Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

J C

Here is a question for all Atheists out there:-

What would convince you that God exists ?

MilanPan!c

J C wrote: »

Here is a question for all Atheists out there:-

What would convince you that God exists ?

Evidence?

obplayer

J C wrote: »

Here is a question for all Atheists out there:-

What would convince you that God exists ?

Well a visit to Lourdes that showed glass eyes, wooden legs and such like, with the evidence that the glass eyes had been replaced by real ones and similarly with the wooden legs would be a good start. Also a voice from the sky telling us he would be opening a passage in in a sea, any sea, and then it happening would also be a step in the right direction.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

Here is a question for all Atheists out there:-

What would convince you that God exists ?

If you finally started understanding evolution and actually accepted the scientific theory. For which there is debate and controversy but nothing even remotely related to your opinions on the matter.

MilanPan!c

obplayer wrote: »

Well a visit to Lourdes that showed glass eyes, wooden legs and such like, with the evidence that the glass eyes had been replaced by real ones and similarly with the wooden legs would be a good start. Also a voice from the sky telling us he would be opening a passage in in a sea, any sea, and then it happening would also be a step in the right direction.

Of course, even if there were suddenly miracles it would be smart to be cynical.

If a government could convince people - via trickery - that a certain god was real, well... That power would be immense.

---

The real truth by the way is that if god exists we'd all know. Omnipotent supernatural entities that can create universes, but still bother to send a third of their entity into a human form, as some sort of insane "undo" for a mistake they made with "original sin" - well the chances of that sort of entity never bothering to intervene in our affairs again, except in private to the mentally ill/religious fanatics is basically nil.

So.

It's brutally obvious that the only connection people have to "god" is faith and faith is delusion without any other corresponding evidence.

antiskeptic

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Evidence?

Empirical evidence you mean?

And if God demonstrated his existence empirically you would then believe?

Of course you would!

But what then? Wouldn't you now realise that God created you and had made it so that the sense of "conviction" that comes about on receipt of "empirical evidence" is a structure created by God and installed in you. If he hadn't configured you that way, then convinced of things by empirical evidence you wouldn't be. Would you?

Since you would now realise that you are in fact reliant on God to convince you of God's existence - and not on the method itself - on what basis would you preclude God having other means whereby he bring about conviction in a person?

If no basis then the demand you make for evidence would be stripped of the need to insert 'empirical' in front, since any evidence God chose to provide a person would be good enough.


-

So as to offset likely bootstrap responses:

You would also realise (having been convinced of God's existence via empirical evidence) that the level of confidence you have arriving at conclusions via empiricism reaches the levels they do only because God decided that level of confidence was to be assigned. There is nothing to stop God assigning higher levels of confidence to other means he has of demonstrating his existence.

Which would render empiricism a second-rate means of God's demonstrating his existence

MilanPan!c

antiskeptic wrote: »

Empirical evidence you mean?

And if God demonstrated his existence empirically you would then believe?

Of course you would!

But what then? Wouldn't you now realise that God created you and had made it so that the sense of "conviction" that comes about on receipt of "empirical evidence" is a structure created by God and installed in you. If he hadn't configured you that way, then convinced of things by empirical evidence you wouldn't be. Would you?

Since you would now realise that you are in fact reliant on God to convince you of God's existence - and not on the method itself - on what basis would you preclude God having other means whereby he bring about conviction in a person?

If no basis then the demand you make for evidence would be stripped of the need to insert 'empirical' in front, since any evidence God chose to provide a person would be good enough.


-

So as to offset likely bootstrap responses:

You would also realise (having been convinced of God's existence via empirical evidence) that the level of confidence you have arriving at conclusions via empiricism reaches the levels they do only because God decided that level of confidence was to be assigned. There is nothing to stop God assigning higher levels of confidence to other means he has of demonstrating his existence.

Which would render empiricism a second-rate means of God's demonstrating his existence

Clever enough, but no.

All we have as humans - on a most basic level - is our belief in our beliefs.

I am comfortable enough with my own judgement as a human that, if I came across legitimate evidence of the existence of god, evidence I believed was irrefutable - and I don't believe this will ever happen - I would accept that judgement and try and come to terms with what ever it meant. If possible.

I'm not a reductionist like that. I doubt you actually are either.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Empirical evidence you mean?

And if God demonstrated his existence empirically you would then believe?

Of course you would!

But what then? Wouldn't you now realise that God created you and had made it so that the sense of "conviction" that comes about on receipt of "empirical evidence" is a structure created by God and installed in you. If he hadn't configured you that way, then convinced of things by empirical evidence you wouldn't be. Would you?

Since you would now realise that you are in fact reliant on God to convince you of God's existence - and not on the method itself - on what basis would you preclude God having other means whereby he bring about conviction in a person?

If no basis then the demand you make for evidence would be stripped of the need to insert 'empirical' in front, since any evidence God chose to provide a person would be good enough.


-

So as to offset likely bootstrap responses:

You would also realise (having been convinced of God's existence via empirical evidence) that the level of confidence you have arriving at conclusions via empiricism reaches the levels they do only because God decided that level of confidence was to be assigned. There is nothing to stop God assigning higher levels of confidence to other means he has of demonstrating his existence.

Which would render empiricism a second-rate means of God's demonstrating his existence

what if God demonstrated his/her/its existence non-empirically , seeing as he is all powerful, what then ?

Delirium

what exactly is non-empirical evidence?

obplayer

antiskeptic wrote: »

Empirical evidence you mean?

And if God demonstrated his existence empirically you would then believe?

Wouldn't you now realise that God created you and had made it so that the sense of "conviction" that comes about on receipt of "empirical evidence" is a structure created by God and installed in you.

If he she or it demonstrated it's existence empirically wouldn't you now realise that God created you? No, why should I?. Do you realise how you say nothing at all? Using words is not the same as logic.

MilanPan!c

marienbad wrote: »

what if God demonstrated his/her/its existence non-empirically , seeing as he is all powerful, what then ?

Through rational deduction?

marienbad

SW wrote: »

what exactly is non-empirical evidence?

I dunno, it was antiskeptic brought it up .

MilanPan!c

SW wrote: »

what exactly is non-empirical evidence?

Rationalism - ask Sherlock Holmes.

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

what if God demonstrated his/her/its existence non-empirically , seeing as he is all powerful, what then ?

Er, it seems that is already done. Hence, people of faith around and stuff.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Er, it seems that is already done. Hence, people of faith around and stuff.

Faith is the belief of things in the absence of evidence is it not Imaopml ?

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

Faith is the belief of things in the absence of evidence is it not Imaopml ?

No it is not.

MilanPan!c

lmaopml wrote: »

Er, it seems that is already done. Hence, people of faith around and stuff.

No.

People believe all sorts of nonsense.

Belief in nonsense doesn't make it not nonsense. Obviously.

MilanPan!c

lmaopml wrote: »

No it is not.

Faith:

"Faith is subjective confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view (e.g. having strong political faith) without empirical evidence."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

---


Faith is the conviction of things not seen.
- Heb 11:3

lmaopml

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Faith:

"Faith is subjective confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view (e.g. having strong political faith) without empirical evidence."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

The key word is "empirical"- and that is not exactly new or overwhelming. That is what you are looking for. Evidence- the lazy way.


It is a word used alot let's face it. However it is not applicable-you must get over not only yourself but also that....."empirical "word and not only see black and white, but also in reality that there are people of faith and how they are there at all still.

MilanPan!c

lmaopml wrote: »

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Faith:

"Faith is subjective confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view (e.g. having strong political faith) without empirical evidence."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

The key word is "empirical"- and that is not exactly new or overwhelming. That is what you are looking for. Evidence- the lazy way.

It is a word used alot let's face it. However it is not applicable-you must get over not only yourself but also that....."empirical "word and not only see black and white, but also in the reality that there are people of faith and how they are there at all..

Demanding empirical evidence before I believe in fairies, even popular ones, isn't lazy.

It's of course relevant, and even people like Jesus knew this.

He didn't walk around telling lepers to search their intellect and they'd find evidence for him being the son of god, did he?

He didn't ask Thomas to simply rationalise his miraculous rise from the dead, did he?

Religious types love to belittle empirical evidence, and even say it doesn't matter (you know why would actual evidence of a supernatural being that showed up as a man for a couple of years - and who also created all of the universe be important?).

But the fact is, if there was a god, as described by any religious teaching, we'd know.

We wouldn't be pissing about trying to decide if you need evidence to believe in a fairy or not.

And by the by, you were wrong about the definition of faith. Even the bible defines it as belief in something that can't be seen.

lmaopml

MilanPan!c wrote: »

lmaopml wrote: »

Demanding empirical evidence before I believe in fairies, even popular ones, isn't lazy.

It's of course relevant, and even people like Jesus knew this.

Exactly, case in point! He knew it, but he knew also that there would be some who would not believe.

He didn't walk around telling lepers to search their intellect and they'd find evidence for him being the son of god, did he?

Absolutely not.

He didn't ask Thomas to simply rationalise his miraculous rise from the dead, did he?

No, he didn't - In fact Thomas words on seeing the 'empirical' evidence was 'My Lord and My God'...

Religious types love to belittle empirical evidence, and even say it doesn't matter (you know why would actual evidence of a supernatural being that showed up as a man for a couple of years - and who also created all of the universe be important?).

I actually think your tone is not very nice - religious 'types' - are unfortunately for you a world wide phenomena that you are going to have to learn to live with -

But the fact is, if there was a god, as described by any religious teaching, we'd know.

Would you? Please explain this fascinating incite? In detail?

We wouldn't be pissing about trying to decide if you need evidence to believe in a fairy or not.

No, you wouldn't be pissing about on the Christianity forum if you had half the answers you presume are so very obvious to well 'you' - which you don't, so you know what you can do with that...

MilanPan!c

lmaopml wrote: »

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Exactly, case in point! He knew it, but he knew also that there would be some who would not believe.



Absolutely not.



No, he didn't - In fact Thomas words on seeing the 'empirical' evidence was 'My Lord and My God'...



I actually think your tone is not very nice - religious 'types' - are unfortunately for you a world wide phenomena that you are going to have to learn to live with -



Would you? Please explain this fascinating incite? In detail?



No, you wouldn't be pissing about on the Christianity forum if you had half the answers you presume are so very obvious to well 'you' - which you don't, so you know what you can do with that...

I do this for my own entertainment - not looking for any answers. I do have another slightly more devious reason for being here, but 99% of it is entertainment only.

As for how we'd know - it's obvious once you stop treating the "big question" like its so unknowable: the entire history of "god" - the religious book - have god interacting with humanity. The amount he interacts is inversely proportional to the amount of scientific knowledge we have as a species. The more we learn and document what we know, the less god shows up.

"God" in other words - can only exist in a world where people can't rational exam the evidence for god.

Now, you should note I'm not taking about the numbers of "faithful".

The desperate and naive and hopeless - like the poor - will always be with us. Faith - the desire to believe in something for no reason - follows all such behaviour.

It's a bit like aliens. The only reason to believe they've visited earth, is because you want to - consciously or unconsciously.

And of course the more people want something they can't control, the more they turn to irrational nonsense.

"Pray for me" etc.

It's sad, that humans haven't evolved past it all yet.

And my tone?

Have a pray and maybe "god" will give you peace.

nagirrac

MilanPan!c wrote: »

"Reasoned concept of god" is a oxymoron

No it isn't. The fact that you have no belief in God only relates to you and not to anybody else. What makes you think your ability to reason is better than anyone else's? Your condescending comments elsewhere towards the "poor" and the "naive" simply demonstrate arrogance. Some of the most brilliant minds in history and currently alive are believers, do you think they are incapable of reason, but your superior mind is?

MilanPan!c wrote: »

As for the difference between Pantheists and Panentheists, well... I am well aware of that.

Stop bluffing, if you were aware of it, you wouldn't have linked pantheism with a supernatural idea of God.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Existence is proof of existence. If you choose to label it "god" that's fine, but I'm with the majority of people that label you and Spinoza as atheists.

The majority of people, including yourself apparently, don't even know what a Pantheist is. I realize some atheists are desperate to inflate their numbers, but counting people that believe in God is taking it a bit far, no?

MilanPan!c wrote: »

And btw., the laws of the universe are fairly strict. No one but someone trying to prove some unproveable point would suggest otherwise. Those limits by definition mean that the universe is not infinitely creative, and therefore greatly limit that avenue you like to pursue.

How do you know that the laws of the universe are "fairly strict"? You are basing this claim on what exactly? What are the strict laws that determined how our universe emerged, and from what it emerged? What are the strict laws that govern the 96% of our observable universe that we cannot even describe currently?

MilanPan!c

nagirrac wrote: »

No it isn't. The fact that you have no belief in God only relates to you and not to anybody else. What makes you think your ability to reason is better than anyone else's? Your condescending comments elsewhere towards the "poor" and the "naive" simply demonstrate arrogance. Some of the most brilliant minds in history and currently alive are believers, do you think they are incapable of reason, but your superior mind is?

Stop bluffing, if you were aware of it, you wouldn't have linked pantheism with a supernatural idea of God.

The majority of people, including yourself apparently, don't even know what a Pantheist is. I realize some atheists are desperate to inflate their numbers, but counting people that believe in God is taking it a bit far, no?

How do you know that the laws of the universe are "fairly strict"? You are basing this claim on what exactly? What are the strict laws that determined how our universe emerged, and from what it emerged? What are the strict laws that govern the 96% of our observable universe that we cannot even describe currently?

OK, let's answer in reverse order, for fun.

How do I know they're strict?

Because all evidence shows this. My labelling them strict was in response to the idea that they were non-existant (the logical outcome of the belief that the universe is limitless creative). There's quite obviously no way that this universe could produce - for instance - a kitten the size of the milky way. An endlessly creative universe not only could, but would.

So - unless you are saying that it's limitless, it's limits are relatively fairly strict - so says all observation and all logic.

No onto the pantheist claptrap.

I do know what it is, and I know that pantheists try and big-up how reasonable their position is by claiming that others are pantheists, when they aren't.

Hindu aren't pantheist, neither are Taoists.

I never claimed pantheists believe in magic - instead they simply re-label all of reality as god then claim to be religious.

As for my "condescending" comments - I have no special desire to be polite to people I don't respect. Tough.

antiskeptic

MilanPan!c wrote: »

All we have as humans - on a most basic level - is our belief in our beliefs.

Indeed.

I am comfortable enough with my own judgement as a human that, if I came across legitimate evidence of the existence of god, evidence I believed was irrefutable - and I don't believe this will ever happen - I would accept that judgement and try and come to terms with what ever it meant. If possible.

So far so good. What I've done for you is lay out one consequence of concluding that God exists by empirical means. Namely, what it means for the method whereby you conclude he exists.

Have you got a response to that?

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

what if God demonstrated his/her/its existence non-empirically , seeing as he is all powerful, what then ?

Then you are in the same boat as one to whom he has demonstrated himself emprically. Convinced of his existence.

antiskeptic

SW wrote: »

what exactly is non-empirical evidence?

That which has the same function as empirical evidence: to bring about conviction that such and such is the case.

antiskeptic

obplayer wrote: »

If he she or it demonstrated it's existence empirically wouldn't you now realise that God created you? No, why should I?. Do you realise how you say nothing at all? Using words is not the same as logic.

By using God with a capital G I am assuming a creator God, first cause of all.

MilanPan!c

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed.



So far so good. What I've done for you is lay out one consequence of concluding that God exists by empirical means. Namely, what it means for the method whereby you conclude he exists.

Have you got a response to that?

I believe I answered that, but I'll try and be more clear.

I understand the conundrum, at the same time if I was to somehow be definitively convinced in a god, I'd simply ignore the conundrum, because - if god is real he's and omnipotent and so... Why even bother running in logical circles at that point.

If "He" wants me to believe in him (which he would if he existed and I did) then just go with the magic faeries flow.

I am also not hugely worries because it's not going to happen.

antiskeptic

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Faith is the conviction of things not seen.
- Heb 11:3

It's actually Hebrews 11:1 you're quoting here.

Rather than faith being the blind belief beloved of Dawkins, it actually is referred to as a substantial thing, that which powers the conviction the believer has. I like the KJV means of stating this the best (that's the first on the list).




Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.



11 Now faith is the assurance (the confirmation, URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&version=AMP#fen-AMP-30172a"]a[/URLthe title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses.



11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.