What kind of evidence would prove god ?

hide2013 · 23-01-2013 6:08pm

the widest definition of god is that he is a pure spirit. as such he not capable of being verified scientifically. any other type of proof tends to fall into the cathegory of events we currently cant scientifically explain being regarded as a miracle even though they do no more than demonstrate the current limitations of scientific knowledge. god can neither be proven to exist nor disproven if you stick to the pure spirit definition

swampgas · 23-01-2013 9:02pm

This thread reminds me of my dear mother. When I asked her how she could be so sure Catholics were right and Protestants, Jews and Muslims (and everyone else) were wrong, she said, without a hint of irony: "Yeah, they think they're right, but we Catholics know we're right!".

Kiwi in IE · 24-01-2013 12:41am

The world becoming religion free would prove God!

zenno · 25-01-2013 9:09am

God.

We all want to believe in a God, but when I questioned this God theory I came to an understanding with myself.

This so-called God doesn't exist the way we all think it exists.

The reason I say this is because of many years of watching human beings and all peoples interactions with each other locally and world-wide in their lost way's of damaging their own species, and I alway's thought if there was a God why would this God allow such death and destruction of it's own creation ?.

One minute your here, the next minute your gone/dead. The people or family you love and hold dearly can be taken from you in the blink of an eye and the pain of the loss of a close one can be soul destroying, only to say, why did God allow this to happen.

Wheres God when I need him/her/it ?

An example...

At 8:00pm wednesday evening 23.01.2013 I heard a cry and walked in to my mothers room and she was having a major heart attack in front of me, she was perfectly fine 15 minutes earlier but it happened out of nowhere and was that bad i thought I was going to lose her there on the spot, she even said to me she is going to die but she was saved by quick thinking and ambulance responce time. This made me think deeply about this God we think exists.

The reality of this world we live in is complex and we can all be taken away in an instant just like a dust particle hit by a tornado, but the real God in my opinion is you, the human being that has love and respect for the ones they love and adore and of which will look after each other equally in a real civilized manner. In my eyes the philosophical and intelligently-minded human being is a God, because I have seen more goodness from certain human beings than I have from a statue or a book or the lacking evidence of the retail God.

People look up into the sky and wonder where he/it is, when all along This God is you, a human being. The lives saved just like my mothers the other day could not have happened if I cried out to God to help her as she would have died right there, but human beings, as in the ambulance crew that saved her life realistically, more than a book or prayer or praying to a stone statue or the brainwashed God we were forced to believe in.

I said God was electrical energy in previous posts and this i'm sure is true because every living thing on this planet and in space exists via electrical energy of which is in every human being. Dark energy as well as to our understanding.

Human beings will eventually understand that they are Gods, good ones I hope, but thats up to you all isn't it.

pauldla · 25-01-2013 10:49am

I hope your mother makes a full and speedy recovery, zenno.

zenno · 25-01-2013 2:24pm

pauldla wrote: »

I hope your mother makes a full and speedy recovery, zenno.

I hope so myself. Thanks for your kind comment. I'm not sure what to believe anymore.

HHobo · 29-01-2013 3:43pm

I often hear Christians claiming that God "revealed" himself to us. The many possible flashing joke aside, isn't this counter to allowing us the free will to either believe or not? Apparently, all are without excuse for not believing in God. This suggests to me that God is under the impression that he has umbiguously declared his existence. Given his omnipotence, couldn't he provide for each of us the evidence sufficient to have us believe. This would still allow us to "rebel" against God if we choose. He wouldn't be forcing us to love him or accept his love, just making certain we know he is there. This would seem to be entirely in keeping with what God already thinks is the status quo.

Apparently God so loves being vague and mysterious and providing no reasonable evidence for his existence that he would rather see us suffer for eternity then bother letting us make an informed decision. If he made his presence know to all (some Christians claim he has made his presence felt to them directly) he might someone infringe on our freedom to be ignorant of the truth, and he is quite unwilling to do us this great harm. Allowing us to suffer for eternity... yep, he's ok with allowing that one.

It is a bit like allowing a child to set itself on fire because you don't want to be an overbearing parent. The narrative of Christianity is hilariously nonsensical.

Sarky · 29-01-2013 3:46pm

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

It's those mysterious ways, don't you know. The overall Plan is obviously one that magically makes the mind-boggling suffering God inflicts a Good Thing in some unexplained moral inversion because something something faith bible. It's an amazing excuse to hide behind when confronted with reality.

antiskeptic · 30-01-2013 12:36pm

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

HHobo wrote: »

I often hear Christians claiming that God "revealed" himself to us. The many possible flashing joke aside, isn't this counter to allowing us the free will to either believe or not?

The argument, I gather, is that people have a knowledge* of God's existence but are permitted the ability to suppress that knowledge. And suppress it they do.

An example would be a persons knowing that such and such is a morally wrong thing to do. And in so knowing they must acknowledge a law-giver who stands above man. For if man alone then morality is only relative.

One way to suppress this knowledge is to do just that: relativize morality by saying "what's good for you is good for you". Of course, they don't actually live that way - they'll feel as wronged as anyone else if someone burgles their house. But that's not the point - the point is to suppress the knowledge and once that's done, mission is accomplished.

*where this knowledge of good and evil is something God simply equips us with from the get go. There is no requirement for us to derive it or support it in order that we know it. And be held accountable because we knew and acted contrary to it.

robindch · 30-01-2013 12:47pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

An example would be a persons knowing that such and such is a morally wrong thing to do. And in so knowing they must acknowledge a law-giver who stands above man.

Another example being where a person feeling that something is wrong, then accepts that the feeling is generated by a brain shaped by millions of years of pro-social evolutionary pressure, thus proving that evolution is true.

seamus · 30-01-2013 1:04pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

*where this knowledge of good and evil is something God simply equips us with from the get go.

I thought God specifically didn't equip us with this knowledge, rather instead ensconced it in a magic apple tree. As such, the reason God hates us is precisely because we have the knowledge of good and evil and he doesn't want us to have it?

pauldla · 30-01-2013 1:25pm

seamus wrote: »

I thought God specifically didn't equip us with this knowledge, rather instead ensconced it in a magic apple tree. As such, the reason God hates us is precisely because we have the knowledge of good and evil and he doesn't want us to have it?

It wasn't a magic apple tree. The Bible does not state that it was an apple tree. It was just a magic tree.

Atheists always twist the Bible for their own nefarious ends.

antiskeptic · 30-01-2013 2:17pm

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

robindch wrote: »

Another example being where a person feeling that something is wrong, then accepts that the feeling is generated by a brain shaped by millions of years of pro-social evolutionary pressure, thus proving that evolution is true.

a) Evolution is a theory. Theories are shown to be robust, they aren't proven to be fact, or true or the like.

b) A robust theory (and the just-so-ism that supposes that because a theory is robust, all is automatically explained by it by mere wave of hand) isn't immune from demolition

c) What is true trumps what is robust should those differ.

d) 99.999% of the population isn't in a position to decide whether the theory of evolution is robust and 100% of the population isn't in a position to decide that the process that shaped them is mindless

antiskeptic · 30-01-2013 2:23pm

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

seamus wrote: »

I thought God specifically didn't equip us with this knowledge, rather instead ensconced it in a magic apple tree. As such, the reason God hates us is precisely because we have the knowledge of good and evil and he doesn't want us to have it?

God made it that the knowledge was inheritable. And so equipped us.

PopePalpatine · 30-01-2013 2:26pm

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) Evolution is a theory. Theories are shown to be robust, they aren't proven to be fact, or true or the like.

Not this bollocks again.

HHobo · 30-01-2013 2:33pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The argument, I gather, is that people have a knowledge* of God's existence but are permitted the ability to suppress that knowledge. And suppress it they do.

An example would be a persons knowing that such and such is a morally wrong thing to do. And in so knowing they must acknowledge a law-giver who stands above man. For if man alone then morality is only relative.

then morality is only relative.

I don't really understand this objection. Firstly, I assume that by relative, subjective is intended. You can be a moral subjectivist and still believe that your morality is binding on everyone. That last sentance would be a pretty decend definition of God in this context.

Even in the flawed sense that the argument is proposed, it still doesn't hold water. Most of the objections that people raise with biblical morality are not that it prohibts X or Y but that it permits X or Y. It isn't a case generally of "I can't have sex before marriage. I beleive that if I do I will suffer for all eternity but I think I go ahead anyway because I don't want there to be an authority over me but really I know there is.... or some similiarly ludicrous "reasoning". Mostly people say things like "I don't think that genocide is moral. The god in the bible seems to think it is. I don't think the biblical god is moral. This argument only speaks to moral intuitions. God might well exist and be completely evil. If anyone knew God existed, regardless of Gods moral worth, and they believed that they would be tortured forever for disobeying this God, they are going to obey. It doesn't matter if they think he is morally insane, or denying them X pleasure, they're still going to obey.

Also, I don't understand why morality possibly being subjective is even considered an argument.

It seems a bit like accepting "but if gravity on earth really is an acceleration of 9.8 metres per second squared, then gravity might hurt some people and just wouldn't be ideal, now would it?" as an arguement against newtonian physics.

antiskeptic wrote: »

One way to suppress this knowledge is to do just that: relativize morality by saying "what's good for you is good for you". Of course, they don't actually live that way - they'll feel as wronged as anyone else if someone burgles their house. But that's not the point - the point is to suppress the knowledge and once that's done, mission is accomplished.

This seems to suggesting rationalising, not surpressing. i.e. "it's ok that I burgled that house because I am really poor and needed the money and the ower of the house is rich and didn't."

This is different from supression of knowledge. "What are you talking about, I didn't burgle any houses?"

unless you mean it in the sense of "I'm special, the rules don't apply to me, but they do to you" This would be unrestrained narcassism more than an actual moral philosophy. I don't think anyone actually represents this position

antiskeptic wrote: »

*where this knowledge of good and evil is something God simply equips us with from the get go. There is no requirement for us to derive it or support it in order that we know it. And be held accountable because we knew and acted contrary to it.

One of the major problem with theist/atheist debates on any topic is that one side are allowed to say anything they please with no corroborating evidence (often things contrary to evidence) and the other side is not.

How well I wonder would the theist take the argument:
There was this book that said that morality was an offshoot of personal interest and in-group preference. The book makes no argument at all, provides no evidence and simlpy asserts that you already know this and are simply suppressing the fact. Cut it out would ya?

Against the underhanded charge of "supressing knowledge" there can be no evidentiary defence. It is the claim that a person's true thoughts and feelings on a subject are better known to the claimant than than the person they are making the claim about. It is the argumentative equivalent of "I win" or "la la la I'm not listening".

robindch · 30-01-2013 2:37pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) Evolution is a theory. Theories are shown to be robust, they aren't proven to be fact, or true or the like.

There are at least two three howling class-errors in that statement.

Are you interested in hearing any of them?

antiskeptic · 30-01-2013 2:53pm

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

robindch wrote: »

There are at least two three howling class-errors in that statement.

Are you interested in hearing any of them?

Fire away..

robindch · 30-01-2013 3:17pm

"Proving" does not happen in the physical world. "Proofs" are done in maths only.
A fact isn't "true". A fact is a data points whose credibility is sufficiently high that it's provisionally accepted as accurate and therefore, effectively axiomatic, subject to subsequent revision, should it become necessary in the light of further exploration.
A theory is an explicative, predictive framework for a series of facts. It is not some idiotic notion plucked out of the air and given a thin air of respectability by referring to it as a "theory".
You can't "prove" a "theory" "true". Ye gods. This is such a fundamental and dreadful misunderstanding of all three terms, that it makes my head hurt.

Your other three points are trivially wrong, where they have any discernible meaning in the first place. Which, to be honest, they don't.

oldrnwisr · 30-01-2013 3:30pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fire away..

1. Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Evolution is simply change over time and it is an observed fact.

2. Natural selection as the driving mechanism for evolution is the theory. It is (with the possible exception of QM) the most well-supported, well-tested theory in science.

3. A theory is the highest level of confidence in science. A theory (music, germ, gravity etc.) can never be proven and it makes no sense to talk about proof when talking about theories. It is a non-sequitur.

4. A theory once it has attained the level of theory is true for all practical purposes and will remain as such until such time as new evidence prompts the theory to be either adapted or discarded.

The worst thing here is that, not only do you not understand what the word theory means in a scientific context, you don't even understand how the scientific method works in the first place.

The way we get theories goes something like this. We make an observation about the world around us which is interesting/curious/confusing whatever. We then formulate a hypothesis to attempt to explain this observation. We then examine the hypothesis and generate a prediction. We test the prediction to see if it conforms to observation. If it is great, if not then we go back to the start. As we gather more supportive data and make more predictions which are verified by experiment we gain more confidence in the hypothesis and we end up with a comprehensive, explanatory framework, a theory.

Your problem in the context of evolution is that the evidence conflicts with the claims of your religion. You, in a way, have fallen into the old creationist false dilemma of evolution without god or god without evolution. Evolution has survived every test we have put it through. So unless you have some discordant evidence to present, or would like to highlight a weakness in the existing theory, all this talk of "just a theory" is just bull****.

antiskeptic · 30-01-2013 3:45pm

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

HHobo wrote: »

I don't really understand this objection. Firstly, I assume that by relative, subjective is intended. You can be a moral subjectivist and still believe that your morality is binding on everyone.

You can believe what you like but have no basis to appeal to those wronging you if they believe different. They feel right is being done where you feel wrong is being done. Your objections cancel each others out.

That last sentance would be a pretty decend definition of God in this context.

There is no such thing as subjective morality as such. There is how much you align with the flavour of God's character (we assign the arbitrary term 'good' to represent what that flavour is). If aligning with his character then you are also doing 'good' and if not then you are doing 'bad'.

The fact that you call 'bad' good is neither here nor there.

God is objectively good only in the sense that his character's flavour is what it is.

Even in the flawed sense that the argument is proposed, it still doesn't hold water.

What flawed sense is that?

Mostly people say things like "I don't think that genocide is moral. The god in the bible seems to think it is.

God instructs (and has a right to instruct) us as to how we behave towards others he has made. This is different to his rights to behave towards those he has made and who are subject to him

I don't think the biblical god is moral.

Neither do I (in the sense that he is faced with choice between good and evil. Per the above: what God does is automatically good simply because 'good' is a word that simply describes the flavour and character of God

This argument only speaks to moral intuitions. God might well exist and be completely evil. If anyone knew God existed, regardless of Gods moral worth, and they believed that they would be tortured forever for disobeying this God, they are going to obey. It doesn't matter if they think he is morally insane, or denying them X pleasure, they're still going to obey.

Much can be said but suffice to say that folk do things knowing that the outcome won't be good. Heroin anyone?

Sin is even more addictive than heroin

Also, I don't understand why morality possibly being subjective is even considered an argument.

It's not the argument.

The argument is that folk a) suppress knowledge that morality is absolute rendering it necessarily subjective b) don't act as if morality is subjective thereby contradicting the conclusion of a)

Cognitive dissonance is the internet discussion forum term for it.

This seems to suggesting rationalising, not surpressing. i.e. "it's ok that I burgled that house because I am really poor and needed the money and the ower of the house is rich and didn't."

I was speaking of the houseowner feeling wronged when the burglar isn't restrain by the houseowners morality.

It's a pretty useless thing to feel wronged when no one has wronged you (from their perspective).

One of the major problem with theist/atheist debates on any topic is that one side are allowed to say anything they please with no corroborating evidence (often things contrary to evidence) and the other side is not.

The argument supposes God's existence for the purposes of presenting the position. IF God exists and has equipped us so then subject to it we are - even though we haven't derived this knowledge in the normal way

Against the underhanded charge of "supressing knowledge" there can be no evidentiary defence. It is the claim that a person's true thoughts and feelings on a subject are better known to the claimant than than the person they are making the claim about. It is the argumentative equivalent of "I win" or "la la la I'm not listening".

The argument isn't attempting to prove a position. Instead, it suggests what would be the case IF God exists. Conclusions drawn in that manner can be uncomfortable for the atheist position.

Witness post 19

HHobo · 30-01-2013 3:51pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) Evolution is a theory. Theories are shown to be robust, they aren't proven to be fact, or true or the like.

b) A robust theory (and the just-so-ism that supposes that because a theory is robust, all is automatically explained by it by mere wave of hand) isn't immune from demolition

c) What is true trumps what is robust should those differ.

d) 99.999% of the population isn't in a position to decide whether the theory of evolution is robust and 100% of the population isn't in a position to decide that the process that shaped them is mindless

This is a picture perfect example of what I was referring to. A theory supported by a mountains of evidence, easily falsifiable yet has never been falsified and we are admonished by the religious that it isn't a proven fact and we should be much more reserved in accepting it and how robust isn't synonymous with true...etc.

The next sentence out of their mouth might well some invocation of the characteristics, preferences or intentions of a mythical being.

They do this with seemingly no clue as to how much of a monumental, jaw-dropping, double standard it is.
Are we ok with unevidenced, unsupportable, untestable claims or do we need outlandishly solid evidential ground on which to stand when asserting claims. Whichever is chosen, you should apply it to both sides of the argument.

antiskeptic · 30-01-2013 3:51pm

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

robindch wrote: »

"Proving" does not happen in the physical world. "Proofs" are done in maths only.

A fact isn't "true". A fact is a data points whose credibility is sufficiently high that it's provisionally accepted as accurate and therefore, effectively axiomatic, subject to subsequent revision, should it become necessary in the light of further exploration.

A theory is an explicative, predictive framework for a series of facts. It is not some idiotic notion plucked out of the air and given a thin air of respectability by referring to it as a "theory".

You can't "prove" a "theory" "true". Ye gods. This is such a fundamental and dreadful misunderstanding of all three terms, that it makes my head hurt.

Your other three points are trivially wrong, where they have any discernible meaning in the first place. Which, to be honest, they don't.

You said:

Robindch wrote:

... thus proving that evolution is true.

I said (in countering):

antiskeptic wrote:

Theories are shown to be robust, they aren't proven to be fact, or true or the like.

You said:

Robindch wrote:

You can't "prove" a "theory" "true". Ye gods.

..which merely parrots my counter to your initial "fundamental and dreadful misunderstanding".

robindch · 30-01-2013 4:03pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You said:

If you go back and have a look at what I wrote again, you'll see I copied the style and content of your post while claiming that I'd "proved" a completely contradictory position.

That's satire.

antiskeptic · 30-01-2013 4:05pm

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

oldrnwisr wrote: »

1. Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Evolution is simply change over time and it is an observed fact.

The context is ToE, not evolution

2. Natural selection as the driving mechanism for evolution is the theory. It is (with the possible exception of QM) the most well-supported, well-tested theory in science.

No problem there.

3. A theory is the highest level of confidence in science. A theory (music, germ, gravity etc.) can never be proven and it makes no sense to talk about proof when talking about theories. It is a non-sequitur.

It's Robin you need to be telling that. It's was his contention that evolution is proven true which is the 'driving mechanism for this discussion-ette

Robin wrote:

Another example being where a person feeling that something is wrong, then accepts that the feeling is generated by a brain shaped by millions of years of pro-social evolutionary pressure, thus proving that evolution is true.

4. A theory once it has attained the level of theory is true for all practical purposes and will remain as such until such time as new evidence prompts the theory to be either adapted or discarded.

I've no problem with true for all practical purposes (a.k.a. tentatively true). That's different to true.

The worst thing here is that, not only do you not understand what the word theory means in a scientific context, you don't even understand how the scientific method works in the first place.

The worst thing here is actually you're having jumped in with both feet before taking the time to read the discussion upstream.

If you don't believe me (on the matter of evolution) then quote what I've said and object to it.

Your problem in the context of evolution is that the evidence conflicts with the claims of your religion. You, in a way, have fallen into the old creationist false dilemma of evolution without god or god without evolution. Evolution has survived every test we have put it through. So unless you have some discordant evidence to present, or would like to highlight a weakness in the existing theory, all this talk of "just a theory" is just bull****.

The weakness lies less in the theory and more in the philosophy that supposes a scientific theory (any scientific theory) potentially capable of explaining everything.

alphabeat · 30-01-2013 4:09pm

the only thing that exists is Consiousness

- nothing else exists -

The universe , atoms , humans etc etc are imagined constructions inside this one super consciousness .

our own individual personal conciousness is a tiny ' quantum of consciousness ' of the one super conciousness if you will - as this is the same for any other conscious entity .
and every one of these is imagining the same universe.

without conciousness , the physical universe does not exist , not does anything that could be in it .

it is all imagined .

you could name this super consciousness 'GOD' but thats just a meaningless name.

Religion has given the impression that 'GOD' and human are seperate conscious entitys - but in reality - they are one and the same thing.

fatmammycat · 30-01-2013 4:10pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) Evolution is a theory. Theories are shown to be robust, they aren't proven to be fact, or true or the like.

b) A robust theory (and the just-so-ism that supposes that because a theory is robust, all is automatically explained by it by mere wave of hand) isn't immune from demolition

Then demolish it, if you can.

antiskeptic · 30-01-2013 4:11pm

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

robindch wrote: »

If you go back and have a look at what I wrote again, you'll see I copied the style and content of your post while claiming that I'd "proved" a completely contradictory position.

That's satire.

If you go back and look at what I wrote again you'll see that I wasn't attempting to prove anything. Rather, the person is assumed to know that morality is absolute and since that means acknowledging God, a way is found around it by way of suppression.

I was merely indicating mechanism workings not proving them.

antiskeptic · 30-01-2013 4:12pm

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

fatmammycat wrote: »

Then demolish it, if you can.

I don't need to in order for the statement to remain true.

fatmammycat · 30-01-2013 4:13pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't need to in order for the statement to remain true.

No, but if you don't believe the theory of evolution to be true, what do you consider true and what do you base your thinking on?

What kind of evidence would prove god ?

Comments