The go a little easy on theists thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(10-02-2014 08:32 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  The thing you, and everyone else who touts the "There's no evidence" thing doesn't seem to understand, is that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, it's all in the interpretation.

I'd point you to all of reality as my evidence for the existence of God. The fact that anything exists at all is the evidence that I rely upon (see: the seemingly infinite number of posts where I have discussed the cosmological argument). You may not accept my interpretation of the evidence, and that is your prerogative, but continually saying that, "there is no evidence" is just being ignorant.

Similarly, religious people will give you tons of evidence for their own gods. Whether it be personal revelations, miracles, seeing Jesus in a cheese sandwich, etc. Now, you may not accept that evidence (in the same way that I reject it as lacking credibility), but saying that there is no evidence is once again, just ignorant.

You can address the evidence and reject it. You can argue with the interpretation. But, it is just plain ignorant to say that there isn't any evidence at all.

Oh yeah, and every shred of evidence for the "natural universe" is also consistent with a "created universe", so there's that, too...

Actually, I have noted your stance....

My reply was that if your deity is standing behind the curtain of the 'Beginning of everything' then that puts them 13 odd billion years behind us and of NO USE WHAT SO EVER.

You, then, have to show where the deity has been constantly meddling in the affairs of reality.

See the difference?

Very much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 09:12 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(10-02-2014 08:32 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  The thing you, and everyone else who touts the "There's no evidence" thing doesn't seem to understand, is that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, it's all in the interpretation.

I've echoed this many times: There is no evidence that God exists that doesn't require you to assume he exists in the first place.



(10-02-2014 08:32 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  I'd point you to all of reality as my evidence for the existence of God. The fact that anything exists at all is the evidence that I rely upon (see: the seemingly infinite number of posts where I have discussed the cosmological argument). You may not accept my interpretation of the evidence, and that is your prerogative, but continually saying that, "there is no evidence" is just being ignorant.

You still haven't proven that; you've assumed it. Don't forget the response you made in this very thread:

(06-02-2014 10:23 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
No problem, I do agree that I am just "regressing" one step further than you. We are both saying "I don't know" at some point. I guess I would only rephrase the word "assumption" to "educated guess"...it still doesn't make it right, but I don't consider it pulled out of thin air either.

While you're using the "educated guesses" verbiage, you're still willing to admit that you've just pushed the unanswered question back one step and that you can't prove that your "educated guess" isn't necessarily right. So, stop busting this out like you've "proven" it. It's been shown (and you've admitted!) that at best you are just guessing that God did it. Any further claims that you have proven God's existence with the first cause argument are dishonest.



(10-02-2014 08:32 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Similarly, religious people will give you tons of evidence for their own gods. Whether it be personal revelations, miracles, seeing Jesus in a cheese sandwich, etc. Now, you may not accept that evidence (in the same way that I reject it as lacking credibility), but saying that there is no evidence is once again, just ignorant.

You can address the evidence and reject it. You can argue with the interpretation. But, it is just plain ignorant to say that there isn't any evidence at all.

Oh yeah, and every shred of evidence for the "natural universe" is also consistent with a "created universe", so there's that, too...

Claims of revelations are just non-falsifiable claims. Given that anyone can have a "revelation" on any number of mutually exclusive belief systems should be enough to throw that out as evidence. As for Jesus-on-a-cheese-sandwich and many other miracles: humans are really good a pattern recognition; to the point of finding patterns where there are none. Again, none of these thing have ever been able to be taken as evidence without the implicit assumption that God exists in the first place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
10-02-2014, 09:21 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(10-02-2014 08:32 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 05:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  I understand quite well. All of the evidence points to a natural universe. There is no evidence for anything else.
What you don't appear to understand is that evidence is the only thing on which to stake a position.

The thing you, and everyone else who touts the "There's no evidence" thing doesn't seem to understand, is that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, it's all in the interpretation.

I'd point you to all of reality as my evidence for the existence of God. The fact that anything exists at all is the evidence that I rely upon (see: the seemingly infinite number of posts where I have discussed the cosmological argument). You may not accept my interpretation of the evidence, and that is your prerogative, but continually saying that, "there is no evidence" is just being ignorant.

Similarly, religious people will give you tons of evidence for their own gods. Whether it be personal revelations, miracles, seeing Jesus in a cheese sandwich, etc. Now, you may not accept that evidence (in the same way that I reject it as lacking credibility), but saying that there is no evidence is once again, just ignorant.

You can address the evidence and reject it. You can argue with the interpretation. But, it is just plain ignorant to say that there isn't any evidence at all.

Oh yeah, and every shred of evidence for the "natural universe" is also consistent with a "created universe", so there's that, too...

None of what you term 'evidence' is, in fact, evidence. Not revelation, not feelings, not assumptions, not any of it.

That is not by interpretation, that is by the very definition of evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-02-2014, 09:28 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
Quote:I'd point you to all of reality as my evidence for the existence of God. The fact that anything exists at all is the evidence that I rely upon

Reality is evidence of nothing but reality. It can not be used as evidence for a creative entity. It would be like arguing that the existence of puddles is indication of a puddle making god who urinates in depressions in the ground.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like natachan's post
10-02-2014, 09:48 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(09-02-2014 04:32 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay...I've kind of been following the thread.

So, Lookingforanswers, first...since this is the only reality we currently have, this is the reality by which we work things out and go by.

What is there, do you think, to show any evidence of any god sticking their fingers/pseudo-pods into this, our one and only reality?

Because, from where I'm sitting...the only place a diety can be left hiding is 13 odd billions years behind us. Which kind of makes any sort of 'wishful thinking' to them rather pointless.

Very much cheers to all.

Hey Peebothuhul, I should first preface by saying that I am a deist, so I don't believe in an interventionist God. As I mentioned to Chas, I don't accept the evidence for divine intervention, so I'll leave your first question for someone who believes in that.

As for your second point about a deity hiding 13 billion years behind us and the pointlessness, that I can respond to. I've posted this analogy a couple of times, but since you are asking the question, I'll re-post it, as you probably didn't see it.

My conception of the creator is one similar to the ultimate clockmaker. If you accept that a creator made the universe (once again, I've got tons of posts on the cosmological argument in that regard) you'd also have to accept that the creator is unimaginably powerful and unimaginably intelligent. The power is obvious (he created the universe) and the intelligence comes from looking at the universe itself. The initial conditions present at the big bang to support life are so absurdly precise that if they had been off by a hair's breadth life could not exist in the universe.

The reference to a clockmaker is that a clockmaker sets the initial conditions for his clock and sets the clock in motion. He then knows, based on those initial conditions, what time the clock will say at 2pm, or 4pm. He doesn't need to tinker with it constantly to make sure that is shows 2:30 at 2:30, he knew it at the time of setting the initial conditions.

In the case of a creator, he is much more intelligent than a clockmaker and is working from much more precise components (as he created each of those components himself). It is certainly likely that any creator such as that would know that human life would develop in 13B years later on this little rock. He doesn't need to tinker with his creation to make it so.

Moreover, it is also arguable that such a creator lives outside of time (as time is, at least arguably, a construct of our universe), in which case, he would see the effects of the initial conditions simultaneously with setting them.

In the case of why it matters, aside from being an answer to the eternal question of "where did we come from" it also gives us a basis for morality and has significant implications for the existence of an afterlife. After all, if the creator can exist in a plane of existence separate from our known universe, then it is at least possible that other beings can exist outside the universe as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
RobbyPants, I'm not arguing that I can prove it, I'm just arguing that there is evidence (or more importantly, countering Chas' point that there is no evidence). The difference is between "evidence" and "conclusive evidence". I claim to have the first, but not the second.

(10-02-2014 09:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-02-2014 08:32 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  The thing you, and everyone else who touts the "There's no evidence" thing doesn't seem to understand, is that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, it's all in the interpretation.

I'd point you to all of reality as my evidence for the existence of God. The fact that anything exists at all is the evidence that I rely upon (see: the seemingly infinite number of posts where I have discussed the cosmological argument). You may not accept my interpretation of the evidence, and that is your prerogative, but continually saying that, "there is no evidence" is just being ignorant.

Similarly, religious people will give you tons of evidence for their own gods. Whether it be personal revelations, miracles, seeing Jesus in a cheese sandwich, etc. Now, you may not accept that evidence (in the same way that I reject it as lacking credibility), but saying that there is no evidence is once again, just ignorant.

You can address the evidence and reject it. You can argue with the interpretation. But, it is just plain ignorant to say that there isn't any evidence at all.

Oh yeah, and every shred of evidence for the "natural universe" is also consistent with a "created universe", so there's that, too...

None of what you term 'evidence' is, in fact, evidence. Not revelation, not feelings, not assumptions, not any of it.

That is not by interpretation, that is by the very definition of evidence.

Well, let's take a look at the dictionary definition of evidence, shall we?

ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

By golly, objects and witness testimony actually does count as evidence?! Who knew? All these years of watching crime procedurals...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(10-02-2014 09:48 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Hey Peebothuhul, I should first preface by saying that I am a deist, so I don't believe in an interventionist God. As I mentioned to Chas, I don't accept the evidence for divine intervention, so I'll leave your first question for someone who believes in that.

As for your second point about a deity hiding 13 billion years behind us and the pointlessness, that I can respond to. I've posted this analogy a couple of times, but since you are asking the question, I'll re-post it, as you probably didn't see it.

My conception of the creator is one similar to the ultimate clockmaker. If you accept that a creator made the universe (once again, I've got tons of posts on the cosmological argument in that regard) you'd also have to accept that the creator is unimaginably powerful and unimaginably intelligent. The power is obvious (he created the universe) and the intelligence comes from looking at the universe itself. The initial conditions present at the big bang to support life are so absurdly precise that if they had been off by a hair's breadth life could not exist in the universe.

The reference to a clockmaker is that a clockmaker sets the initial conditions for his clock and sets the clock in motion. He then knows, based on those initial conditions, what time the clock will say at 2pm, or 4pm. He doesn't need to tinker with it constantly to make sure that is shows 2:30 at 2:30, he knew it at the time of setting the initial conditions.

In the case of a creator, he is much more intelligent than a clockmaker and is working from much more precise components (as he created each of those components himself). It is certainly likely that any creator such as that would know that human life would develop in 13B years later on this little rock. He doesn't need to tinker with his creation to make it so.

Moreover, it is also arguable that such a creator lives outside of time (as time is, at least arguably, a construct of our universe), in which case, he would see the effects of the initial conditions simultaneously with setting them.

In the case of why it matters, aside from being an answer to the eternal question of "where did we come from" it also gives us a basis for morality and has significant implications for the existence of an afterlife. After all, if the creator can exist in a plane of existence separate from our known universe, then it is at least possible that other beings can exist outside the universe as well.

Thank you for responding/re-posting.

*Bows

So...the deity made everything...and then everything unfolded (And is continuing to unfold, I am presuming) as they have seen fit/foretold.

So...we're all just wind up toys then? The things which are suitable for 'Us', and everything around, are all part of the big wind up thing which has yet to finish playing out to its forgone conclusion?

Again, if the deity is off faffing about 'some where else' while the clock-work toy (Reality) is ticking over on the bench (Where he left it, until it's finished its course)...Why should we, the wind up toys, care? (Other than perhaps it's been programmed into us..?)

Or, as Mister Hitchen's said "We all have free will. Because God said we must."

Very much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 10:02 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(10-02-2014 09:59 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  RobbyPants, I'm not arguing that I can prove it, I'm just arguing that there is evidence (or more importantly, countering Chas' point that there is no evidence). The difference is between "evidence" and "conclusive evidence". I claim to have the first, but not the second.

As long as we're in agreement that the evidence requires you to assume God exists in the first place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 10:04 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(10-02-2014 08:32 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 05:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  I understand quite well. All of the evidence points to a natural universe. There is no evidence for anything else.
What you don't appear to understand is that evidence is the only thing on which to stake a position.

The thing you, and everyone else who touts the "There's no evidence" thing doesn't seem to understand, is that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, it's all in the interpretation.

I'd point you to all of reality as my evidence for the existence of God. The fact that anything exists at all is the evidence that I rely upon (see: the seemingly infinite number of posts where I have discussed the cosmological argument). You may not accept my interpretation of the evidence, and that is your prerogative, but continually saying that, "there is no evidence" is just being ignorant.

Similarly, religious people will give you tons of evidence for their own gods. Whether it be personal revelations, miracles, seeing Jesus in a cheese sandwich, etc. Now, you may not accept that evidence (in the same way that I reject it as lacking credibility), but saying that there is no evidence is once again, just ignorant.

You can address the evidence and reject it. You can argue with the interpretation. But, it is just plain ignorant to say that there isn't any evidence at all.

Oh yeah, and every shred of evidence for the "natural universe" is also consistent with a "created universe", so there's that, too...

LOL @ this assclown actually thinks cheezsammichkeebus is "evidence". So much fail.

So much for anything you say being taken seriously, ever again!

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 10:06 AM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(10-02-2014 09:28 AM)natachan Wrote:  Reality is evidence of nothing but reality. It can not be used as evidence for a creative entity. It would be like arguing that the existence of puddles is indication of a puddle making god who urinates in depressions in the ground.

An object can only be used as evidence when combined with an argument. If you were trying to figure out where an object came from, you couldn't just say, "there's dirt on it, see I've got proof it's from England!" But, if you explained your analysis to be that "within that dirt there is a rare element that only exists in Northern England and decays to nothingness within 24 hours of being removed from the environment", then that dirt does become evidence.

You can look back through my posts if you want, even on this thread I think I've posted a bunch on the cosmological argument. The combination of the argument and the object (ie. the universe) constitutes evidence. If you don't accept it as conclusive, fine, but it's still evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lookingforanswers's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: