I think the logic of that statement doesn't really work.
Evidence of your God
- Thread starter Badunk
- Start date
I've gone through all logic that I can tell exists and I know one thing: it's not adequate.
Logic is faulty. I use it all the time. Too much even. But I know it's not the truth and never will be. Now, if you condition a post/essay within a symbolic structure and impose logical constraints upon it there is a vast limit to what you can achieve.
That's dense, but the point I'm making is things are not what we define them as (never can be except in certain specific ways) and this is evidence based science insofar as by evidence we define things as this or that (no matter how simplistic or complex). It will always be fallible. A good scientist will admit and embrace that fallibility.
If the human species were a 5 billion old cloud cluster in space of just logic or something I'd say the same constraints would apply. With one hand (no evidence of God) we want infallible science (it won't happen) because with the other we are highly fallible creatures and always will be.
The speed of the acceleration does indeed appear to be slowing down. Latest Desi data is throwing up some interesting information in this regard.
But, unlike Bojo during the pandemic, I will actually be guided by the science. When things change, so will I.
I could never believe in supreme being that is understandable and reachable by reading books, getting college degree or whatever. which is why my stance is that there could never really be an evidence.
there's this scene in B5 where one character is talking about the need to understand higher beings, but simply says we have as much chance of communicating and understanding them as ants have with us.
that's my stance, in short. whatever it is that is above and beyond, whether it's aware of us or not, it's going to remain unreachable for us.
I never considered religions crap because of the the reasons people usually use to bash them; I consider them crap because they're defying and resisting the basic principle I believe in, that something in this vast universe is simply unreachable for human beings.
there's no supreme being that is passing down the rules/laws to us. there will never be a man hearing, seeing or talking to such being.
there's this scene in B5 where one character is talking about the need to understand higher beings, but simply says we have as much chance of communicating and understanding them as ants have with us.
that's my stance, in short. whatever it is that is above and beyond, whether it's aware of us or not, it's going to remain unreachable for us.
I never considered religions crap because of the the reasons people usually use to bash them; I consider them crap because they're defying and resisting the basic principle I believe in, that something in this vast universe is simply unreachable for human beings.
there's no supreme being that is passing down the rules/laws to us. there will never be a man hearing, seeing or talking to such being.
I had to Google this real quick since its been some years since I really kept up to date on cosmology. I think this post from Reddit is interesting on this topic so maybe the Big Crunch is not off the table the way it appeared to be 10 years ago, though from this post it doesn't sound like the expansion is necessarily slowing. Definitely a case that shows how much we (humans and science) really don't know at the edges of reality:
I suppose it's just a logical deduction. The data suggests dark energy might not be a constant. The data also suggests it may be weakening over time. Therefore, the universe's expansion is likely to be slowing down.
But we'll know more when we know more. I'm not glued to it forever. It just makes most sense to me at the moment with the information we have.
Yeah, I don't have a strong take here either, I hadn't come across those new articles. But after reading a little, I think the Reddit post does make sense. The expansion could slow down or it could even speed up. Things are constantly changing at this level since we really don't have access to enough information.
Champions League '08. There's my evidence. A real genuine miracle.
Also I guess I just believe in the HOPE it exist. Even though I probably won't be let in, it's nice to know I may seen my family members again or they are together. The latter is depressing.
Also I guess I just believe in the HOPE it exist. Even though I probably won't be let in, it's nice to know I may seen my family members again or they are together. The latter is depressing.
There is absolutely zero evidence than any god exists. The onus of proof lies with the believers, and they have zero, all throughout the history of the planet, not a single shred of evidence.
Jesus was just the Chuck Norris of his day.
Jesus was just the Chuck Norris of his day.
If you accept that there is a God then I think you also have to accept that Their opposite also exists and is active in the world. I don't think there's a much better argument for pure evil existing than The Holocaust.
I can imagine a 4-sided triangle, where I come from we call it a square for people who can't countMy favourite argument in support of a god or an afterlife is that I'm incapable of imagining nothing, the same way I can't imagine a 4-sided triangle.
I don't think it's a particularly good argument for its purpose as it walks you straight into solipsism, provides no reason for intervention, and doesn't account for the fact that I might just be shit at imagining things.
I was really hoping that all the way down it was gonna be turtles.
We can't have that. If things don't exist until we find evidence of them, then nothing could have existed before us. We know how we feel about nothing, so what's the fix?
Hannah Arendt has a different idea. It was evil, of course, and no sane person could argue otherwise. But she reads it very credibly as the "banality of evil". Death, or murder-camps, by a hundred thousand different socio-economic cuts.
We have plenty of evidence of things existing before us (eg fossils).
That doesn't track with "Baboons the size of stars don't exist until we find evidence that they do." They either exist undiscovered, or their existence is dependent upon discovery.
Don't belive in anything. But. I have a very hard time with it being nothing, just as there being something. Both are as strange to me. Why is there something? Well.. because.. OK. Don't help much. Why nothing then? Because.. Just as helpfull. Annoying fecking mystery, this existence !
I don’t believe in god(s). I think it’s a man made belief system to cushion their fear of death.
I also don’t believe that there isn’t ’something’ higher. There could be, I just haven’t seen the data or evidence to suggest so.
I guess I’m agnostic. But until I see irrefutable proof of a higher being then I’m in the camp of there being nothing after death.
I still Hail Mary during turbulence…just in case though.
Ffs
I also don’t believe that there isn’t ’something’ higher. There could be, I just haven’t seen the data or evidence to suggest so.
I guess I’m agnostic. But until I see irrefutable proof of a higher being then I’m in the camp of there being nothing after death.
I still Hail Mary during turbulence…just in case though.
Ffs
'I am the one who knocks' - Walter White
of course knowledge about the existence of something is dependent on our discovery of it.
baboons the size of stars could exist, just like god could exist, but there is no reason to believe they do until we find some evidence of it. otherwise it's just make believe.
Who's talking about knowledge?
Without putting words in his mouth, that’s what @Badunk was getting at. What else would we be talking about? Obviously we don’t just magic stuff into existence when we discover something.
Cats either dead or alive?
Ontology.
And that's not at all an obvious assumption. Some very clever people once thought that things couldn't exist unobserved. I mean it was the dark ages and they all had brain rot from eating too many rat turds but still.
I'm an animist, I believe God is the consciousness of everything.
Evidence: things
Evidence: things
Our sciences do a very good job of predicting things 'which should be there'. Whether it's dinosaurs that we haven't found yet or planets with certain characteristics, orbiting stars that we haven't discovered yet, we have good theories about what we should expect to find in different areas of science. We thought black holes were real using mathematics, then our telescopes finally found them.
So, let's just go by the maxim that ordinary things require ordinary evidence, and extraordinary things require extraordinary evidence. For example, hypothesising that we should find a homonid that has XYZ characteristics, based on the other homonid remains that we've found, isn't as much of a stretch as suggesting there is a supernatural being that brought everything in the universe into existence. One follows logic, one follows magic.
There is no reason to believe in the existence of any one specific god over any other.
If you can discount the rest other than your own, then you can discount yours the same way.
Gods are manmade.
If you can discount the rest other than your own, then you can discount yours the same way.
Gods are manmade.
I’m a 76 year old Catholic who believes that a higher power exists.
I get that some have doubts, some absolutely refuse to believe in any higher power.
I get confused when I hear some people talk of having read x’s excellent interpretation of our existence’ but they find it difficult to believe in passages from the Bible.
Another thing that I have heard on numerous occasions regarding life after death is the comment, no one has come back to tell us.
The only reply I can give is, Jesus came back and it is in Him that us Catholics hold our faith.
Normally their answers are, but that was a couple of thousand years ago. My reply is, how many does it take to tell you, 10, 100, 1000?
I’ll admit I am not a Bible reader as such as I think it is read to find out about Jesus and after that, if you can’t find Jesus, as in being a Christian, in your everyday life, then you’re not a Christian.
Another thing that I have found is, on this forum for example, “Religion what is the point”, would be started by someone who is searching for someone to agree with their opinion, rather than wanting to hear from people who rely on their faith to help them through each day.
Sorry if I’m wrong about that last piece.
I get that some have doubts, some absolutely refuse to believe in any higher power.
I get confused when I hear some people talk of having read x’s excellent interpretation of our existence’ but they find it difficult to believe in passages from the Bible.
Another thing that I have heard on numerous occasions regarding life after death is the comment, no one has come back to tell us.
The only reply I can give is, Jesus came back and it is in Him that us Catholics hold our faith.
Normally their answers are, but that was a couple of thousand years ago. My reply is, how many does it take to tell you, 10, 100, 1000?
I’ll admit I am not a Bible reader as such as I think it is read to find out about Jesus and after that, if you can’t find Jesus, as in being a Christian, in your everyday life, then you’re not a Christian.
Another thing that I have found is, on this forum for example, “Religion what is the point”, would be started by someone who is searching for someone to agree with their opinion, rather than wanting to hear from people who rely on their faith to help them through each day.
Sorry if I’m wrong about that last piece.
I don't believe in any of that but I often wonder who sat and thought out the bible if it's all made up. It's some story
Indeed, many believe it is the greatest story ever told.
I'm obviously missing the sarcasm here
- Free will (if it's all material, then free will is an illusion as we are just following the laws of underlying physics)
- The mind (not brain) and its mental states : love, hate, understanding, pain, happiness...etc.. ..in more specific philosophical terms: intentionality and Qualia
- The three ideal values: Truth, Goodness, Beauty (the Value in a purely material world is utility, while seeking any of three values for itself would make no sense )
the above don't necessarily point to the existence of a God, but they are arguments against physicalism and materialism: The atheistic idea that all that exist are matter and energy.
- The apparent, at least to myself, failure of science to explain complex systems without resorting to teleological thinking, ascribing purpose to systems.
- Quantum Physics as per the Copenhagen interpretation imo; possibly opens the door to Berkeley's idealism??
I am just quoting some potentialy modern philosophical arguments. Quoting the Koran is hectic job . I can pretty much quote half the ayahs/ verses of the koran. Just google Koran and start reading whichever surah "chapter"
plus, arguing from faith is not the best approach here imo.
Which parts of the Koran are literal and which are metaphorical?
And, for what it's worth, I think arguing from faith is the best approach. I think theism gets twisted into knots when it tries to use science to prove God. At least with faith, it's honest. "I can't prove God exists, but I believe he does."
Sorry, missed this yesterday. This is probably the hardest thing to let go of, at least for me. I don't know if it's the same for every Catholic all over the world, but we were led to believe as kids that our dead relatives could intercede with God on our behalf, and that they were watching us. The rational, grown up me recognises this as probably a method of control, to promote obedience to the faith. In other words, don't do that bad thing because your dead granny is watching and she'll be upset with you.
Logically, it makes no sense, though. Who is in 'heaven'? People who died 20 years ago, mixing with dead soldiers from the Napoleonic era and cavemen and women? Are dinosaurs there? Who do you live with for the rest of eternity? Just your immediate family (siblings, parents and grandparents)? Well, what about your grandparents' parents and grandparents? Who do they live with? Where does it begin and where does it end? And do we have bodies? After all, our bodies are now buried or incinerated. So, how do we communicate with each other?
It's a nice idea, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny for me.
It's difficult to believe in certain passages of the Bible because there's a lot of lies and contradictions in it. There's a lot of completely true, historically accurate things in the Bible, but there's also nonsensical statements. And God is cruel and vindictive. He's pro-slavery, pro-rape, pro-genocide, and is a liar.
As far as the resurrection goes, where's the proof of that? And what's your understanding of the afterlife? Where is it, what does it entail, who will be there, etc?
As for your last paragraph, I categorically want opposing views. I've not engaged with the atheists in the thread. I want to know why people believe in God, because they all seem to have different reasons.
The only proof of it is what’s written in the bible. I can only vouch for myself when I say that I believe in what those who say they have witnessed is true.
You say that you have studied the Bible and have made your mind up that it doesn’t give you the answers that you’re looking for. Fair enough.
I have decided that I am off the belief that God exists and it’s my opinion that this is what faith is about.
Are we equating scientifically justified human belief with truth here? It's the "until we find it" that's doing a lot of work it shouldn't be. It would seem as though things don't pop into existence because we believe in them, irrespective of how scientifically justified our belief is.
This isn't trivial. If nothing can be true without scientifically justified human belief, then nothing can be said to exist independently of human consciousness. It's here that we'd be following magic rather than logic - we'd become the creators of existence.
And I don't think this is being fair to science either. Science doesn't have a default position of "let's assume nothing exists, but then go find stuff," if anything it's usually used to challenge previously held beliefs and bring them more in line with the world as it is.
I made it quite clear that extraordinary things require extraordinary evidence. God, by definition, is extraordinary. Assuming he exists isn't my default position. I need evidence. That's what the thread is about.
Of course there are things which exist right now that we don't know about. Some things we can hypothesise are there, then we find them; other things are going to come out of left field. Some will fit our models, some will cause us to alter our models.
The God of the Bible, Torah and Quran, with his supposed omnipotentce, omnipresence and omnibenevolence doesn't make logical sense, can't be argued philosophically, and is quite a nasty piece of work in the holy books inspired by him.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
I agree, faith is trust, faith is a belief. And I have no problem with that. I think that's the only real conclusion anyone who believes in God can come to.
I'm interested in the people who think they can prove a God exists.