Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:Fair enough. It sounds like if we go back to the original question I asked you, you would pick the third option; that you are referring to a specific God (Christian God) when you say “you don’t believe God exists”. Is that correct?

Ken

Well... Since we are here on a Christian platform discussing about the only God that exists (for Christians), I'm sticking to the Christian God. I don't see the point in discussing about another God if someone only believes in one God.
Besides that, I don't believe in any form of immaterial power that can create, or control, a material realm.

Since other religions and god's have been brought up I think it is important from a religion standpoint to point out that only in Christianity do you have a God that actually did something about the sin of man just like he said he would and that no other god people worship did anything about sin and so cannot be considered a Holy God like YHWH.Jesus was our sin sacrifice to wash our sins away so that we can be Holy like he is eventhough we really are'nt.But Jesus paid for our salvation in full and shed his blood and his blood washes our sins away also and no other god people believe in did and so they'll give you laws,religious rituals,rules,etc to live by and even then it is not a guarantee you'll make it.While with Jesus we can be saved and justified because of what Jesus did for us and all we have to do is believe in him and ask to recieve this gift of salvation that God offers us through Jesus.

Blessed Assurance
https://youtu.be/h4_qte-Qgwk

To address the original issue with this:

It is quite logical to state an absolute positive: White swans exists.
The reason is obvious since all one needs to do is show that even ONE white swans exists.

To state an absolute negative, there is no god, would require infinite knowledge of all since you are stating that NO GOD exists as a fact.

Now, you can't justify this by stating that it is only a belief unless:
Atheism is a belief system that is NOT based on reason and facts ( since reason and facts show that you can't make an absolute negative statement). That is why people that understand the issue with atheism are agnostic.

Atheism is not logical or reasonable.

Now, once you understand that you can begin to understand why agnosticism, while intellectually more honest, is more of a statement of "ignorance" than anything else.
There are two types of agnostic:
The one that states that IF there is a God, It is SO BEYOND our ability to understand that we should bother.
The other states that he simply does not know and see no evidence for God.
IT is this one that simply needs to learn what classical theism really yes and not what they THINK it is.

PaulSacramento wrote:To address the original issue with this:

It is quite logical to state an absolute positive: White swans exists.
The reason is obvious since all one needs to do is show that even ONE white swans exists.

To state an absolute negative, there is no god, would require infinite knowledge of all since you are stating that NO GOD exists as a fact.

Now, you can't justify this by stating that it is only a belief unless:
Atheism is a belief system that is NOT based on reason and facts ( since reason and facts show that you can't make an absolute negative statement). That is why people that understand the issue with atheism are agnostic.

Atheism is not logical or reasonable.

Now, once you understand that you can begin to understand why agnosticism, while intellectually more honest, is more of a statement of "ignorance" than anything else.
There are two types of agnostic:
The one that states that IF there is a God, It is SO BEYOND our ability to understand that we should bother.
The other states that he simply does not know and see no evidence for God.
IT is this one that simply needs to learn what classical theism really yes and not what they THINK it is.

Why does it require infinite knowledge to state that God doesn't exist? I don't understand the reason behind the infinite part. How do you come to that?
Suppose humanity survives another 1000 years, with everincreasing technology and knowledge (I doubt we have infinite knowledge by then), do you think we still can't answer whether God does or does not exist?
How about 10000 years? Or more?

If I understand you correctly, you state that atheism is illogical and agnosticism is ignorance, thus both 'dead ends', meaning that only theism makes sense?

Or, do you mean with "Why I am not an Atheist", that you could be an Agnost?

To say God does not exist and KNOW it, one wouldn't need infinite knowledge, but SUFFICIENT knowledge concerning any event, "sighting," experience, or occurrence that would conclusively reveal God's existence. But the problem is, we don't know when and where that sufficient knowledge would need to come from - other than things we might guess at. INFINITE would suggest one needs ALL knowledge of God proofs - which only God could have. Really, a minor technicality to Paul's point.

PaulSacramento wrote:To address the original issue with this:

It is quite logical to state an absolute positive: White swans exists.
The reason is obvious since all one needs to do is show that even ONE white swans exists.

I agree.

PaulSacramento wrote:To state an absolute negative, there is no god, would require infinite knowledge of all since you are stating that NO GOD exists as a fact.

I disagree. To say there is no God is just stating your opinion. You are not claiming it as an undisputed fact unless you SAY it is an undisputed fact.

PaulSacramento wrote:Now, you can't justify this by stating that it is only a belief unless:
Atheism is a belief system that is NOT based on reason and facts

You seem to be confusing believing something vs following a belief system.

PaulSacramento wrote:( since reason and facts show that you can't make an absolute negative statement).

Actually absolute negative statements can be made when it comes to contradictions. Example; there are no square shaped circles, you can't be “X” an not “X” at the same time.

PaulSacramento wrote:That is why people that understand the issue with atheism are agnostic.

I have found that people who don’t understand Atheism will often confuse it with Agnosticism

PaulSacramento wrote:Atheism is not logical or reasonable.

Now, once you understand that you can begin to understand why agnosticism, while intellectually more honest, is more of a statement of "ignorance" than anything else.
There are two types of agnostic:
The one that states that IF there is a God, It is SO BEYOND our ability to understand that we should bother.
The other states that he simply does not know and see no evidence for God.
IT is this one that simply needs to learn what classical theism really yes and not what they THINK it is.

I think your view of Agnostic is wrong as well. An Agnostic is someone who claims there is no way of know either way if God exists or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Philip wrote:To say God does not exist and KNOW it, one wouldn't need infinite knowledge, but SUFFICIENT knowledge concerning any event, "sighting," experience, or occurrence that would conclusively reveal God's existence. But the problem is, we don't know when and where that sufficient knowledge would need to come from - other than things we might guess at. INFINITE would suggest one needs ALL knowledge of God proofs - which only God could have. Really, a minor technicality to Paul's point.

Minor? Infinite knowledge = impossible. Sufficient knowledge = possible.

With this kind of evidence you are working passively, only taking that moments He does 'something', 'somethings' we do not even know what or where it comes from.

The only way to prove that God does or does not exist is to actively search for Him (unless He reveals Himself to us). 'See whether He is home'.
- it would have to be proven that the immaterial realm in which He would reside does or does not exist.
- in case that realm does exist, it would have to be proven that God indeed resides inthere or it is uninhabitet by any God-being.

Justhuman wrote:

Philip wrote:To say God does not exist and KNOW it, one wouldn't need infinite knowledge, but SUFFICIENT knowledge concerning any event, "sighting," experience, or occurrence that would conclusively reveal God's existence. But the problem is, we don't know when and where that sufficient knowledge would need to come from - other than things we might guess at. INFINITE would suggest one needs ALL knowledge of God proofs - which only God could have. Really, a minor technicality to Paul's point.

Minor? Infinite knowledge = impossible. Sufficient knowledge = possible.

With this kind of evidence you are working passively, only taking that moments He does 'something', 'somethings' we do not even know what or where it comes from.

The only way to prove that God does or does not exist is to actively search for Him (unless He reveals Himself to us). 'See whether He is home'.
- it would have to be proven that the immaterial realm in which He would reside does or does not exist.
- in case that realm does exist, it would have to be proven that God indeed resides inthere or it is uninhabitet by any God-being.

Lethargy. For you.
https://youtu.be/spilI2tky7A

Kenny, you are kind of arguing semantics a bit since I was make a personal opinion on the definition of Agnostic and not stating an "official" one.
You are correct, you can state an absolute negative on a contradiction.
I should have been more clear, thanks.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Philip wrote:To say God does not exist and KNOW it, one wouldn't need infinite knowledge, but SUFFICIENT knowledge concerning any event, "sighting," experience, or occurrence that would conclusively reveal God's existence. But the problem is, we don't know when and where that sufficient knowledge would need to come from - other than things we might guess at. INFINITE would suggest one needs ALL knowledge of God proofs - which only God could have. Really, a minor technicality to Paul's point.

Minor? Infinite knowledge = impossible. Sufficient knowledge = possible.

With this kind of evidence you are working passively, only taking that moments He does 'something', 'somethings' we do not even know what or where it comes from.

The only way to prove that God does or does not exist is to actively search for Him (unless He reveals Himself to us). 'See whether He is home'.
- it would have to be proven that the immaterial realm in which He would reside does or does not exist.
- in case that realm does exist, it would have to be proven that God indeed resides inthere or it is uninhabitet by any God-being.

Lethargy. For you.
https://youtu.be/spilI2tky7A

Thank you for your musical intermezzo's. However, I don't like your lethargic taste.

Justhuman wrote:Besides that, I don't believe in any form of immaterial power that can create, or control, a material realm.

I think you have that back-to-front. I'd point out we experience precisely that immediately and directly with ourselves, an exertion of our will over the natural and material realm.

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:Besides that, I don't believe in any form of immaterial power that can create, or control, a material realm.

I think you have that back-to-front. I'd point out we experience precisely that immediately and directly with ourselves, an exterion of our will over the natural and material realm.

I'd have to reread the "delusions of free will" posts to refreshen my mind...

Do you mean that the will controls material substances directly?
To me our will is merely the computational result of neural and biological processes, which is confined whithin the thought patterns in the brain. It is not an immaterial extension of ourselves.
Besides, how can something immaterial control something material?

Conscious thought/imagination/the mind is immaterial.
Everything that it creates comes from the immaterial.

PaulSacramento wrote:Conscious thought/imagination/the mind is immaterial.
Everything that it creates comes from the immaterial.

What we call "the mind" is actually just the thinking function of the brain. The brain is material, and it is a part of the body which is also material. Unless one has telekinetic powers, the mind is not what controls the material world.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Conscious thought/imagination/the mind is immaterial.
Everything that it creates comes from the immaterial.

What we call "the mind" is actually just the thinking function of the brain. The brain is material, and it is a part of the body which is also material. Unless one has telekinetic powers, the mind is not what controls the material world.

Ken

Kenny,

You're a materialist. Of course you're going to say that.