Now, let's talk evidence for God.

[Dancing David]

Hi Yrreg,

What a strange OP, why not tell us what you think?

My thought is that god is a projection of the human onto the universe.

 

[paximperium]

And Malerin continues to use the:
"Reality is not real therefore everything is possible therefore belief in god is as justified as belief in reality." Argument.

Unable to prove god, he tears down everything else to make a fantasy more plausible.

 

[I Ratant]

Actually, I have strong feelings of the absence of God. I look at the natural beauty of the world and marvel that anyone could desire supernatural spirits on top of the amazing fact of our existence. The sense of wonder I feel contemplating the natural processes that form the universe and everything in it fill me with such awe that I can't conceive of there being any room for something greater.

Previously, it has never occurred to me to offer this experience as evidence for the nonexistence of God or other invisible and immaterial beings, as objectively my account is only evidence that I have certain subjective experiences as a reaction to the vastness and complexity of the universe. However, since you regard such things as evidence, I offer it.

.
I came to the conclusion that any spiritual experiences I had were generated internally by me.
There was no need to debase myself and attribute these to some oogie-boogie giving -me- my unique experiences.
I think that once anyone becomes truly self-aware, then the need to grovel in front of the imaginary goes away.

 

[The Man]

Malerin,

It sounds to me like you are saying: "Nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, so that means all beliefs are of equal probability."

Since there is a chance that the sun will fail to rise tomorrow, then it is perfectly ok for people to believe that right? We can't prove that it won't, so anyone who believes that the sun won't rise is being just as logical and sane as those who believe it will rise, yes?

Just because there are two options does not mean they each have 50% probability.

Despite all your talk about 'How can we know reality is real?' you behave as if it is.

<snip>

That’s the real important part T.E.O., behaving as if it is real. Where one to be dreaming and behaved as if it were real that does not present much of a problem, especially considering a dream that is consistent with an independent reality. If you behaved as if you were dreaming when in fact there is an independently consistent reality then you could get yourself into some serious trouble. Given a dream consistent with an independent reality is to our perceptions no different then just an independent reality what one chooses to believe about the existence of that reality or dream is irrelevant and it is only how one behaves that has any consequences just as in the existence of an independent reality. The point is you really do not have to believe either way (dream or real) but if you want to successfully interact with a dream that is consistent with an independent reality or just with an actual independent reality you do have to behave as though there is an independent reality.

 

[Gestahl]

No. Good guesses though!

*hangs head in defeat*

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I'll play: A universe without my version of 'God' would consist of space with a completely uniform distribution of all matter and energy. Every place/time in it would be identical to every other place/time in it. There would be no galaxies, stars or planets. There would be no life anywhere.

Now, can you figure out what my version of 'God' is?

Possibly a singularity ("pre" inflationary).

 

[athon]

Sez you. I think my spiritual experience is proof of God's existence. I can't prove it to anyone else (though a lot of people claim to share my experience). To ME (and them), it is proof.

Ah, the fallacy of 'proof'. Not to mention the abuse of the term.

As I tell all my students, the word 'proof' is mathematical. You can establish a set of axioms, and progress from there until you have a logical set of propositions demonstrating that a mathematical principle is correct.

Science, on the other hand, has trouble dealing with observations as proofs. The main reason is that the axioms are far more tenuous, and rely on interpretation of perceptions. I can safely give a term in maths that's self evident as true, but explaining an observation is harder.

So, we now have a choice. We can simply choose to not use science to describe reality, or we can do so, and compare ideas on the weight of evidence. This means we cannot be certain, however it does mean if we choose to play by these rules we have to understand that this does not create a dichotomy. There is no 'proven' vs. 'all ideas have equal merit'. There is only confidence.

The really annoying thing is that you really can't opt not to play, once you starting thinking logically. You make decisions every day using this 'weight of evidence' process. Otherwise, you'd either do absolutely nothing, or you'd do absolutely anything. Instead, you mix your methods. Sometimes, you think logically and scientifically, and other times - when it is convenient - you choose to believe that all ideas are equal.

Unfortunately not all ideas are equal. Absence of absolute proof does not mean some are infinitely more likely than others. Reality - in whatever guise it forms - appears to be consistent and objective, and science is the best way we have of using this to our best advantage.

Athon

 

[Beth]

Possibly a singularity ("pre" inflationary).

NO, although I think the singularity might fit my description of a universe lacking god.

Good try though.

 

[Ryokan]

What is God?​

Oh oh oh, I know this one!

Three pounds of flax? No?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oh oh oh, I know this one!

Three pounds of flax? No?

Only if you and Rumpelstiltskin spin it into gold.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

NO, although I think the singularity might fit my description of a universe lacking god.

Good try though.

Remove the space/time and all matter/energy and we might get closer to a description of "nothing."

 

[arthwollipot]

I'll play: A universe without my version of 'God' would consist of space with a completely uniform distribution of all matter and energy. Every place/time in it would be identical to every other place/time in it. There would be no galaxies, stars or planets. There would be no life anywhere.

Now, can you figure out what my version of 'God' is?

Gravity.

 

[Sunstealer]

A smile on a dog?

I love that song and dammit I now can't think who wrote/performed it yet it's in my head. As the South Park kids would say upon Kenny's death, "you .....".

Ah ha! (who were also quite popular) - Eddie Brackel and the new bohemians?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Not so fast; what beliefs about reality DO you have? Do other people exist? Do objects exist indepedent of you? I think you'll find you have a lot of beliefs about reality that are just as faith-based as any belief in God.

Ah, so you counter by the tired old claim that "well, couldn't we just all be living in a dream"? Two can play at that game...

You know folks, I would treat Malerin's comments seriously, but seeing as how he/she is nothing more than a figment of my imagination, I will simply ignore them. And if Malerin gets offended then I won't worry about it, seeing as how Malerin is just a figment of my imagination resulting from a dream. Figments of the imagination are stupid little constructs of my mind worth absolutely nothing in the real world, and they often deserve to be derided for the idiocy they embody.

See Malerin? Isn't this fun?

**Waiting for figment-Malerin to chime in with a serious argument **

 

[Foster Zygote]

And Malerin continues to use the:
"Reality is not real therefore everything is possible therefore belief in god is as justified as belief in reality." Argument.

Unable to prove god, he tears down everything else to make a fantasy more plausible.

You would have loved Lifegazer.

 

[Tumblehome]

Tumblehome...well said. Your hammer has squarely hit the nail on the head.

My carpentry skills were put to good use, then . Though I concede that the head of the nail was exceedingly large and easy to hit squarely. <m. python>It was a very silly post by Yrreg.</m. python>

My favourite reply to "What is God?" was by rocketdodger:

What a coincidence, yrreg, that is the exact same question I have.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Atheists love to demand evidence for God's existence; but when they are asked to give some ideas of what they understand by God, they will insist they don't have to give any ideas of God because they deny His existence.

Why should atheists define the gods that they don't see any reason to believe exist? If someone claims that something supernatural exists then let that person present the evidence to support this claim. In order to do this said person will naturally have to define the god or gods in question. You sound like a defense attorney complaining that the prosecution hasn't defined your case for you.

That goes to show how lacking in understanding they are, even though they are so self-complacent that they are so clever with that kind of a reaction to the demand that they give some ideas of what they intend to convey by God.

Whom is intending to convey an idea of one or more gods? Here's a hint: It ain't atheists. Atheists only react to the definitions of gods created by those who believe in gods. If you can present a definition of god that is consistent with our observations of nature and supported by empirical evidence then I for one will acknowledge the existence of said god. For example, if you said "This is my cat, his name is God. God is an ordinary tabby cat" then I would certainly agree that God, as defined, actually exists.

Anyway on the rare chance that there be atheists here possessed of understanding, who can appreciate that they cannot deny the existence of Cinderella if they don't have any ideas of what is Cinderella, and for that matter Santa Claus...

But we do have an idea of what those fictional characters are. They are defined by those who tell the stories. It doesn't really matter whether those telling the stories believe in Cinderella or Santa Clause. I have a very detailed understanding of the definition of Santa Clause as used by both those who see him as fictional and those who really believe that he brought them presents last Christmas. I have compared that definition to my observations of reality and concluded that the mythical Santa Clause who lives at the North Pole and delivers toys to all the good boys and girls in a single night driving a sleigh drawn by flying reindeer does not exist. Can you see the irony of comparing rejection of your god with rejection of Santa Clause?

Let me then just address this question to such atheists here in this forum -- the other atheists who are so clever in eschewing any intelligent use of their brain to think what is God, they can dispense themselves from participating in this thread.

What is God?​

God is my tabby cat.

 

[Malerin]

When it comes to the the external world and other people we have plenty of evidence that they exist whenever we open our eyes.

THIS is where you were either being dishonest or lazy. This is kicking a rock and trying to refute an idealist. I had a friend, many years ago, who started hallucinating things. Scared the hell out of him. You're claiming the fact that he SAW the hallucinations is what? Evidence that they were real? Doesn't work that way.

When you "see" a person, there are infinite models of reality that are consistent with what your eyes tell you: the person may be real; they may be a bit of software code; an experience fed to your mind; a part of a very vivid dream, etc. The fact that you are getting visual sense-data is not evidence for ANY of these possibilities, because the sense-data fits consistently with ALL possibilities, and you either knew this, or should have known this.

You also missed the obvious theist objection that God may not be the sort of thing one experiences with their senses anyway, so lack of "Godly" sense-data would not be a detriment to theism on that argument alone.

This is how I think Atheists view god. A minute probability that can be ignored because it has such a low chance of happening or being true.

Those atheists are wrong. Reality is either theistic (God or Gods) or atheistic. Atheists can't disprove God and theistic evidence is far from compelling (mostly personal stuff I talked about before, though I still like the fine-tuning argument). In the absence of any evidence for or against, a proposition must be given an agnostic value (.5). That is hardly a "minute probability" for theism.

Now, the same thing could be said about the existence of unicorns (or anything that's not a logical contradiction). Either they exist or they don't. We have no evidence for or against, so again an agnostic position should be taken. I think what you were trying to say is that the question of the existence of God is as trivial as the existence of unicorns or teacups orbitting the moon.

I don't think that's true. For thousands of years, people have not been talking about, and killing each other over, and devoting their lives to the study of whether unicorns or orbitting tea cups exist and what their properties are. People have a fascination with God, and the technical definition of atheism itself proves it is a non-trivial discussion. Atheism is defined as a disbelief in God(s) (though some atheist circles have a more robust definition of the term). Not teacups or fairies or unicorns. Atheism and theism are flip-sides of the same coin.

 

[arthwollipot]

Atheism and theism are flip-sides of the same coin.

So are agnosticism and gnosticism. You're treating agnosticism as a sort of a halfway point between atheism and theism. It's not.

 

[Malerin]

Ah, so you counter by the tired old claim that "well, couldn't we just all be living in a dream"? Two can play at that game...

You know folks, I would treat Malerin's comments seriously, but seeing as how he/she is nothing more than a figment of my imagination, I will simply ignore them. And if Malerin gets offended then I won't worry about it, seeing as how Malerin is just a figment of my imagination resulting from a dream. Figments of the imagination are stupid little constructs of my mind worth absolutely nothing in the real world, and they often deserve to be derided for the idiocy they embody.

See Malerin? Isn't this fun?

**Waiting for figment-Malerin to chime in with a serious argument **

More saddended than offended. This doesn't sound like the same person I used to talk to in the Presidential Election forum. We always had civil discussions, and I respected you for that. I don't think I said anything to you that warranted such a mean-spirited reply. They were just questions illustrating my point that we all have beliefs about reality we can't ultimately prove, atheists AND theists.