Evidence for God?

[Boss]

I described the evidence, to wit: the success of other scientific endeavors, which foments a trust in science.

Totally useless to our blind man.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I might be sorry I posted this, but it has never stopped me before!

We have learned in science that the "rules" don't always apply. We had to learn a new physics for the very small (quantum level) and it also appears that we need a new physics for the very massive (black holes and the big bang singularity).

Many aspects of science appear to be magic, so I cannot as a scientist rule out magic per se. I just need better evidence. I will always admit as a scientist that I cannot deny the possibility of a God. Just not their God. God just begs the question. The believers must have a creation of God narrative or they are not addressing the creation question at all.

It's already been explained to you why the Creator doesn't require creation. It's not PHYSICAL. Only physical things require creation. The word literally means "to bring into a state of being or existence."

Quantum physics raises another interesting point. It mathematically predicts up to 11 dimensions. That's 7 more than we're capable of interacting with as humans. So if these dimensions exist, why can't God reside in one or more of them?

He could! Unicorns and dragons could also exist in those dimensions. You aren't providing any more support for the existence of gods here than you are for the existence of unicorns and dragons.

 

[Boss]

And, faith is NOT trust. i have TRUST my car will start tomorrow morning, not "faith".

Trust and faith are synonyms... go look it up bruh!

 

[MarkDuffy]

I am very capable of understanding what others think they understand. We have had 2000 years of God evidence. I am not impressed, especially by the abandonment. As I have posted, bring back your God. Science wants an interview.

Well the blind guy isn't impressed hearing about the beauty of the sunset either.

I'll bet not! Blind people that remain positive impress the hell outta me.

 

[Boss]

I might be sorry I posted this, but it has never stopped me before!

We have learned in science that the "rules" don't always apply. We had to learn a new physics for the very small (quantum level) and it also appears that we need a new physics for the very massive (black holes and the big bang singularity).

Many aspects of science appear to be magic, so I cannot as a scientist rule out magic per se. I just need better evidence. I will always admit as a scientist that I cannot deny the possibility of a God. Just not their God. God just begs the question. The believers must have a creation of God narrative or they are not addressing the creation question at all.

It's already been explained to you why the Creator doesn't require creation. It's not PHYSICAL. Only physical things require creation. The word literally means "to bring into a state of being or existence."

Quantum physics raises another interesting point. It mathematically predicts up to 11 dimensions. That's 7 more than we're capable of interacting with as humans. So if these dimensions exist, why can't God reside in one or more of them?

He could! Unicorns and dragons could also exist in those dimensions. You aren't providing any more support for the existence of gods here than you are for the existence of unicorns and dragons.

You're right... they could indeed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.

What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?

Trust and multiple independent sources. Then there is outside peer review.

Believers & non-believers both agree on sunsets.

I've got lots of testimonials from people who believe God exists.

Yeah, and few of them actually agree. There are zillions of different visions of God.

I imagine few people would agree on the most beautiful sunset they have ever seen.

Trust and faith are not synonyms. 100% false. And, even if you were granted that siilly semantic point, I would just then use the term "evidence-based, best-odds choice" instead of "trust". So let's not waste time trying to sidestep other's points with semantic tripe. Let's stick to the ideas at hand.

 

[Boss]

You aren't providing any more support for the existence of gods here than...

Hold on now.... I'm gonna tell ya like I told the other shithead... if you came here expecting me to prove God exists to you, then you're in for a disappointment. I would hope that a grown ass man wouldn't be so silly as to think that was gonna happen. You didn't really think I was going to do that, did you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I described the evidence, to wit: the success of other scientific endeavors, which foments a trust in science.

Totally useless to our blind man.

False, and what a ridiculous thing to say. Blind people can still be educated in the sciences and understand fully the useful predictions of scientific theories. You are saying ridiculous things, now.

Okay, let's try it as multiple choice. Would a blind man be:

1) less likely

2) equally likely

3) more likely

....to accept the idea of a pink dragon flying across the sky breathing rainbows as he would the existence of a sunset?

Come on man, just capitulate. Your point has been undermined.

 

[MarkDuffy]

"Many aspects of science appear to be magic, so I cannot as a scientist rule out magic per se."

That is specious... the second statement does not follow from the first. Scientists MUST rule out magic (when performing science), because determinism must be assumed. If no cause-effect determinism, then there is no such thing as evidence. We would be unable to make any predictions about anything. We would be unable to demonstrate any causal relationship. there would be no physical laws, and no theories which yielded useful predictions.

Magic is magic, and science is science they do not and cannot overlap. they are opposites.

The believers also apparently put constraints on their magic. Some, there is only one magician. Others, there are more magicians but they are less magic. Then magic can be taught to special entities (human or spirit). The Disciples were taught or given the magic to perform miracles. That is the most difficult to believe. Once you allow magic, then you must allow many magicians.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You aren't providing any more support for the existence of gods here than...

Hold on now.... I'm gonna tell ya like I told the other shithead... if you came here expecting me to prove God exists to you, then you're in for a disappointment. I would hope that a grown ass man wouldn't be so silly as to think that was gonna happen. You didn't really think I was going to do that, did you?

i don't expect that from you, as i know that it is impossible. What i *am* expecting you to admit is that ALL of your arguments only argue one idea: that god may exist, because we cannot rule it out. I agree 100%. It is when you have overstepped this limit on your arguments that you and I have butted heads.

And I find it telling that you keep sidestepping my question about the blind man. I think it sets a limit on the value of faith versus the limit of evidence-based trust, and you find that distasteful to admit. Why? You can accept all evidence-based knowledge for what it is... none of it rules out the existence of magical sky wizards, which would be the only method by which it would be any sort of refutation to any of your arguments.

 

[Boss]

Trust and faith are not synonyms. 100% false.

Well, I'm sorry but Merriam Webster doesn't agree with you.

 

[Boss]

False, and what a ridiculous thing to say. Blind people can still be educated in the sciences and understand fully the useful predictions of scientific theories. You are saying ridiculous things, now.

I didn't say they couldn't. Again... what is your empirical evidence a blind man can accept?
Come on... spit it out! Let's hear it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully. For instance, trust does not necessarily mean, "belief without evidence", as faith does, just as a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

Again, I will be happy to spell it out differently for you, and use a different term, as I have said. this will have no effect on the points you are sidestepping, however.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

False, and what a ridiculous thing to say. Blind people can still be educated in the sciences and understand fully the useful predictions of scientific theories. You are saying ridiculous things, now.

I didn't say they couldn't. Again... what is your empirical evidence a blind man can accept?
Come on... spit it out! Let's hear it?

For the 6th time: the evidence the blind man can accept comes in the success of the scientific theories in predicting events around him. So, when a blind man is told that there is a sunset in the sky, and he can reconcile this with all of the scientific knowledge we have on the universe, this is taken as evidence, ans the on-existence of the sunset would contradict all of our knowledge. that is "proof", just as any proof by contradiction is proof.

The blind man also accepts that, when he drops a feather, it hits the ground, despite not seeing it do so. in fact, this is another area where your analogy is very, very weak: we can ALL be considered "the blind man" at times. When an artillery shell is shot up in the air on the other side of the world, and you have learned about gravity and ballistic paths and the shell's exit velocity in a science class... would you be more likely to believe that the shell will eventually fall, or that it will just continue in a straight line , forever, into space? Remember, you're the blind man... never seen an artillery shell fired, not once...

You, OF COURSE, would agree that the shell would fall back to earth, because you take the success of our theories as evidence of the truth of their predictions. period. There is NO argument to be had, there. the blind man sitting next to you would make the EXACT same determination.


And AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, I ask you to answer why a blind man would obviously be more willing to accept the existence of a sunset than he would a pink dragon, breathing rainbows, flying across the sky. By the way, it's very impolite to keep sidestepping my questions, after repeatedly asking questions which I directly answer. You don't seem like an impolite person... maybe there is another reason you are ignoring my question that is causing you to behave impolitely...

 

[Boss]

i don't expect that from you, as i know that it is impossible. What i *am* expecting you to admit is that ALL of your arguments only argue one idea: that god may exist, because we cannot rule it out. I agree 100%. It is when you have overstepped this limit on your arguments that you and I have butted heads.

And I find it telling that you keep sidestepping my question about the blind man. I think it sets a limit on the value of faith versus the limit of evidence-based trust, and you find that distasteful to admit. Why? You can accept all evidence-based knowledge for what it is... none of it rules out the existence of magical sky wizards, which would be the only method by which it would be any sort of refutation to any of your arguments.

You have yet to produce one tiny little shred of evidence the blind man can trust that sunsets are beautiful. NOTHING! I keep asking and you keep giving me malarkey. You keep referring to "evidence-based" when you mean "physical evidence" and there is no clear physical evidence of spiritual beings. The only evidence they have is spiritual evidence... there's plenty of that but you're blind to it.... just like the blind guy.

You're demanding to be shown some kind of evidence that we can't show you... It's like the blind man demanding we prove sunsets are beautiful by sound, smell, hearing or touch. Can't be done! He can either trust and have faith or not.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You aren't providing any more support for the existence of gods here than...

Hold on now.... I'm gonna tell ya like I told the other shithead... if you came here expecting me to prove God exists to you, then you're in for a disappointment. I would hope that a grown ass man wouldn't be so silly as to think that was gonna happen. You didn't really think I was going to do that, did you?

i don't expect that from you, as i know that it is impossible. What i *am* expecting you to admit is that ALL of your arguments only argue one idea: that god may exist, because we cannot rule it out. I agree 100%. It is when you have overstepped this limit on your arguments that you and I have butted heads.

And I find it telling that you keep sidestepping my question about the blind man. I think it sets a limit on the value of faith versus the limit of evidence-based trust, and you find that distasteful to admit. Why? You can accept all evidence-based knowledge for what it is... none of it rules out the existence of magical sky wizards, which would be the only method by which it would be any sort of refutation to any of your arguments.

One of mah fav



Faith is blind, science is not!

 

[Boss]

Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully. For instance, trust does not necessarily mean, "belief without evidence", as faith does, just as a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

Again, I will be happy to spell it out differently for you, and use a different term, as I have said. this will have no effect on the points you are sidestepping, however.

Who believes in a God they don't have evidence for?

 

[Boss]

Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully.

In the context you are using it's a synonym.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"You have yet to produce one tiny little shred of evidence the blind man can trust that sunsets are beautiful."

Because I have no need of any kind to argue anything about that. i was arguing that the blind man accepts the existence of a sunset, and why, and that doing so is NOT an example of "faith". Some people may think sunsets are ugly. "Are sunsets beautiful?" is an objective question, not unlike, "Is Korn's music beautiful?". This line is irrelevant, and I will not continue it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Merriam Webster says they are sometimes synonyms, when used a certain way. It also presents differences that can make them not always synonyms. You should read dictionaries more carefully.

In the context you are using it's a synonym.

False, I specifically and clearly delineated the difference, as anyone can read for themselves in the thread. Again, i already agreed to no longer trigger you by using the word 'trust", and will now bend over backwards to soothe your delicate sensibilities by using the term, "evidence-based determination". As you might be able to tell by my snark, i find semantic arguments to be the bottom of the barrel, unworthy of respect or attention. Argue with what i am clearly saying I mean, not with what meanings you are imposing on my statements. That is some seriously weak sauce and amounts to nothing but rigging the game for yourself.