Evidence for God from Science

plouiswork wrote:Wow. Thank you and thank you again Kurieuo, both from making this thread and from having the patience to draw out the beliefs of those with wildly different views from your own. I've been trying to understand why so many people choose to believe in a God despite the lack of evidence and now I can see I've been hoodwinked into believing that this even supported the position of atheism in the first place!

Kurieuo wrote:You don't strike me as the nihilistic type to be posting on boards such as this, and claiming some things I've said are wrong (straw men) and that I've made mistaken generalisations.

Nonetheless, one needs a solution to the predicament of uncertainty. Otherwise they'll go insane in circular reasoning not believing A or ~A on anything, effectively become dysfunctional and a rambling mess. What can be logically proven won't get you certainty, for you must even first prove the logic that you use. But, what is logically most practical based on what appears most obvious, intuitive or probable will help you to be certain about many things. It's a resolution I had to come to myself.

If you're not going to embrace and concept of reality because you can't be logically prove 100% anything to do with reality, then while Nihilism a position you can take... I'm sure as you live your life that you nonetheless embrace some things as true. If not, then our discussion must come to an end for there's nothing really to discuss. This discussion perhaps isn't even happening.

This was the turning point for me. What do we really believe? Anyone can claim to not believe anything unless it's substantiated by empirical evidence, but there's evidence all throughout this thread to the contrary. I don't think I spotted a single honest atheist in this thread.

I still have more to learn before I know whether I am a Christian or not, but I am definitely a theist as of today. I apologize that I thus cannot answer to the challenge of this thread but I would be more than happy to try to clear things up if any atheists are confused about the points I've made here.

Kenny wrote:I'm a bit confused about the points you've made here; why do you feel none of the Atheists here are honest?

Ken

plouiswork wrote:It has to do with the nature of honesty of which I am speaking. Atheists herein may well be emotionally honest, but I feel they are intellectually dishonest. Or perhaps it'd be better of me to say simply that they are generally calling themselves Atheists when they are in fact Agnostics.

plouiswork wrote:For each person that replied here, it seemed they made the assumption that the absence of evidence entails an evidence of absence.

plouiswork wrote:In other words "no evidence for God" (Agnosticism) is converted into the belief "evidence for no God" (Atheism). This shift generally goes unacknowledged, as "Atheists" claim they don't have a belief when in fact the true absence of belief is not Atheism but a type of Agnosticism.

plouiswork wrote:Illustrated another way,
evidence for God (Theism)
no evidence for God (Agnosticism)
evidence for no God (Atheism)

plouiswork wrote:Both Theism and Atheism are necessarily claiming there is evidence to support their belief system.

plouiswork wrote:Yet Atheists claim they have no belief system to defend. This isn't true: the only position that can be an absence of belief regarding the existence of God is the mere observation that there is no evidence for God. The moment one begins arguing for the existence of this or that, they are arguing from a belief system about God. Regardless of whether they continue to maintain this belief system, they must necessarily speak from such a position to begin critiquing any form of theism.

plouiswork wrote:Anyway, your confusion may have been simply because I wasn't very clear about how I believe Atheists here were being dishonest, so I'll stop here for now.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:I'm a bit confused about the points you've made here; why do you feel none of the Atheists here are honest?

Ken

plouiswork wrote:It has to do with the nature of honesty of which I am speaking. Atheists herein may well be emotionally honest, but I feel they are intellectually dishonest. Or perhaps it'd be better of me to say simply that they are generally calling themselves Atheists when they are in fact Agnostics.

I’ve got a feeling you have a misunderstanding as to what an atheist is vs what an agnostic is

plouiswork wrote:For each person that replied here, it seemed they made the assumption that the absence of evidence entails an evidence of absence.

I haven’t made that assumption; and I don’t recall any other atheist on this board making that assumption either.

plouiswork wrote:In other words "no evidence for God" (Agnosticism) is converted into the belief "evidence for no God" (Atheism). This shift generally goes unacknowledged, as "Atheists" claim they don't have a belief when in fact the true absence of belief is not Atheism but a type of Agnosticism.

Agnostic is not the absence of belief, Agnostic is the claim that the existence of God is UNKNOWABLE.
http://www.religious-beliefs.com/agnostic.htm

And Atheism is not defined as “evidence for no God”, evidence has nothing to do with it. Atheism is just a person who doesn’t BELIEVE in God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

In other words, Theism and Atheism is about what you believe, Agnostic is about what you know; a totally different subject.

plouiswork wrote:Illustrated another way,
evidence for God (Theism)
no evidence for God (Agnosticism)
evidence for no God (Atheism)

No, try it this way;
Belief in God (theism)
No belief in God (Atheism)
Impossible to know either way (Agnosticism)

plouiswork wrote:Both Theism and Atheism are necessarily claiming there is evidence to support their belief system.

No; whatever belief system an atheist might have has nothing to do with God because he doesn’t believe in God.

plouiswork wrote:Yet Atheists claim they have no belief system to defend. This isn't true: the only position that can be an absence of belief regarding the existence of God is the mere observation that there is no evidence for God. The moment one begins arguing for the existence of this or that, they are arguing from a belief system about God. Regardless of whether they continue to maintain this belief system, they must necessarily speak from such a position to begin critiquing any form of theism.

The fact that a person can present a hypothetical argument for discussions sake; about the existence of God does not mean they actually have a belief system about God

plouiswork wrote:Anyway, your confusion may have been simply because I wasn't very clear about how I believe Atheists here were being dishonest, so I'll stop here for now.

I believe your confusion about atheists being dishonest is due to your misunderstanding about what an Agnostic and an Atheist actually is.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:I'm all for questioning, digging, probing and trying to understand things as best as we reasonably can.

Christians are said to be ignorant by a growing secular majority. And yet, a stumbling block for me with Atheism--besides its pretense that it actually inspires enquiry--is that it wants to accept ignorance as a valid response to the underpinnings of reality. Oh, the irony. Atheists don't want to explore questions about the nature of reality at all, but just accept the world around us without questions. As someone who likes philosophising I find this extremely boring. And it literally sets up a worldview of reality that is based upon thin air. Just like "magic".

Consider the following questions:

• Q: What caused the "big bang" that brought our universe (time, space, energy, matter) into existence?
  A: "The universe just is" or retort "who made God?"
  
  Q: How do you know what you experience is true?
  A: Because its obvious.
  
  Q: How do the physical laws hold together?
  A: Huh?
  
  Q: How is it possible for someone to come back from the dead?
  A: Dead people don't come back to life.

Ok, so I improvised on the responses and likely setup some strawmen. But, my experience in discussions with Atheists is that the typical response is to ignore questions about reality and just accept everything at face value. They don't like to dig and probe into questions, or consider how something might be possible. They hate metaphysical questions -- asking why questions about reality and thinking about possible answers.

For example, consider the movie The Matrix. Everyone in the "normal" world is hooked up to a machine and experiencing a type of virtual reality. The experiences are just as real as ours in life. And yet, people "could" potentially come back from the dead in this world, as long as the software is tweaked. People can perform what appears to be "magic" by zipping through the air -- suspending the "natural laws" which are really being largely maintained by a software program that runs the virtual world. Heck, Jesus Chris could actually even rise from the dead in such a world!

Yes, it's just a movie. But here is the thing. Who's to say that the life we experience isn't in some way similar--some form of Idealism. Perhaps the machine and software on which we're running is just God. And yet, the Atheist confidently asserts that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead -- because dead people don't come back to life -- because they ignore any questions to do with the nature of reality while assuming to know how reality works!

Atheism presumes to know reality without giving it any foundation. The world just is. It just runs. It is stable. It is predictable. It's finely tuned for life? "Well, duh--we wouldn't be here otherwise!" We just are. What we hear, see, feel, taste and smell is a true representation of the world. It is just NATURAL. Dead people don't rise from the dead.

An Atheistic reality precludes any questions about how reality might be. There is no "more than meets the eye". Is this not a shallow worldview? A kind of "putting on the blinders" or "burying one's head in the sand"? Some deep-seated faith in ignorance? Let's not ask questions about how reality works and just accept what seems apparent, because to ponder such questions is what? Scarey? Would it burst your bubble?

Atheists are boring. They're predictable. They don't like to be wrong. And yet, their trust to only accept what can be known beyond a doubt as complete truth via our physical senses which would never lie to us except in someone delusional (nevermind the question that all of the reality we experience might be delusional) --- to the Atheist reading --- Come on! At least change and put some ideas on the table that discuss the nature of reality.

I'm all for at least trying, and getting things wrong and then learning and growing. Metaphysical questions are not pointless. They provide logical possibilities for why things are the way they are and how reality might function. At least with Christianity, Christians back a view of reality that is placed on the table to be scrutinised and picked apart. As a Christian I might be wrong, but at least I had the guts to back something.

An Atheist thinks its absurd to be skeptical of Atheism, and this just shows they don't like putting anything on the table. They refuse to answer any questions about the underpinnings of reality, and yet love taking the micky out of anyone elses beliefs. No wonder so many Atheists in online discussions seem so arrogant and confident -- they don't place anything on the table and criticise anyone who does whether Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhism or the like. How easy is that!?

If you're an Atheist reading this and have been offended, then please, break out of your mould and ponder questions regarding the nature of reality. Put something on the table and stop criticising everyone else.

Kurieuo wrote:So are you saying Atheists are 5 year olds? Perhaps Micah should be challenged.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:I'm a bit confused about the points you've made here; why do you feel none of the Atheists here are honest?

Ken

plouiswork wrote:It has to do with the nature of honesty of which I am speaking. Atheists herein may well be emotionally honest, but I feel they are intellectually dishonest. Or perhaps it'd be better of me to say simply that they are generally calling themselves Atheists when they are in fact Agnostics.

I’ve got a feeling you have a misunderstanding as to what an atheist is vs what an agnostic is

plouiswork wrote:For each person that replied here, it seemed they made the assumption that the absence of evidence entails an evidence of absence.

I haven’t made that assumption; and I don’t recall any other atheist on this board making that assumption either.

plouiswork wrote:In other words "no evidence for God" (Agnosticism) is converted into the belief "evidence for no God" (Atheism). This shift generally goes unacknowledged, as "Atheists" claim they don't have a belief when in fact the true absence of belief is not Atheism but a type of Agnosticism.

Agnostic is not the absence of belief, Agnostic is the claim that the existence of God is UNKNOWABLE.
http://www.religious-beliefs.com/agnostic.htm

And Atheism is not defined as “evidence for no God”, evidence has nothing to do with it. Atheism is just a person who doesn’t BELIEVE in God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

In other words, Theism and Atheism is about what you believe, Agnostic is about what you know; a totally different subject.

plouiswork wrote:Illustrated another way,
evidence for God (Theism)
no evidence for God (Agnosticism)
evidence for no God (Atheism)

No, try it this way;
Belief in God (theism)
No belief in God (Atheism)
Impossible to know either way (Agnosticism)

plouiswork wrote:Both Theism and Atheism are necessarily claiming there is evidence to support their belief system.

No; whatever belief system an atheist might have has nothing to do with God because he doesn’t believe in God.

plouiswork wrote:Yet Atheists claim they have no belief system to defend. This isn't true: the only position that can be an absence of belief regarding the existence of God is the mere observation that there is no evidence for God. The moment one begins arguing for the existence of this or that, they are arguing from a belief system about God. Regardless of whether they continue to maintain this belief system, they must necessarily speak from such a position to begin critiquing any form of theism.

The fact that a person can present a hypothetical argument for discussions sake; about the existence of God does not mean they actually have a belief system about God

plouiswork wrote:Anyway, your confusion may have been simply because I wasn't very clear about how I believe Atheists here were being dishonest, so I'll stop here for now.

I believe your confusion about atheists being dishonest is due to your misunderstanding about what an Agnostic and an Atheist actually is.

Ken

Kenny,

You are officially the most obtuse person I have ever known. Without a doubt.

You pick links, and only cherry pick the definition that suits your point, from your own link! While leaving out the parts that agree with what plouiswork said.

Either you are the most intellectually dishonest person alive, or are the most obtuse person alive.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:I'm a bit confused about the points you've made here; why do you feel none of the Atheists here are honest?

Ken

plouiswork wrote:It has to do with the nature of honesty of which I am speaking. Atheists herein may well be emotionally honest, but I feel they are intellectually dishonest. Or perhaps it'd be better of me to say simply that they are generally calling themselves Atheists when they are in fact Agnostics.

I’ve got a feeling you have a misunderstanding as to what an atheist is vs what an agnostic is

plouiswork wrote:For each person that replied here, it seemed they made the assumption that the absence of evidence entails an evidence of absence.

I haven’t made that assumption; and I don’t recall any other atheist on this board making that assumption either.

plouiswork wrote:In other words "no evidence for God" (Agnosticism) is converted into the belief "evidence for no God" (Atheism). This shift generally goes unacknowledged, as "Atheists" claim they don't have a belief when in fact the true absence of belief is not Atheism but a type of Agnosticism.

Agnostic is not the absence of belief, Agnostic is the claim that the existence of God is UNKNOWABLE.
http://www.religious-beliefs.com/agnostic.htm

And Atheism is not defined as “evidence for no God”, evidence has nothing to do with it. Atheism is just a person who doesn’t BELIEVE in God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

In other words, Theism and Atheism is about what you believe, Agnostic is about what you know; a totally different subject.

plouiswork wrote:Illustrated another way,
evidence for God (Theism)
no evidence for God (Agnosticism)
evidence for no God (Atheism)

No, try it this way;
Belief in God (theism)
No belief in God (Atheism)
Impossible to know either way (Agnosticism)

plouiswork wrote:Both Theism and Atheism are necessarily claiming there is evidence to support their belief system.

No; whatever belief system an atheist might have has nothing to do with God because he doesn’t believe in God.

plouiswork wrote:Yet Atheists claim they have no belief system to defend. This isn't true: the only position that can be an absence of belief regarding the existence of God is the mere observation that there is no evidence for God. The moment one begins arguing for the existence of this or that, they are arguing from a belief system about God. Regardless of whether they continue to maintain this belief system, they must necessarily speak from such a position to begin critiquing any form of theism.

The fact that a person can present a hypothetical argument for discussions sake; about the existence of God does not mean they actually have a belief system about God

plouiswork wrote:Anyway, your confusion may have been simply because I wasn't very clear about how I believe Atheists here were being dishonest, so I'll stop here for now.

I believe your confusion about atheists being dishonest is due to your misunderstanding about what an Agnostic and an Atheist actually is.

Ken

Kenny,

You are officially the most obtuse person I have ever known. Without a doubt.

You pick links, and only cherry pick the definition that suits your point, from your own link! While leaving out the parts that agree with what plouiswork said.

Either you are the most intellectually dishonest person alive, or are the most obtuse person alive.

Absolutely ridiculous.

All you doing is spittin out a bunch of noise; you’ve said nothing here. If there were an ounce of merit to what you’ve said, you would have pointed out how I’ve cherry picked, misrepresented, or whatever it is you claim I’ve done. I stand by what I’ve said; if you disagree I challenge you to point out something I’ve said that was wrong.
Up to the challenge?

Ken

Kenny wrote:In other words, Theism and Atheism is about what you believe, Agnostic is about what you know; a totally different subject.

Kurieuo wrote: @Kenny, are you Atheist in any sense; I thought you don't like being called such, so what does it matter?

Kurieuo wrote: With all respect, I think you're confused (as well as many online debating Atheists) about what Atheism is.

Kurieuo wrote: @plouiswork, in addition to Jac's comments, I challenge whether Atheism defined as "no belief in God" is even logically sound by those using the title for themselves.

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:I'm a bit confused about the points you've made here; why do you feel none of the Atheists here are honest?

Ken

plouiswork wrote:It has to do with the nature of honesty of which I am speaking. Atheists herein may well be emotionally honest, but I feel they are intellectually dishonest. Or perhaps it'd be better of me to say simply that they are generally calling themselves Atheists when they are in fact Agnostics.

I’ve got a feeling you have a misunderstanding as to what an atheist is vs what an agnostic is

plouiswork wrote:For each person that replied here, it seemed they made the assumption that the absence of evidence entails an evidence of absence.

I haven’t made that assumption; and I don’t recall any other atheist on this board making that assumption either.

plouiswork wrote:In other words "no evidence for God" (Agnosticism) is converted into the belief "evidence for no God" (Atheism). This shift generally goes unacknowledged, as "Atheists" claim they don't have a belief when in fact the true absence of belief is not Atheism but a type of Agnosticism.

Agnostic is not the absence of belief, Agnostic is the claim that the existence of God is UNKNOWABLE.
http://www.religious-beliefs.com/agnostic.htm

And Atheism is not defined as “evidence for no God”, evidence has nothing to do with it. Atheism is just a person who doesn’t BELIEVE in God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

In other words, Theism and Atheism is about what you believe, Agnostic is about what you know; a totally different subject.

plouiswork wrote:Illustrated another way,
evidence for God (Theism)
no evidence for God (Agnosticism)
evidence for no God (Atheism)

No, try it this way;
Belief in God (theism)
No belief in God (Atheism)
Impossible to know either way (Agnosticism)

plouiswork wrote:Both Theism and Atheism are necessarily claiming there is evidence to support their belief system.

No; whatever belief system an atheist might have has nothing to do with God because he doesn’t believe in God.

plouiswork wrote:Yet Atheists claim they have no belief system to defend. This isn't true: the only position that can be an absence of belief regarding the existence of God is the mere observation that there is no evidence for God. The moment one begins arguing for the existence of this or that, they are arguing from a belief system about God. Regardless of whether they continue to maintain this belief system, they must necessarily speak from such a position to begin critiquing any form of theism.

The fact that a person can present a hypothetical argument for discussions sake; about the existence of God does not mean they actually have a belief system about God

plouiswork wrote:Anyway, your confusion may have been simply because I wasn't very clear about how I believe Atheists here were being dishonest, so I'll stop here for now.

I believe your confusion about atheists being dishonest is due to your misunderstanding about what an Agnostic and an Atheist actually is.

Ken

Kenny,

You are officially the most obtuse person I have ever known. Without a doubt.

You pick links, and only cherry pick the definition that suits your point, from your own link! While leaving out the parts that agree with what plouiswork said.

Either you are the most intellectually dishonest person alive, or are the most obtuse person alive.

Absolutely ridiculous.

All you doing is spittin out a bunch of noise; you’ve said nothing here. If there were an ounce of merit to what you’ve said, you would have pointed out how I’ve cherry picked, misrepresented, or whatever it is you claim I’ve done. I stand by what I’ve said; if you disagree I challenge you to point out something I’ve said that was wrong.
Up to the challenge?

Ken

The challenge not working for you, kenny?

plouiswork wrote:

Kenny wrote:In other words, Theism and Atheism is about what you believe, Agnostic is about what you know; a totally different subject.

Would you agree with this then?

Gnostic Theist: evidence for God, therefore belief in God
Agnostic Theist: can't have evidence; I choose to believe in God
Agnostic Atheist: can't have evidence; I choose to not believe in God
Gnostic Atheist: evidence for no God, therefore belief in no God

Kenny wrote:

plouiswork wrote:

Kenny wrote:In other words, Theism and Atheism is about what you believe, Agnostic is about what you know; a totally different subject.

Would you agree with this then?

Gnostic Theist: evidence for God, therefore belief in God
Agnostic Theist: can't have evidence; I choose to believe in God
Agnostic Atheist: can't have evidence; I choose to not believe in God
Gnostic Atheist: evidence for no God, therefore belief in no God

I would say evidence could be a factor but is not a required factor. I prefer this:

Gnostic Theist:
A person who KNOWS God exist. Weather this knowledge is based upon evidence, or something else is irrelevant; the point is he has no doubt about God’s existence

Agnostic Theist:
A person who BELIEVES God exist, but admits to the possibility that he could be wrong. Weather this lack of knowledge is based upon lack of evidence or something else is irrelevant; the point is he only believes; he doesn’t know.

Agnostic Atheist
A person who Believes God doesn’t exist, but admits to the possibility that he could be wrong thus he doesn’t know. Weather this lack of knowledge is based upon lack of evidence or something else is irrelevant; the point is he only believes; he doesn’t know.

Gnostic Atheist:
A person who KNOWS God doesn’t exist. Weather this knowledge is based upon evidence or something else is irrelevant; the point is he has no doubt that God doesn't exist.

Do you agree? If not tell me where I'm going wrong.

Ken