"Stop asking for evidence for God"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2014, 08:08 PM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
Is this a deist argument?

If so, then it's simply another exercise in circular reasoning, with an unfalsifiable claim at its center.

If not, then you can let them go with the idea that God is untestable, and cannot directly be detected... But, if they claim God is interventionist, and has influence on this universe, then there should be evidence of his actions.

All that is required, is an observable, testable phenomena, which defies the known laws of the universe. To do so, really would require a supernatural explanation... Literally something able to operate beyond of the laws which govern all natural phenomena.

This alone would not be conclusive proof of a divine creator. But it would open up not just a gap, but a gaping canyon in our understanding.

As of yet, there has never been confirmation such an occurrence... Not through lack of claims of course. Quite the contrary, yet so far in every case where it is claimed that the laws of the universe have been either suspended or defied, as soon as the scientific method is applied, either a perfectly good natualistic explanation is provided, or the supposed supernatural agent apparently vanishes completely... Or both.

This is why James Randi's $1million prize has never been claimed.

As of yet, no on has found direct, testable evidence for God, which, being unfalsifiable, is impossible, but no one can even find a single example of anything which can't be explained by the laws of nature. And finding such evidence should be a piece of cake for a God as busy as the Christian one.

So in these cases, where a supernatural event is claimed to have occurred, and then appears to either be explained naturally or to have never occurred at all. We can conclude one of two things...

1) That the natural explanation is correct and the witness to the claimed phenomena was either mistaken or lying.

2) That a supernatural being/agent appeared, defied or suspended the laws of the universe momentarily for some reason, only to reinstate those laws and return everything back to how it was originally, before any evidence could be gathered.

Let's ask Mr Occam...

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sam's post
19-08-2014, 08:09 PM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
Bollocks, got a bit carried away there...

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 08:33 PM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
"Stop asking for evidence for God."

"Okay. Disband your church, toss your holy book and quit praying at the School Board meetings, and we'll call it square."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Astreja's post
19-08-2014, 08:46 PM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
This would be a pantheistic god, not a theistic god. If they want to argue that the universe is god I suppose that cannot be disproven. I would make the point that if this is the case, then who cares? It is just as easy to think of the universe as not conscious as it is conscious. The God described in the bible is supposed to have done very specific things, for which their should be evidence. I guess by that line of reasoning, this would make god separate from reality (whatever that means), and therefore provable or disprovable.

Whenever an apologist throws up a semantic argument like this one, rife with equivocations and weasel words, it always feels like they are leading the cart before the horse. I can buy into the concept of god intellectual as a metaphysical and transcendental being. If you want me to pray to your god, with the son and the holy ghost, heaven, hell, and all the rest then you need to provide evidence for that at least. Do that much and then we talk about whether the concept of god is coherent or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
19-08-2014, 11:19 PM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  "If God created reality, He cannot be separate from it."

So if I write a computer program, I can't be separate from the computer program?

(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  He did not create this part of reality over here, but not that one over there. He created all of reality. That being the case, he cannot be separate from reality.

Same question about a computer program. This is word salad that will numb your brain into not fighting it followed by a blatantly unsupported assertion.

(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  Now let's examine the word evidence. Evidence is evidence of "something specific" as opposed to everything else. If I give you proof that this fruit is an apple, is because its different from an orange.

It is because it has evident (ie, immediately and obviously sensible) qualities that distinguish it from an orange.

(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  If they were not separate and different, I will not be able to provide evidence of one or the other. That is how science works. It categorizes and differentiates.

Among other things.

(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  But you cannot separate God momentarily from reality in order to provide evidence specifically for Him as opposed to everything else. If you could be able to, then it would not be God. God cannot be proved through the methods of science.

Soooooo.... is this pantheism, or panentheism? I always get the two mixed up. In any case, this guy is making a case (based on his earlier, unsupported, God's not separate from reality) for "God exists" and "no God exists" being utterly indistinguishable, thus making the entire notion of God identical to the idea of no-God. Also, trite, academic, and irrelevant.

(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  Does this mean that that making a claim for God is unjustified ? Of course not.
There are many things that exist but cannot be proven through scientific method. A basic one is consciousness. You cannot prove consciousness. You must assume it, because you must be conscious while you do those other scientific experiments.

Turing Test, muthafuckas. Also, someone revoke every anesthesiologist's license. They can't tell if people are conscious.

Seriously? The very act of formulating the thought "I am conscious" proves it to be true.

(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  Another example is mathematics. You can use those cool second degree differential equations to provide some complex proofs.
But it will all be dependent on mathematical axioms, which cannot be proven but have to be assumed.

Given that math boils down to logical if-then statements, you don't need to prove the condition to prove the implication itself.

(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  So asking for empirical evidence of God is absurd.

Assuming you're right about God being indistinguishable from reality.... and ignoring all that crap you just said that you thought was support but wasn't... I buy this. That's because God is not separate from reality. If you want to study this person's God, YOU DO SCIENCE, because that's how you study reality. Really, how is this different from just redefining the word "reality" or "universe" or whatever and arbitrarily declaring, "that's God"?

(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  knowledge of spirituality must come through existential ways. So when you ask for empirical evidence for the spiritual, it means you don't know what you're talking about.

Existential... ways? Um.... a state of existence is a form of evidence, donchyaknow.

(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  This should put that silly " evidence" question to rest once and for all."

The bottom line is, if you don't have evidence, you don't know. You have no way of having come to knowledge. Whatever method of reasoning or observation brought you to your present conclusion? If it's a good method, then that's your evidence, even if you don't call it evidence. If it's a bad method, then you're either wrong, or you just won the longest-odds multiple-choice lottery ever. SOMETHING brought this person to believe what they're spouting. What was it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 11:46 PM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  I recently heard this argument the other day… Help?


"If God created reality, He cannot be separate from it. He did not create this part of reality over here, but not that one over there. He created all of reality. That being the case, he cannot be separate from reality.
Now let's examine the word evidence. Evidence is evidence of "something specific" as opposed to everything else. If I give you proof that this fruit is an apple, is because its different from an orange.
If they were not separate and different, I will not be able to provide evidence of one or the other. That is how science works. It categorizes and differentiates. But you cannot separate God momentarily from reality in order to provide evidence specifically for Him as opposed to everything else. If you could be able to, then it would not be God.
God cannot be proved through the methods of science. Does this mean that that making a claim for God is unjustified ? Of course not.
There are many things that exist but cannot be proven through scientific method. A basic one is consciousness. You cannot prove consciousness. You must assume it, because you must be conscious while you do those other scientific experiments.
Another example is mathematics. You can use those cool second degree differential equations to provide some complex proofs.
But it will all be dependent on mathematical axioms, which cannot be proven but have to be assumed.
So asking for empirical evidence of God is absurd. knowledge of spirituality must come through existential ways. So when you ask for empirical evidence for the spiritual, it means you don't know what you're talking about.
This should put that silly " evidence" question to rest once and for all."



Sounds… circular.

Never!

And also this person needs to learn what an axiom is.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 11:51 PM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
Both the apple and the orange exist. We have evidence of their existence. What about invisible, intangible apples that we have no evidence for. Do those exist ? How big are those apples that we can't see or touch or detect in any way ? If we can't detect them, how do we know they're apples ?

Because we invented them in our minds.
If you can't detect a god, just like you can't detect invisible, intangible apples, then you can't know anything about it. And that means its an invention of your own mind.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
20-08-2014, 01:18 AM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
You guy rock! Very well thought out answers! Good to know I have some reliable people in the community Smile

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 10:20 AM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
(19-08-2014 05:53 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  "If God created reality, He cannot be separate from it. He did not create this part of reality over here, but not that one over there. He created all of reality. That being the case, he cannot be separate from reality.
Now let's examine the word evidence..."

Sounds… circular.

Here's a quick tip to nip this shit in the bud:

If you can take an apologist's argument, and substitute any occurrence of "God" with "leprechaun" and it makes just as much sense (and they can't prove it wrong!), then you're probably dealing with some presuppositional bullshit.

So, if they tell you that you can't prove them wrong, look them straight in the face and tell them they can't prove leprechauns wrong. The whole thing is stupid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
20-08-2014, 11:02 AM
RE: "Stop asking for evidence for God"
(19-08-2014 08:33 PM)Astreja Wrote:  "Stop asking for evidence for God."

"Okay. Disband your church, toss your holy book and quit praying at the School Board meetings, and we'll call it square."

Also, pay the state all the tax money that was not paid since the church stopped paying taxes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: