

Just the same, you can produce a small whirlpool in a kitchen basin of water, but try to produce one in a giant lake, an ocean, and if you succeed then scientists can conclude that you could be God.

Ergry
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2009 4:08:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/19/2009 11:08:10 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/19/2009 3:58:03 AM, ergyr wrote:
At 1/18/2009 4:28:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Can we bring forth the moon as a piece of accepted information in our brain by which we can reason to the existence of God as the maker of the moon

Maybe. Try it :).

We know the existence of communication satellites which are manufactured by men.

This is a piece of information in our brain which our brain can use to come to additional pieces of information.

Now we also have the piece of information in our brain about th existence of the moon as a satellite of the earth.

From these two pieces of information in our brain, namely:

Communication satellites are made by men.
The moon is a satellite of the earth.

By the process of reasoning from similarity between communication satellites made by men and the moon as a satellite of the earth, similarity founded on both being satellites...

Our brain reasons intelligently to infer that the moon must be made also by some agent much greater than men.
Both are not communication satelllites. The reason for the making by men is the communication aspect. Fallacy of equivocation does not count as a "brain reasoning intelligently."

You are not accurate and precise to say the least in asserting that my reasoning is based on equivocation.

Please give two examples of equivocation, to show people that you know what is equivocation.

Ergry
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2009 4:35:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/18/2009 3:33:25 AM, ergyr wrote:
In any exchange of thoughts with atheists about God's existence, an atheist will always demand evidence.

Not that believers in God don't have evidence, but since atheists are the ones bringing up the need for evidence to convince them that there is God, it might be appropriate to inquire from atheists the following questions:

1. What is the kind of evidence they demand?

2. How much of such evidence is needed and sufficient for them to accept the existence of God?

But even before evidence, it is appropriate to inquire from them what they understand by God, so that believers and atheists can be talking about the same entity called God.


What do the atheists here say about my points here?




Ergyr

I will visit this thread again some days later.

But the original question here is about evidence.

So, in the meantime, please attend to the original two questions:

1. What is the kind of evidence they demand?

2. How much of such evidence is needed and sufficient for them to accept the existence of God?

Or for science-oriented people, just this question:

What is evidence in science?

Ergyr
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2009 4:43:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/24/2009 4:08:53 PM, ergyr wrote:
At 1/19/2009 11:08:10 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/19/2009 3:58:03 AM, ergyr wrote:
At 1/18/2009 4:28:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Can we bring forth the moon as a piece of accepted information in our brain by which we can reason to the existence of God as the maker of the moon

Maybe. Try it :).

We know the existence of communication satellites which are manufactured by men.

This is a piece of information in our brain which our brain can use to come to additional pieces of information.

Now we also have the piece of information in our brain about th existence of the moon as a satellite of the earth.

From these two pieces of information in our brain, namely:

Communication satellites are made by men.
The moon is a satellite of the earth.

By the process of reasoning from similarity between communication satellites made by men and the moon as a satellite of the earth, similarity founded on both being satellites...

Our brain reasons intelligently to infer that the moon must be made also by some agent much greater than men.
Both are not communication satelllites. The reason for the making by men is the communication aspect. Fallacy of equivocation does not count as a "brain reasoning intelligently."

You are not accurate and precise to say the least in asserting that my reasoning is based on equivocation.


Please give two examples of equivocation, to show people that you know what is equivocation.


Ergry

Equivocation: Changing the definition of a term mid-proof.

For example, when the first term is a communication satellite and the second term is a noncommunication satellite. Or when the first term is booze (beer) and the second is booze (wine).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2009 4:54:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hey, a triple post. Totally uncalled for. When you hit the 1,000 post club, you will be treated with hostility.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2009 5:02:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
That is not erroneous reasoning but limited reasoning with only one example.

It's not wrong to assume 'god makes whirlpools'? lol

You have to gather more data.

Calling for additionally data is irrelevant as its unknown what that data that is unknown is. :P

And the additional data we have been receiving so far simply keeps refuting the 'god dun it' examples, over...and over..and over again. :D

Just the same, you can produce a small whirlpool in a kitchen basin of water, but try to produce one in a giant lake, an ocean, and if you succeed then scientists can conclude that you could be God.

So...Every current and rock that produces the effect of whirlpools should be worshipped?

Scientists would not conclude my godliness though they may inquire as to the tools I used to produce the effect though, given that my swirling finger is only useful in basin sized holdings. :D
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2009 5:08:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
1. What is the kind of evidence they demand?

The sort that cannot be refuted.

Which at least for the majority of major religions poses a problem as they demand you don't know but have faith. :D
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2009 12:00:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
1. What is the kind of evidence they demand?

Extraordinary evidence is what they demand, because you're making extraordinary claims that you need some extraordinary evidence to substantiate.

2. How much of such evidence is needed and sufficient for them to accept the existence of God?

...even a little would be a start. I've been an Atheist for almost a decade and I haven't come across 1 single piece of anything that has made me stop and even consider anything we could name as "God."

it is appropriate to inquire from them what they understand by God, so that believers and atheists can be talking about the same entity called God.

Generally It's a given. Most people in America are Christians, and you can profile someone to make an educated guess as to what religion they are. They each have their own unique costumes.

I don't get into "what do you mean god?" unless I want to go about pointing out impossible the existence of their god is. Usually when approached, it's for a different reason. I just let them get to where they're going and discuss whatever it is they want.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 9:17:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Everybody's doing it.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.