Evidence for God?

[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.

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

You do, i think. So does everyone else who believes in gods. That's why this belief is called "faith".

 

[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.

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.

No, you basically repeated yourself and claimed you didn't. Sorry if you find semantics arguments weak, you shouldn't raise them if that's the case. I'm responding your your false assertion that "faith" isn't the same as "trust" in this context. They mean exactly the same thing in the context we're using them.

The blind man can have faith that sunsets are beautiful. He knows what beauty is but he relates it to music, smells, tastes and touch. He doesn't know what seeing is so he can't relate to scenic beauty... means absolutely nothing to him. All he can ever do is have faith that some have this thing they call "seeing beauty" in sunsets.

The same is true with Spiritualism. You can't "see" it. It doesn't mean it isn't there or the people who experience it are dumb and stupid... or that they don't rely on evidence for physical things... or don't believe in science.

 

[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?

You do, i think. So does everyone else who believes in gods. That's why this belief is called "faith".

People who I know who believe in God can talk to you for hours about the spiritual evidence they have for the God they believe in.

I'm a person who has very little "FAITH" in things I can't find evidence for. That's why I don't believe in the white-bearded deity sitting on a cloud with a Charlton Heston voice, casting his judgement down from the heavens. If I didn't have very strong evidence of a Spiritual Energy which I connect with daily, I could never believe in it. But you see... I DO have that evidence so it's not really "FAITH" for me.

 

[MarkDuffy]

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?

Every believer

Where's my prize?

 

[Boss]

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...

But you're trying to change the parameters of my analogy to fit your narrative. I never said the blind man didn't believe the sun sets. You're absolutely correct that he could just as soon be asked to believe in pink dragons breathing rainbows... wouldn't mean anything to him because he cannot see. What is pink? What is a rainbow? Asking him to accept that sunsets are beautiful is the same thing... he has nothing to base that belief on.

 

[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?

Every believer

Where's my prize?

Again, you are wrong.... must be hard to get used to?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

That's Bullshit ScienceFan.. It's MUCH easier to believe and fathom most parts of the Bible than it is the Big Bang. To believe that all the energy, all the matter, and all the in between we still don't have a handle on -- fit in a space smaller than the head of the pin ---- is AN IMMENSE leap of faith. No matter how many blackboards you fill up with equations.

The Big Bang SIMPLE??? That's a riot..

Where did God come from?

'... And on the first day, man created god(s)'.

Funny thing is, there were a lot of of gods before somebody invented the christian god.

I always wonder how christians can defend their god as the one true god when they stole him from other, older religions.

[emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Currently, there are about 4000 actively worshipped gods.

That's a lot of dogma to choose from!

[emoji57]




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[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.

No, you basically repeated yourself and claimed you didn't. Sorry if you find semantics arguments weak, you shouldn't raise them if that's the case. I'm responding your your false assertion that "faith" isn't the same as "trust" in this context. They mean exactly the same thing in the context we're using them.

The blind man can have faith that sunsets are beautiful. He knows what beauty is but he relates it to music, smells, tastes and touch. He doesn't know what seeing is so he can't relate to scenic beauty... means absolutely nothing to him. All he can ever do is have faith that some have this thing they call "seeing beauty" in sunsets.

The same is true with Spiritualism. You can't "see" it. It doesn't mean it isn't there or the people who experience it are dumb and stupid... or that they don't rely on evidence for physical things... or don't believe in science.

I understand that someone can have faith that a sunset is beautiful. I don't disagree. I think we are talking past each other.

And, just to get it out there again, you have made the argument that gods are a possibility, because it is possible that we are completely ignorant of the evidence. I don't disagree with that, either.

Where we have diverged is what I see as a false equivalence you are slowly trying to construct, and my reaponse to it. That false equivalence being: evidence-based determinations are no different thean faith, as it is all faith.

 

[JoeMoma]

This discussion kind of reminds me of Flatland, which was a book about shapes that lived in a two dimensional universe that could not comprehend three dimensions. I never read the book, but I've seen an animated movie based on it.

There is so much that we humans are just beginning to understand and some things that we may never really understand due the limitations of our existence.

How did the existence of mass and energy come about? Was there ever a time mass and energy didn't exist or has it always existed? The second law of thermodynamics would suggest that the universe would eventually wind down. How did it get wound up to begin with?

We might simply be living in a simulation that someone created in an even more complex universe.

 

[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.

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.

No, you basically repeated yourself and claimed you didn't. Sorry if you find semantics arguments weak, you shouldn't raise them if that's the case. I'm responding your your false assertion that "faith" isn't the same as "trust" in this context. They mean exactly the same thing in the context we're using them.

The blind man can have faith that sunsets are beautiful. He knows what beauty is but he relates it to music, smells, tastes and touch. He doesn't know what seeing is so he can't relate to scenic beauty... means absolutely nothing to him. All he can ever do is have faith that some have this thing they call "seeing beauty" in sunsets.

The same is true with Spiritualism. You can't "see" it. It doesn't mean it isn't there or the people who experience it are dumb and stupid... or that they don't rely on evidence for physical things... or don't believe in science.

I understand that someone can have faith that a sunset is beautiful. I don't disagree. I think we are talking past each other.

And, just to get it out there again, you have made the argument that gods are a possibility, because it is possible that we are completely ignorant of the evidence. I don't disagree with that, either.

Where we have diverged is what I see as a false equivalence you are slowly trying to construct, and my reaponse to it. That false equivalence being: evidence-based determinations are no different thean faith, as it is all faith.

And what I am trying to get you to understand with the clever analogy is that "evidence" is subjective to the perspective of the individual who values it as such. The magnanimous beauty of the contrasting hues in a sunset is not "evidence" to someone who doesn't comprehend sight. That doesn't in any way render the sunset less beautiful.

There is clear evidence for a Spiritual Force greater than self. Man's own history proves this. It's incontrovertible. The fact that you find no value in the evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. Likewise, many can realize evidence you don't see and you're like the blind man saying, "How can I believe the sunset is beautiful if I can't hear it?" No one will ever be able to give you the evidence you require to believe. If there ever is (and there could be) physical evidence of the spiritual, it becomes physical by nature. If it can be explained physically, it's no longer spiritual.

 

[Boss]

This discussion kind of reminds me of Flatland, which was a book about shapes that lived in a two dimensional universe that could not comprehend three dimensions. I never read the book, but I've seen an animated movie based on it.

There is so much that we humans are just beginning to understand and some things that we may never really understand due the limitations of our existence.

How did the existence of mass and energy come about? Was there ever a time mass and energy didn't exist or has it always existed? The second law of thermodynamics would suggest that the universe would eventually wind down. How did it get wound up to begin with?

We might simply be living in a simulation that someone created in an even more complex universe.

Well that's the thing. I think we can all agree on mathematics. The calculations on quantum mechanics says we have 7 more dimensions that we're not even aware of. Some theoretical physicists say there could be completely different reality happening in the very same space and time we occupy. To me... this could explain spiritualism and a whole lot more. Perhaps the phenomenon we experience as ghosts or aliens are things which briefly cross over into our dimensions?

 

[task0778]

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.

No, you basically repeated yourself and claimed you didn't. Sorry if you find semantics arguments weak, you shouldn't raise them if that's the case. I'm responding your your false assertion that "faith" isn't the same as "trust" in this context. They mean exactly the same thing in the context we're using them.

The blind man can have faith that sunsets are beautiful. He knows what beauty is but he relates it to music, smells, tastes and touch. He doesn't know what seeing is so he can't relate to scenic beauty... means absolutely nothing to him. All he can ever do is have faith that some have this thing they call "seeing beauty" in sunsets.

The same is true with Spiritualism. You can't "see" it. It doesn't mean it isn't there or the people who experience it are dumb and stupid... or that they don't rely on evidence for physical things... or don't believe in science.

I understand that someone can have faith that a sunset is beautiful. I don't disagree. I think we are talking past each other.

And, just to get it out there again, you have made the argument that gods are a possibility, because it is possible that we are completely ignorant of the evidence. I don't disagree with that, either.

Where we have diverged is what I see as a false equivalence you are slowly trying to construct, and my reaponse to it. That false equivalence being: evidence-based determinations are no different thean faith, as it is all faith.

And what I am trying to get you to understand with the clever analogy is that "evidence" is subjective to the perspective of the individual who values it as such. The magnanimous beauty of the contrasting hues in a sunset is not "evidence" to someone who doesn't comprehend sight. That doesn't in any way render the sunset less beautiful.

There is clear evidence for a Spiritual Force greater than self. Man's own history proves this. It's incontrovertible. The fact that you find no value in the evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. Likewise, many can realize evidence you don't see and you're like the blind man saying, "How can I believe the sunset is beautiful if I can't hear it?" No one will ever be able to give you the evidence you require to believe. If there ever is (and there could be) physical evidence of the spiritual, it becomes physical by nature. If it can be explained physically, it's no longer spiritual.

Well, I dunno. Consider that there are literally thousands of cases where a person can relate information about a place she/he's never been and people she/he's never met because her/is soul has been reincarnated from a past life to the current one. Check this out: there's a 6 year old kid who under hypnosis reveals that he was a Navy pilot in WWII and was KIA in the Pacific theater. This kid knows the names and numbers of the plane he flew and the ship he was on and many other details relative to that prior life. Does that count as physical evidence? There are tape recordings of people under hypnosis describing places and things they never been to and speaking in languages that they do not know when conscious, even a dead language that nobody speaks today. Sounds like physical evidence of a spiritual soul to me.

Bunk you say? Okay by me, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. BUT I do think there is quite a lot we do not yet know about what reality is in total. There's a lot of stories out there about near death experiences and psychics that can receive images from people who have passed away who are trying to communicate with the living. Is it all BS? Dunno. Food for thought: there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio. (Hamlet)

So - to the point about the existence of God. The existence of an immortal spiritual soul would seem to indicate the existence of some higher power capable of creating such. It would be kinda hard for science to explain that away, and deny it's existence. Again, okay by me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"And what I am trying to get you to understand with the clever analogy is that "evidence" is subjective to the perspective of the individual who values it as such. "

yes, I know. I just said so in my last post. Thank you for addressing the crux of the matter, instead of sidestepping it.

Not all evidence is "equally subjective:", and just merely pointing out a degree of subjectivity of a bit of evidence does not throw any and all evidence in the wastebin of subjectivity. Again, this is the false equivalence you are trying to construct, and it is nonsensical. You could not possibly, pragmatically or philosophically, live this way.

And again, I take you back to my question:

Why is a blind man more likely to believe the sunset exists than a pink dragon overhead exists? Answer me that.

 

[Boss]

"And what I am trying to get you to understand with the clever analogy is that "evidence" is subjective to the perspective of the individual who values it as such. "

yes, I know. I just said so in my last post. Thank you for addressing the crux of the matter, instead of sidestepping it.

Not all evidence is "equally subjective:", and just merely pointing out a degree of subjectivity of a bit of evidence does not throw any and all evidence in the wastebin of subjectivity. Again, this is the false equivalence you are trying to construct, and it is nonsensical. You could not possibly, pragmatically or philosophically, live this way.

And again, I take you back to my question:

Why is a blind man more likely to believe the sunset exists than a pink dragon overhead exists? Answer me that.

Well my argument was not that the blind man didn't believe the sun physically sets. He doesn't accept there is beauty in a sunset because his senses prohibit him from relating to it. You may as well be trying to convince him a pink dragon exists overhead, it's the same thing... he has no concept of what pink is or a dragon for that matter. He's never seen one.

 

[Boss]

Not all evidence is "equally subjective:", and just merely pointing out a degree of subjectivity of a bit of evidence does not throw any and all evidence in the wastebin of subjectivity.

Well it either IS or ISN'T subjective. You can't have it both ways.

I've talked to people who claim to have evidence of UFOs. My subjective analysis doesn't match theirs. I hear people talking about 9/11 being an inside job and they can show me the evidence. My subjective evaluation of their evidence doesn't match theirs. O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury who subjectively evaluated the evidence differently.

So I have to conclude evidence is subjective to the individual who values it as such. I can tell you all day long about MY evidence for God but you don't value my evidence as evidence.

 

[RWS]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

Evidence to the contrary=-?

Somehow I don't think you were there and can provide eyewitness testimony.

That doesn't mean we can't try to figure out what happened. We also weren't around to witness dinosaurs roaming the earth. But we know they did.

The believers also need to explain why there are no dinosaurs in the Bible.

It is obvious that man made God and not God made man, or God would know this simple fact.

God knows nothing man didn't know. We know why God was so stupid, he is made-made fantasy.

So you're claiming you know everything that God knows, correct?

Nah, somehow, I'm of the opinion you're pretty much derp, sorry.

Another 6000-year Earther... We were not created 6000 years ago. 6000 years ago is when the Sumerians invented writing and started writing stuff down.

Your religion has taken their writings and changed it, over thousands of years, to make you believe that the Earth was created about 6000 years ago. That was simply the beginning of Sumerian civilization. And the beginning of writing, science, math, and a whole boatload of things.

So 6000 years ago, recorded history began. But a whole lot of shit happened for billions of years before that.

 

[RWS]

You all have to eventually let go of your blind beliefs and dedication to something you were born into. Very, very few of you got to choose your religion. It was chosen for you based on your parents, and then societal influence kept you on that path. The reason for societal influence on you and your parents is that your ancestors were conquered by the religion you adhere to. And they faced death and torture and slavery, if they didn't adhere. So now here you are, in present-day, where a lot of those evils have been swept away by the sands of time and you think you believe in a Santa Claus religion of goodness and sweetness and (cough) love. But the horrors of your religion did exist, and still do inside you today, once ruffled up enough. And once called upon, you will revert to the blood lust that is necessary to keep your religion going.

On another angle, there's a reason nobody in NK rises up against Kim Jong-un. They are either totally brainwashed, or fear for their lives or their family's lives. So they regard him as a "God" and follow him like a religion. And think, or forced to think, that he's the greatest thing on Earth. Exactly what was done to our ancestors that ended up being forced to follow religions based on the OT, and committing some of the worst crimes that we know about based on their orders from their leaders.

That's what religion has done to believers, whether it be spiritual or political. Just deny everything that happens in the world, and destroy everything to promote your goal. Be ignorant of everything else, even to the point where you think things like the Earth is really around 6000 years old, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Boss, you should love this!

Last night I was surfing teevee and found this show on the special earth with scientific blurb as description. Before and after were religious shows, so I guessed it would be another Intelligent Design thingie.

Yep it was. Mostly about the Rare Earth Hypothesis and how the moon was REQUIRED for just about everything including chocolate milk. I enjoyed the show and ripping it apart was just an added bonus.

Anyhoo, since you also love to argue universal constants, they go along with the Rare Earth Hypothesis.

So I was thinking, why all the complexity? Why did your spirit God make the universe and life so complex so that the earth is the only planet with life? Should not he have been able to do his magic much more simply?

You argue that the complexity requires a magical God. I claim that the complexity is evidence of no God. Magic is simple, not complex.

 

[BULLDOG]

Boss, you should love this!

Last night I was surfing teevee and found this show on the special earth with scientific blurb as description. Before and after were religious shows, so I guessed it would be another Intelligent Design thingie.

Yep it was. Mostly about the Rare Earth Hypothesis and how the moon was REQUIRED for just about everything including chocolate milk. I enjoyed the show and ripping it apart was just an added bonus.

Anyhoo, since you also love to argue universal constants, they go along with the Rare Earth Hypothesis.

So I was thinking, why all the complexity? Why did your spirit God make the universe and life so complex so that the earth is the only planet with life? Should not he have been able to do his magic much more simply?

You argue that the complexity requires a magical God. I claim that the complexity is evidence of no God. Magic is simple, not complex.

Rare Earth? They were great back in 70