Evidence for God

Author: rbelivb

Posts

Total: 191
Topic's author
#1
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
Probably the most common atheist argument is that there is no evidence that God exists. However, it is unclear what would constitute positive empirical evidence for God's existence. Most theological arguments for God's existence are rational rather than empirical - except perhaps for the argument for design, based on the inherent rationality evidenced by the material world. How can human beings assess the evidence for an infinite being that is, by definition beyond their comprehension? What would a world without God look like, compared to a world with God - and how can we be sure enough about this to make the comparison? In many ways, the concept of God is beyond the material world, and as such empirical evidence cannot legitimately have any bearing on whether or not we accept it.

This also brings the question of what it would mean to believe in God at all. If God is truly infinite and beyond human comprehension, then is whatever believers have in mind when they think about God, really God? If an image, or feeling, or idea comes to mind when thinking about God, then this limited idea can never really be God, who is a totally infinite being. Then, our use of the word "God" itself becomes an empty signifier, a vague attribution of sapience to the universe without any concrete application.
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@rbelivb
Well.

GOD is a label for human ignorance.

And then there are various and specific humanesque GODS aligned to popular religions.

As an atheist, and not accepting the idea of a humanesque or physical  GOD, I am therefore not aligned to any popular religious ideology. 

Why?......Lack of evidence......And lack of appropriate conditioning of course.

So that leaves me with a choice between chance or purpose.

And one likes to think that there is a purpose to everything...And one refers to such purpose as a GOD principle.

Even if that just be chance material creation and evolution to a point of conclusion and re-initiation.

With evolved organic structures such as ourselves not necessarily just along for the ride, and full of imagination.


GOD principle-----Creation-----Material Evolution-----GOD principle-----Re initiation-----And so on.


Topic's author
#3
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
I think it is important to make a division between the monotheistic, absolute God, versus other ideas of "Gods" which could be multiple, simply supernatural invisible beings. Even those who claim to believe in the former, cannot help but personify that God in their mind, and really their idea of God is something implicitly much more pagan. Something like an invisible giant that is interested in their lives, who they can communicate with, and that intervenes in predictable ways. I believe that such an idea is laying behind even seemingly very abstract ideas about God.

And one likes to think that there is a purpose to everything...And one refers to such purpose as a GOD principle.
Would you be attributing some personified sapience to God? A "purpose" seems to imply that he can plan, and have thoughts or preferences about the outcomes of humans.
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@rbelivb


Humans are sapient, as would be other evolved sentient organic structures, as might be evolved sentient inorganic structures.

And GOD principle might be a further extension of this process of material evolution, to a point of conclusion.

Personifying is a person thing.


And true, as gullible minors we  are often subjected to the personification of a GOD, derived from archaic and naive hypotheses/fantasy tales.

So theistically this is what GOD has inevitably become.


To be fair, I suppose that it all ends up meaning the same thing.

I'm just certain that worship is completely unnecessary.

As things will inevitably happen as they will.

Topic's author
#5
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
And GOD principle might be a further extension of this process of material evolution, to a point of conclusion.

I think you are "personifying" the process of evolution itself by attributing a purpose, or linear narrative, to a stochastic material process - giving it a "conclusion" or ultimate end. In fact it is a random process of variation and "selection" according to the conditions of the environment (survival).
#6
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Don't forget that a Conman can make a lot of money by telling people that there is a God. Pastor Kenneth Copeland is worth $750 million.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

I guess Copeland laughs at that verse.
#7
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

In the future Man will be taking about Atom and EV, not Adam and Eve.
#8
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@rbelivb
Probably the most common atheist argument is that there is no evidence that God exists.

That's because surprisingly they don't have a good grasp on what constitutes evidence and how evidence is defined. What they mean is that they really see no proof of God's existence and that's merely an interpretative conclusion. Evidence can be anything of a suggestive nature, an indication that something is true or clear, and on that note, there is a lot of suggestive indication (evidence) that God does in fact exist.

However, it is unclear what would constitute positive empirical evidence for God's existence.

You bring up a great point, and after all these years arguing with atheists it is nice to see an atheist come to terms with this. Because part of the problem is that they think there should be some form of physical empirical evidence for God somewhere, they never consider the very nature of God and whether or not God can be compatible with such a form of evidence. Obviously, we would need another approach to such a subject, one that furthers or advances the topic in a rational, appropriate and direct way, one that I've been dealing with since I've started discussing this with atheists.
However, it doesn't seem to matter to them what the nature of God is, and they simply go about repeating the same nonsensical statement.

Most theological arguments for God's existence are rational rather than empirical

Correct, theological arguments were never designed to lend proof to God's existence rather it just lends credit to the hypothesis that God's existence is rational and not absurd.

- except perhaps for the argument for design, based on the inherent rationality evidenced by the material world.

Honestly though, "design" is a poor choice of wording because it forces the inquirer to focus on flaws of such a design rather than the function of it. We are not looking for perfection in a material world where life and death occur.... birth and destruction because by the very nature of life and death we have imperfection. What we want to focus on is function, processes and whether or not those factors suggest intelligence. Basically, we are correlating the products of the universe with thought and mind, not perfection.

How can human beings assess the evidence for an infinite being that is, by definition beyond their comprehension?

Correlation, indication. Beyond that every soul has a connection to the Divine through consciousness. There doesn't need to be any material evidence involved, that is the key factor here. This becomes a problem for any human persuaded by a materialistic ideology.

What would a world without God look like, compared to a world with God -

Well, it seems obvious to say it wouldn't exist. In other words, there can be no "world" without a God, it simply is not a possibility. There can be no functioning products without there first being intelligence and thought as an influence upon any working product.

and how can we be sure enough about this to make the comparison? In many ways, the concept of God is beyond the material world, and as such empirical evidence cannot legitimately have any bearing on whether or not we accept it.

You sound like a very rational person, it is indeed refreshing! I'd love to carry this discussion further if you find my answers stimulating.

This also brings the question of what it would mean to believe in God at all.

There are many factors involved in accepting God's existence....some of which are applicable. Spirituality is not an empty process, the connection between the soul and God were meant to give each being a means to achieve something tangible, albeit independent of any physical or material influence.

If God is truly infinite and beyond human comprehension,

I have to step in here and say that there is really nothing about God beyond our comprehension. God is beyond our immediate grasp, but not our rational mind and soul.

then is whatever believers have in mind when they think about God, really God?

Sure, but there can be a lot of misconceptions involved as well, just depends on how well and accurate a person's depiction of God is. Either way it doesn't really matter, even our own delusions have no bearing on whether or not God exists. If God exists and someone has an inaccurate image of God, it has no effect on God's existence.

If an image, or feeling, or idea comes to mind when thinking about God, then this limited idea can never really be God, who is a totally infinite being.

Philosophically sure, theoretically sure. But whether or not God exists is not dependent upon on an accurate model of God. When we are talking about theology, we are simply engaging the intellect, not reality.

Then, our use of the word "God" itself becomes an empty signifier, a vague attribution of sapience to the universe without any concrete application.

Hopefully after my response you will find that a bit unnecessary to think. It is concrete enough to suggest that God exists, whether or not our conception of God is accurate is irrelevant. Do you know what I mean?

#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@rbelivb
I strive not to personify.

I think that you are perhaps personifying for me.

And I always strive to make it clear, that when I refer to material evolution, I regard species survival and development only as a short inevitable phase of a long and inevitable process.

If it was not us then it would have been them.....Who furthered the development of matter and knowledge.


So,  intermittently stochastic perhaps.

But ultimately inevitable.


Though perhaps not ultimately ultimate.

I hypothesize that GOD principle is that which is achieved with our help, and that which re-initiates the sequence of material development.

So the possibility of an infinite sequence.


But the beginning.

Neither You, I nor EtrnlVw has a clue.
#10
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder so proof of gods. There's no actual factual, archaeological proof that any gods exist other than signs of worship. If you require proof to believe you do not have faith and are not a true believer, sorry but you're not. Any and all proof that any gods exist are based on personal experience of the believer and while those personal experiences can be shared with other people who have had those similar experiences, and agree with someone and form a religious group around those beliefs that is not proof anyone outside of those personal experiences. Your proof is not even proof to someone who believes the same as you and practices the same religion you do because their experience, while similar, is not exactly the same.
#11
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
 Any and all proof that any gods exist are based on personal experience of the believer and while those personal experiences can be shared with other people who have had those similar experiences, and agree with someone and form a religious group around those beliefs that is not proof anyone outside of those personal experiences. Your proof is not even proof to someone who believes the same as you and practices the same religion you do because their experience, while similar, is not exactly the same.

This is all true. 

 There's no actual factual, archaeological proof that any gods exist other than signs of worship. 

This is true too.

If you require proof to believe you do not have faith and are not a true believer, sorry but you're not. 

This however is a bit shady. It more or less gives credit to how atheist view faith which I happen to disagree with. This idea of faith that means to believe in something with no evidence or proof, or even good reasoning is certainly the weakest definition of faith and the least useful. I have to say, that faith is certainly intertwined with evidence, proof and reasoning not void of it. 
To have confidence and trust in something REQUIRES evidence, proof and reasoning. So, in essence, the more evidence you have and the more reason to accept something the stronger the faith. 
Faith is not really a belief per say, more than it is an action or recourse one moves on in relation to how strong their belief in something is. And how strongly a person believes in something is directly related to how much reason and evidence they have to believe it. Faith is not belief itself, but the substance which supports how much conviction and reason upholds a belief. 
This can be illustrated by any effort of practice....and practice by which something can be applied as useful or worthless. Jesus of the Gospels illustrates this beautifully by putting his faith in action (not just a belief), and his confidence and trust as a means to achieve a particular outcome. Little faith is compared to great faith by how much confidence a person has in what they put their faith to. In this sense, faith is much more an action it is than some theological or religious belief. 
I may believe any one thing but that doesn't mean I have faith in it....the two are not always the same meaning. 
I would go as far to say that faith is more akin to knowing something, rather than believing something. When I first desired to learn how to play the guitar I believed that I could learn it, now I know I can play it. The former was belief, the latter faith. See the difference? 

#12
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Neither You, I nor EtrnlVw has a clue.

Lol, you have zero reason to believe that. If you don't know anything, speak for yourself, thanks. 
#13
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@rbelivb
The problem is that you can't demonstrate that god exists as anything more than a concept. Without an empirical element to show that god exists as more than a concept in your imagination, there is no reason to claim that god exists in reality. 
#14
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

My favorite God is Zeus. Zeus was known for having children with any mortal woman who caught his eye. OMG. was Zeus a Trump?
#15
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
See:  Did Christianity lead to schizophrenia? Psychosis, psychology and self reference
Roland Littlewood
University College London

Abstract
Both geographically and historically, schizophrenia may have emerged from a psychosis that was more florid, affective, labile, shorter lived and with a better prognosis. It is conjectured that this has occurred with a reflexive self-consciousness in Western and globalising societies, a development whose roots lie in Christianity. Every theology also presents a psychology. Six novel aspects of Christianity may be significant for the emergence of schizophrenia—an omniscient deity, a decontexualised self, ambiguous agency, a downplaying of immediate sensory data, and a scrutiny of the self and its reconstitution in conversion.

#16
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Jeffrey Dahmer was convicted of unspeakable acts of perversion and cannibalism that shocked the nation. He was murdered in prison, but not before he had professed faith in Jesus Christ as his Savior.
Ted Bundy was a notorious serial killer executed for his crimes. But before he died, he also claimed faith and forgiveness in Christ.
I recently read of a murderer executed in Texas. The newspaper reported his last words before the lethal injection. It sounded like a church testimonial as he praised God for his new-found salvation in Christ and expressed his assurance of going to heaven.
#17
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
There's a topic for you every single theist that's ever lived is schizophrenic how the hell has the world functioned if every single theist is schizophrenic. A  handful of atheists that exist in the world have kept it going since beginning of time amazing. You guys must be really f****** tired. No wonder you're so angry and bitter. Have a Snickers and a nap.
#18
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Sum1hugme
you can't demonstrate that god exists as anything more than a concept.

Well, we definitely want to satisfy the intellect thoroughly before we even begin to justify the notion that God exists. I feel confident that Theism as a concept is as solid a proposition as any other worldview interpretation, and really there's only two to pick from lol. Even more, only one of the two match reality.

Without an empirical element

Do you know how empirical is defined? based upon the following description... "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic" who is arguing that God hasn't been or can't be observed or experienced? if it's you making that claim, atheists aren't what I would call an authority on what exists and what doesn't. Sorry.

God is experienced and perceived on a conscious level of course (not a physical level), ironically without consciousness we have no way to perceive and experience reality. So if God can be observed and experienced on a conscious (or spiritual) level then God meets an empirical element. 

to show that god exists as more than a concept in your imagination

This is why we first satisfy the intellect to thoroughly accept that the concept of God is a good theoretical position before anything else, we can take note that we aren't dealing with the imagination but a realistic premise (a premise that corresponds with reality). Ironically, without the imagination we lose the ability to not only create but accept new ideas.
Do you know how the imagination is defined? our specific state of consciousness (which includes our imagination) is what makes our perception of reality known at a deeper level, as well as applying it to our own reality to make it better. Imagination doesn't discredit God, it actually allows us to perceive what God really means, understand what we are discussing and form new ideas that reflect reality better. We can satisfy the intellect that God's existence correlates with reality because it fits with reality and as it relates to God's existence, we can say that it's not just someone's imagination at work.

there is no reason to claim that god exists in reality

If there is strong indication and we can correlate the products of the universe with intelligence, then there is no reason to claim that God does not exist in reality. Further, religion and spirituality are very much a part of human reality, observation and experience. It's literally written on the walls of every culture known to man in some form or another. To say there is no experience of God is to deny reality as we know it. 






#19
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:
  • God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
  • None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. 
  • God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
  • The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. 
  • The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. 
  • When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." 
  • Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
  • And so on…
Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists. And there should be evidence .

#20
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rbelivb
Probably the most common atheist argument is that there is no evidence that God exists. However, it is unclear what would constitute positive empirical evidence for God's existence. Most theological arguments for God's existence are rational rather than empirical - except perhaps for the argument for design, based on the inherent rationality evidenced by the material world. How can human beings assess the evidence for an infinite being that is, by definition beyond their comprehension? What would a world without God look like, compared to a world with God - and how can we be sure enough about this to make the comparison? In many ways, the concept of God is beyond the material world, and as such empirical evidence cannot legitimately have any bearing on whether or not we accept it.
It is not the most common argument. It is an assertion.  This is the interesting thing.  The atheist asserts there is no god because he can't find any evidence. It is not an argument. Simply an assertion. And as you rightly note, this assertion is made on a very unclear notion of what might constitute as evidence in the first place.  This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.  

You may be correct about theist arguments being more rational than empirical.  Certainly, they tend to be based in logic rather than evidence and probably for the explanation you give.   You raise some interesting thoughts. Thank you.  

This also brings the question of what it would mean to believe in God at all. If God is truly infinite and beyond human comprehension, then is whatever believers have in mind when they think about God, really God? If an image, or feeling, or idea comes to mind when thinking about God, then this limited idea can never really be God, who is a totally infinite being. Then, our use of the word "God" itself becomes an empty signifier, a vague attribution of sapience to the universe without any concrete application.
The NT tells us that demons believe in God, but don't follow him.   I often think that proving God's existence is unhelpful because of that very idea.  Hence, why I think it is not really about the strength of such an argument at all.   It's about something else. It's about pride and humility. It's about who is the boss and who is not. It's about independence and dependence. Everything else is white noise. 

In the end it comes back to the Garden of Eden and the forbidden fruit.  The tree of the knowledge of good and evil.   It is not a tree that gives such knowledge. It is a tree that says - I want to decide what is good and what is evil.  God had decided what perfect was.  Humanity said - no - I want to decide.  God said such knowledge is objective. Humanity said - no it is all subjective.  

#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
I believe zero.

I know that you don't actually have a clue.
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
#10

Extremely well stated Poly

I agree entirely.
#23
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
It is not the most common argument. It is an assertion. This is the interesting thing.  The atheist asserts there is no god because he can't find any evidence. It is not an argument. Simply an assertion. And as you rightly note, this assertion is made on a very unclear notion of what might constitute as evidence in the first place.  This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.  
This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.  
Do you believe in Thor?
#24
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
According to the United Nations' "Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends," modern Homo sapiens appeared about 50,000 B.C. At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the world's population was around 5 million. By 1 A.D., the population had reached 300 million, which indicates a growth rate of 0.0512% per year. Life expectancy at birth averaged 10 years for most of human history. The birth rate would have to be about 80 per 1000 just for the species to survive. Infant mortality in the early days of human life would be high, probably 500 infant deaths per 1000.

Isn't this evidence for Poor Design?
#25
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Zeus was a notorious rapist, why am I not surprised he's your favorite.
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,621
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Zeus was a notorious rapist, why am I not surprised he's your favorite.

Who is it that you are suggesting the "Rapist" Zeus is a favourite of, Witch? 
Has Zeus even been mentioned on this thread?
#27
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen

Take 5 minutes and read some posts, jerk. 
#28
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen

Sorry Stephen, I tried to delete my comment like we talked about so we could make fun of her having dementia, but for some reason I couldn't do it.
#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,621
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
jerk. 


I was far too busy reading all of your  double standards and contradictions, Witch. But I accept your admonishment.

How old are your Pagan gods , Witch?
#30
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,621
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW

Sorry Stephen, I tried to delete my comment like we talked about so we could make fun of her having dementia, but for some reason I couldn't do it.


😁