Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The number one reason I'm not an Atheist is because I'd be forced via logic to deny an "I", an ego, a self, exists. That is, if I'm an Atheist and logically consistent with the physical natural world being all that there is, then I'd have to accept that there isn't really an "I" but rather an ensemble of particles bouncing around with chemical reactions and my identify is actually a mirage.

It's more sensible to embrace beliefs which allow me to logically accept as a minimum that I really do exist and make decisions. That much seems obvious to me without any logic whatsoever since I feel and experience things straight up and direct to myself.

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The number one reason I'm not an Atheist is because I'd be forced via logic to deny an "I", an ego, a self, exists. That is, if I'm an Atheist and logically consistent with the physical natural world being all that there is, then I'd have to accept that there isn't really an "I" but rather an ensemble of particles bouncing around with chemical reactions and my identify is actually a mirage.

It's more sensible to embrace beliefs which allow me to logically accept as a minimum that I really do exist and make decisions. That much seems obvious to me without any logic whatsoever since I feel and experience things straight up and direct to myself.

Sorry, I'm a little dyslexic at times and read the opposite to what is said.
Thanks for making fun of it.

RickD wrote:I bet Nessa didn't think her thread would go from talking about atheism, to Chinese food.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:I bet Nessa didn't think her thread would go from talking about atheism, to Chinese food.

Or mention of the grim and foreboding Walled City.

What were you doing there?

jarviguy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:10 am Unfortunately, the article has been deleted.
Here are my reasons:
- If I don't see I wouldn't believe. This is just a statement that was developed in my mind. There are a lot of things that people talk about but never seen. Not only religion things. I believe in facts.
- I see no logic in that. I read The Bible, I read historical facts and there is no logical connection between a lot of situations.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:02 am Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:21 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:02 am Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:21 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:02 am Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:56 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:21 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:02 am Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

If empirical verifiability is the only criteria that counts as valid proof, then there is no way I can rationally accept anything beyond the reach of such verification. That would include anything historical or events that happen which I'm not directly privy to.

What you have demonstrated above, if you believe "Napoleon" even existed, is that for you, you are accepting some other sort of reasons or justifications that aren't empirically based.

Your "proofs" for such clearly aren't by means of your seeing Napoleon or being present at the time of his supposed great military accomplishments, but due to... it'd seem... your subjective feelings on the matter and how well the story fits in with a worldview you have been conditioned with. But, such doesn't make it true.

Consider this. If I say I walked across the road today, rather than levitated across or flapped my arms and flew across. Just because the latter two are at odds with a more natural and believed method of crossing, it doesn't mean I did therefore across walk the road today. In fact, none of them have happened. I know, shocking right?

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:21 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:02 am Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:02 pmIt might take alot of faith for you to believe that Martin Luther King rose from the dead three days later and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue his work,and then he just walked away into the sunset,no photos(Shroud of Turin?)backed anything up.But it is easy for God in human flesh to do even if I had no evidence and does not require much faith at all.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:02 pmIt is atheism that has absolutely no evidence,muchless proof it is correct to live your life as if God does not exist and yet you choose to do it anyway.There are many reasons to believe in Jesus and people have many different reasons why they do but I'd believe in Jesus over any other god or atheism just based on afterlifes alone. As Christianity has the most awesome afterlife of any other religion and atheism too where there is no afterlife,no heaven or hell,just death. Very boring afterlife to look forward to if you're right about atheism but it won't effect me either way,but will you.

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:12 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:21 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:02 am Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:02 pmIt might take alot of faith for you to believe that Martin Luther King rose from the dead three days later and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue his work,and then he just walked away into the sunset,no photos(Shroud of Turin?)backed anything up.But it is easy for God in human flesh to do even if I had no evidence and does not require much faith at all.

Of course it’s easy for you to believe it, you’re Christian! I know of a Rastafarian who believes Halle Selassie waved his arm across the sky while getting off the airplane, and caused it to rain ending the drought! Are you going to believe that? Neither will I.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:02 pmIt is atheism that has absolutely no evidence,muchless proof it is correct to live your life as if God does not exist and yet you choose to do it anyway.There are many reasons to believe in Jesus and people have many different reasons why they do but I'd believe in Jesus over any other god or atheism just based on afterlifes alone. As Christianity has the most awesome afterlife of any other religion and atheism too where there is no afterlife,no heaven or hell,just death. Very boring afterlife to look forward to if you're right about atheism but it won't effect me either way,but will you.

So you believe the claims of Christianity because it's after life sounds exciting? Really???

Ken wrote:
So you believe the claims of Christianity because it's after life sounds exciting? Really???

Acb wrote:
Yep! Just dying that atheism offers you is very boring!