Spam & Scams1 min ago
Evidence for God?
97 Answers
In two other threads on this site mallymooface has claimed that there is evidence for God, on one occasion even saying "there is plenty of physical evidence for God".
She also asks whether I can produce proof that God doesn't exist. Taking them in order:
The first one is easy from my end: what evidence do you have, mallymooface, for God's existence? I don't mean faith or personal conviction; I mean evidence - your word.
As to the second (that old chestnut) the fact that one cannot prove the non-existence of unnatural things that people have mooted does not support the truth of them.
I am sure that I cannot disprove the existence of unicorns, magic carpets, Elwood P Dowd's invisible white rabbit called 'Harvey' or shoe-mending elves, but does that inability of mine add to their credibility? If so, then anyone can invent any crazy thing and then sit back smugly and say "You disprove it!"
It is for those who claim incredible things to prove them, or at least provide evidence that the rest of us can chase up.
She also asks whether I can produce proof that God doesn't exist. Taking them in order:
The first one is easy from my end: what evidence do you have, mallymooface, for God's existence? I don't mean faith or personal conviction; I mean evidence - your word.
As to the second (that old chestnut) the fact that one cannot prove the non-existence of unnatural things that people have mooted does not support the truth of them.
I am sure that I cannot disprove the existence of unicorns, magic carpets, Elwood P Dowd's invisible white rabbit called 'Harvey' or shoe-mending elves, but does that inability of mine add to their credibility? If so, then anyone can invent any crazy thing and then sit back smugly and say "You disprove it!"
It is for those who claim incredible things to prove them, or at least provide evidence that the rest of us can chase up.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland, 'rational thinking people' is the key phrase. It's hardly rational to say, 'well we don't know why the universe exists, or what created it, so we'll assume that it's the work of some invisible entity', and be satisfied with that. Rather than accept half measures, if we don't know, then the only way we're ever going to find anything close to an answer is to admit we don't know, and keep searching.
Na hang on a minute, these people have been honest enough to answer a point you raised, and an excellent point it was too: """So, in a nutshell, the universe popped out of nothing, and we don't know why, and as rational thinking people we are supposed to accept that?
Right? """
It's not like we're saying 'Cheese is food, you're saying 'it's a type of car' and we're saying 'don't be stupid'. We are in fact asserting something strange, that the world we see around us, with tons of order and internal consistencies and great marvellous things, appears to have *just happened*. The *strangeness* of our assertion is not the measure of its believability. The measure of its believability are the logic, reasons, and evidence that we can provide for holding that view. That is the basis of modern, responsible science. Similarly, rational people don't reject the assertion that there is a God because the notion sounds too far fetched.......in fact, the reasons (whatever they turn out to be) for the coming about of the universe and life are probably going to sound far fetched, as does much of cosmology, physics, and quantum mechanics. They reject it because they either reject that assertions can be made without some kind of reason for holding them, or they don't think the reasons provided hold water. It's as simple as that.
It's not a question of differing beliefs, at heart. It's a question of differing epistemologies.
You say you can hold a belief without being able to trace, in your head, the steps that lead to such a belief. I say that this is the breakdown of the foundations of reason, and ultimately, of intelligence and mind. Even chimpanzees don't make this kind of error.
Right? """
It's not like we're saying 'Cheese is food, you're saying 'it's a type of car' and we're saying 'don't be stupid'. We are in fact asserting something strange, that the world we see around us, with tons of order and internal consistencies and great marvellous things, appears to have *just happened*. The *strangeness* of our assertion is not the measure of its believability. The measure of its believability are the logic, reasons, and evidence that we can provide for holding that view. That is the basis of modern, responsible science. Similarly, rational people don't reject the assertion that there is a God because the notion sounds too far fetched.......in fact, the reasons (whatever they turn out to be) for the coming about of the universe and life are probably going to sound far fetched, as does much of cosmology, physics, and quantum mechanics. They reject it because they either reject that assertions can be made without some kind of reason for holding them, or they don't think the reasons provided hold water. It's as simple as that.
It's not a question of differing beliefs, at heart. It's a question of differing epistemologies.
You say you can hold a belief without being able to trace, in your head, the steps that lead to such a belief. I say that this is the breakdown of the foundations of reason, and ultimately, of intelligence and mind. Even chimpanzees don't make this kind of error.
Oh dear. I'll have to stretch and strain a bit more to match the intellect of those pesky chimpanzees! Damn swats the lot of 'em.
Maybe you've hot the nail on the head with your assertion that it is a question of differing epistemologies.
Not my field alas, no expert, but, I do question the nature of knowledge, what can we know etc.
We cannot know of anything, "prior", to the big bang if you will forgive the term rooted in time itself, that is, we will never know, our logic and rational thinking hit a brick wall at the beginning.
Only be revelation can we know, and also by subjective knowledge if such a thing exists, which I believe it does.
I can find such revelation in the Bible, but why believe anything written in the Bible.
The Bible must prove itself to me.
(continued)
Maybe you've hot the nail on the head with your assertion that it is a question of differing epistemologies.
Not my field alas, no expert, but, I do question the nature of knowledge, what can we know etc.
We cannot know of anything, "prior", to the big bang if you will forgive the term rooted in time itself, that is, we will never know, our logic and rational thinking hit a brick wall at the beginning.
Only be revelation can we know, and also by subjective knowledge if such a thing exists, which I believe it does.
I can find such revelation in the Bible, but why believe anything written in the Bible.
The Bible must prove itself to me.
(continued)
(continued)
So the Bible has to be extraordinary in its assertions, for me to believe it is special and contains divine revelation.
And it is.
The prophecies concerning the Jews are so accurate, and written so long ago, that something quite amazing is going on here.
Yes, I have said all of this before and been told it is like Nostradamus and vague quatrains. But the Bible is not like that. The most momentous event was the Jews returning to their land and declaring independence in 1948.
Their miraculous survival since, winning war after war against insurnmountable odds, and the hostility today in the Middle East, as the players move in accordance with Bible prophecy.
And this same Bible asserts that there is a God. And, that explains the prophecies, as no human agency could concoct stories so long ago, with such accurate fruition in our lifetime.
What do the chimpanzees say to that?
So the Bible has to be extraordinary in its assertions, for me to believe it is special and contains divine revelation.
And it is.
The prophecies concerning the Jews are so accurate, and written so long ago, that something quite amazing is going on here.
Yes, I have said all of this before and been told it is like Nostradamus and vague quatrains. But the Bible is not like that. The most momentous event was the Jews returning to their land and declaring independence in 1948.
Their miraculous survival since, winning war after war against insurnmountable odds, and the hostility today in the Middle East, as the players move in accordance with Bible prophecy.
And this same Bible asserts that there is a God. And, that explains the prophecies, as no human agency could concoct stories so long ago, with such accurate fruition in our lifetime.
What do the chimpanzees say to that?
Theland, Waldo and I may agree to differ in some instances, but I'm sure that he, like me, wouldn't compromise his beliefs by agreeing to meet anyone half way. I believe we're each happy for our arguments to stand on their own merits, hopefully we respect each other's point of view, and neither of us feel any great need to belong to any particular 'club'.
Yes, I do believe there is a spiritual dimension, but I know nothing about it, I can't possibly attribute it to any 'cause', and although I can offer plenty of anecdotes, I can offer no proof whatsoever, and therefore I wouldn't expect anyone to meet me halfway.
Like the prophecies of Nostradamus, biblical prophesies can, and are, manipulated to fit. I gave you an example a few days ago of one that cannot possibly have been fulfilled unless Christianity is preaching the wrong message, and yet is widely lauded by Christians as having been fulfilled.
How can any 'rational' person reach a definite conclusion unless there is no more to discover? The bible, together with other ancient writings, offer us an enormous insight into history, and I personally, cannot reject them, in their entirety, as the manic ramblings of the religious. As you say, the bible does assert that there is a God, but could that be simply because the writers were unable to explain the events they witnessed in any other way? In my opinion, we must dismiss the obvious superstition, and view what we have left with a clear and open mind, and a rational eye - and if we don't, then we are missing much.
Yes, I do believe there is a spiritual dimension, but I know nothing about it, I can't possibly attribute it to any 'cause', and although I can offer plenty of anecdotes, I can offer no proof whatsoever, and therefore I wouldn't expect anyone to meet me halfway.
Like the prophecies of Nostradamus, biblical prophesies can, and are, manipulated to fit. I gave you an example a few days ago of one that cannot possibly have been fulfilled unless Christianity is preaching the wrong message, and yet is widely lauded by Christians as having been fulfilled.
How can any 'rational' person reach a definite conclusion unless there is no more to discover? The bible, together with other ancient writings, offer us an enormous insight into history, and I personally, cannot reject them, in their entirety, as the manic ramblings of the religious. As you say, the bible does assert that there is a God, but could that be simply because the writers were unable to explain the events they witnessed in any other way? In my opinion, we must dismiss the obvious superstition, and view what we have left with a clear and open mind, and a rational eye - and if we don't, then we are missing much.
Theland:
"Oh dear. I'll have to stretch and strain a bit more to match the intellect of those pesky chimpanzees! Damn swats the lot of 'em."
As a human you have certain intellectual powers that surpass those of chimpanzees, but at the same time they do not perform acts of distorted reasoning that allow them to see truth in monstrous distortions of reality, so in that respect they have a definite intellectual edge on all god-botherers.
""Maybe you've hot the nail on the head with your assertion that it is a question of differing epistemologies.
Not my field alas, no expert, but, I do question the nature of knowledge, what can we know etc.
We cannot know of anything, "prior", to the big bang if you will forgive the term rooted in time itself, that is, we will never know, our logic and rational thinking hit a brick wall at the beginning. """
Then our answer is 'we don't know', not 'let's make something up'.
Only be revelation can we know,
""No, it doesn't follow that because we don't know what brought about the bigbang that we will never know it, or, as I and others have said, that we replace our ignorance with a lie. Your logic is: certain types of knowledge are within our grasp. Others are not, and may never be. Therefore this lends much more weight to anything that purports to say anything about what we can't/don't know by human enquiry. Nah. We still are lost about it, but now we have added some more crap on top of our ignorance.
""" and also by subjective knowledge if such a thing exists, which I believe it does. """
Please define 'subjective knowledge' and illustrate why it might be as valid as 'objective knowledge', and why it may be different from 'guesswork, delusions, madness'. Or is it just different from these because it's *your* subjective knowledge.
"""I can find such revelation in the Bible, but why believe anything written in the Bible.
The Bible
"Oh dear. I'll have to stretch and strain a bit more to match the intellect of those pesky chimpanzees! Damn swats the lot of 'em."
As a human you have certain intellectual powers that surpass those of chimpanzees, but at the same time they do not perform acts of distorted reasoning that allow them to see truth in monstrous distortions of reality, so in that respect they have a definite intellectual edge on all god-botherers.
""Maybe you've hot the nail on the head with your assertion that it is a question of differing epistemologies.
Not my field alas, no expert, but, I do question the nature of knowledge, what can we know etc.
We cannot know of anything, "prior", to the big bang if you will forgive the term rooted in time itself, that is, we will never know, our logic and rational thinking hit a brick wall at the beginning. """
Then our answer is 'we don't know', not 'let's make something up'.
Only be revelation can we know,
""No, it doesn't follow that because we don't know what brought about the bigbang that we will never know it, or, as I and others have said, that we replace our ignorance with a lie. Your logic is: certain types of knowledge are within our grasp. Others are not, and may never be. Therefore this lends much more weight to anything that purports to say anything about what we can't/don't know by human enquiry. Nah. We still are lost about it, but now we have added some more crap on top of our ignorance.
""" and also by subjective knowledge if such a thing exists, which I believe it does. """
Please define 'subjective knowledge' and illustrate why it might be as valid as 'objective knowledge', and why it may be different from 'guesswork, delusions, madness'. Or is it just different from these because it's *your* subjective knowledge.
"""I can find such revelation in the Bible, but why believe anything written in the Bible.
The Bible
-- answer removed --
"""(continued)
So the Bible has to be extraordinary in its assertions, for me to believe it is special and contains divine revelation.
And it is."""
Anything extraordinary will be special. You still don't point out why we should believe anything in the bible. You say you will believe it (ie that it contains divine revelation), *if it contains divine revelation*. I don't need to explain what is wrong with this argument...
"""The prophecies concerning the Jews are so accurate, and written so long ago, that something quite amazing is going on here. """
Are they accurate? Are they ever inaccurate? How do you know that what is written in the New Testament to demonstrate fulfilment of the jewish prophecies did not in fact occur as described, but was written as such in order to bring a lot of jews on board. The New Testament repeatedly makes allusion to Old Testament prophecy when relating certain 'events', saying 'woooo, look, they were so right and so are we'. Yet many biblical scholars, most of them christians, assert that the gospels do not contain an historical account of the life of Jesus, but were written with proselytizing in mind.
"""Yes, I have said all of this before and been told it is like Nostradamus and vague quatrains. But the Bible is not like that."""
I've read much of it and it comes across as very similar tosh to me. The Old Testament is almost unbearable to read, just piles of war and drivel and verse.
"""The most momentous event was the Jews returning to their land and declaring independence in 1948.
Their miraculous survival since, winning war after war against insurnmountable odds
"""Didn't come off too well in World War II.
""", and the hostility today in the Middle East, as the players move in accordance with Bible prophecy."""
1. The Bible said the jews would find a homeland eventually.
2. Someone set up a homeland for the jews.
3.
So the Bible has to be extraordinary in its assertions, for me to believe it is special and contains divine revelation.
And it is."""
Anything extraordinary will be special. You still don't point out why we should believe anything in the bible. You say you will believe it (ie that it contains divine revelation), *if it contains divine revelation*. I don't need to explain what is wrong with this argument...
"""The prophecies concerning the Jews are so accurate, and written so long ago, that something quite amazing is going on here. """
Are they accurate? Are they ever inaccurate? How do you know that what is written in the New Testament to demonstrate fulfilment of the jewish prophecies did not in fact occur as described, but was written as such in order to bring a lot of jews on board. The New Testament repeatedly makes allusion to Old Testament prophecy when relating certain 'events', saying 'woooo, look, they were so right and so are we'. Yet many biblical scholars, most of them christians, assert that the gospels do not contain an historical account of the life of Jesus, but were written with proselytizing in mind.
"""Yes, I have said all of this before and been told it is like Nostradamus and vague quatrains. But the Bible is not like that."""
I've read much of it and it comes across as very similar tosh to me. The Old Testament is almost unbearable to read, just piles of war and drivel and verse.
"""The most momentous event was the Jews returning to their land and declaring independence in 1948.
Their miraculous survival since, winning war after war against insurnmountable odds
"""Didn't come off too well in World War II.
""", and the hostility today in the Middle East, as the players move in accordance with Bible prophecy."""
1. The Bible said the jews would find a homeland eventually.
2. Someone set up a homeland for the jews.
3.
"""And this same Bible asserts that there is a God."""
You seek proof for the existence of God. You seek evidence from a book written by people who assumed the existence of god, who stated that god exists, who wrote a bunch of prophecies, that were then written about by some other god-fearing types, and alluded to to support their own version of who in particular god was. You want to stake your lifetime's opinion on Life, the universe, and everything on this piece of logic?
"""And, that explains the prophecies, as no human agency could concoct stories so long ago, with such accurate fruition in our lifetime. """
Please give me one example of a prophecy written long ago that no human could have written that could not have just happened to be fulfilled by chance a long time later. The jews were always seeking a homeland. Someone (perhaps a regular 'human'?) wrote 'You will one day find a homeland'. They kept looking for a homeland. Eventually someone gave them a homeland. Therefore there must have been some supernatural force behind this earlier prediction. Still stand by that statement?
"""What do the chimpanzees say to that? """
I dunno, woop and clap? While incapable of higher reasoning, neither do they exhibit seriously distorted reasoning, so in that respect........
You seek proof for the existence of God. You seek evidence from a book written by people who assumed the existence of god, who stated that god exists, who wrote a bunch of prophecies, that were then written about by some other god-fearing types, and alluded to to support their own version of who in particular god was. You want to stake your lifetime's opinion on Life, the universe, and everything on this piece of logic?
"""And, that explains the prophecies, as no human agency could concoct stories so long ago, with such accurate fruition in our lifetime. """
Please give me one example of a prophecy written long ago that no human could have written that could not have just happened to be fulfilled by chance a long time later. The jews were always seeking a homeland. Someone (perhaps a regular 'human'?) wrote 'You will one day find a homeland'. They kept looking for a homeland. Eventually someone gave them a homeland. Therefore there must have been some supernatural force behind this earlier prediction. Still stand by that statement?
"""What do the chimpanzees say to that? """
I dunno, woop and clap? While incapable of higher reasoning, neither do they exhibit seriously distorted reasoning, so in that respect........
Hi mally. Sorry for the delay. Before I answer your points, two general matters:
Firstly, it is not a good idea to assume in advance that your correspondent is going to reject what you say as a matter of course. That�s a sort of intellectual blackmail: that if he accepts that�s OK but if he rejects it that just prejudice. I don�t deal in prejudice, just fact and reason.
Secondly, I am bemused by the way religious people give a whole new meaning to the word �evidence� when it is applied to their beliefs, when ,in real life, they know full well what it means. If I were to complain to the police that you robbed me of �50 last Tuesday in Ely the word �evidence� would be one of the first on your indignant lips. What evidence did I have to support such a monstrous charge? And you have plenty of evidence to show that you were nowhere near Ely last Tuesday.
But when it comes to religion, the word becomes diffuse, taking on such meanings as belief, conviction, assumption, a feeling of certainty. Odd that. Now to your points:
Your first is the Thelandesque argument that since the universe could not have come from nothing, someone must have created it. That someone was your God. Ergo God exists. All of that is just assumption. No evidence there at all. (In any case I - and others - have demolished that �argument� so often that I�m surprised that it keeps coming up.) I am sure that the worshippers of all those other creator-gods from Ahura Mazda, Brahma, Coatlicue and Dyaus Pitar�through to Yaro and Zoe claim the same thing for their respective gods, all of whom must therefore exist. Yes,well.
(cont�d)�
Firstly, it is not a good idea to assume in advance that your correspondent is going to reject what you say as a matter of course. That�s a sort of intellectual blackmail: that if he accepts that�s OK but if he rejects it that just prejudice. I don�t deal in prejudice, just fact and reason.
Secondly, I am bemused by the way religious people give a whole new meaning to the word �evidence� when it is applied to their beliefs, when ,in real life, they know full well what it means. If I were to complain to the police that you robbed me of �50 last Tuesday in Ely the word �evidence� would be one of the first on your indignant lips. What evidence did I have to support such a monstrous charge? And you have plenty of evidence to show that you were nowhere near Ely last Tuesday.
But when it comes to religion, the word becomes diffuse, taking on such meanings as belief, conviction, assumption, a feeling of certainty. Odd that. Now to your points:
Your first is the Thelandesque argument that since the universe could not have come from nothing, someone must have created it. That someone was your God. Ergo God exists. All of that is just assumption. No evidence there at all. (In any case I - and others - have demolished that �argument� so often that I�m surprised that it keeps coming up.) I am sure that the worshippers of all those other creator-gods from Ahura Mazda, Brahma, Coatlicue and Dyaus Pitar�through to Yaro and Zoe claim the same thing for their respective gods, all of whom must therefore exist. Yes,well.
(cont�d)�
(cont�d) � Your marquee story is fascinating and I wouldn�t dream of being so rude as to suggest that you made it up. But, as you say, you only consider it to be evidence for God. No way can it sensibly be seen as such. Even if you could prove that you were clairvoyant or possessed second sight, what would that have to do with God? Yes, you prayed, but millions of prayers are launched every day; it would be truly astounding if, by the law of probabilities, some were not �answered�. I can see why you are personally convinced, but, sadly, it is not evidence.
I was delighted to hear about the boy�s recovery from the tumour. Strange that no-one can explain it. But does it make sense to assume that every time we cannot explain something it must be down to God? Again, I am sure that you are thoroughly convinced, but that is not evidence. Do you see what I mean about how the word �evidence� becomes distorted in this context?
The fact is that belief in God is purely a matter of faith � belief without the need for evidence. That�s fair enough and fine by me. What other people choose to believe is none of my business.
But when, quite unnecessarily, they come out from behind that faith and try to rationalise it then they come a cropper because they are ill-equipped for the world of reason.
As for the others, well, I�ll leave them to their discussions � except for a word to Octavius:
Octavius, are you so unobservant that you haven�t noticed that the truth is precisely what I am seeking? And the truth seems to be, according to this thread alone, that there is no evidence that God exists.
I was delighted to hear about the boy�s recovery from the tumour. Strange that no-one can explain it. But does it make sense to assume that every time we cannot explain something it must be down to God? Again, I am sure that you are thoroughly convinced, but that is not evidence. Do you see what I mean about how the word �evidence� becomes distorted in this context?
The fact is that belief in God is purely a matter of faith � belief without the need for evidence. That�s fair enough and fine by me. What other people choose to believe is none of my business.
But when, quite unnecessarily, they come out from behind that faith and try to rationalise it then they come a cropper because they are ill-equipped for the world of reason.
As for the others, well, I�ll leave them to their discussions � except for a word to Octavius:
Octavius, are you so unobservant that you haven�t noticed that the truth is precisely what I am seeking? And the truth seems to be, according to this thread alone, that there is no evidence that God exists.
meredith101 - Yes, I give much weight to the argument that the history of the Jewish people is prophesied in the Bible, and I reject your assertions that anything coming close to fulfillment is purely chance.
The survival of the Jewish nation in Israel is rightly described as miraculous, considering that they were invaded by several armies after declaring independence, and were ill equipped to repel the invaders, but they did.
I read somewhere that West Point military academy in the U.S. do not use Israeli victories and tactics as models for training their officer cadets, because Israeli tactics are far from text book conformity, in other words, any objective military expert would say that Israel should have lost, and describe their victories and survival as, "miraculous." Don't you agree with this?
God promised the Jews a land of milk and honey, and just look at Israel today! Hardly any natural resources, but a booming economy and it's main resource is the brains of its people, just compare the number of Nobel prizes won by Jews with a small population compared to the handfull won by the millions of surrounding Arab countries. Is God blessing them or what?
(continued)
The survival of the Jewish nation in Israel is rightly described as miraculous, considering that they were invaded by several armies after declaring independence, and were ill equipped to repel the invaders, but they did.
I read somewhere that West Point military academy in the U.S. do not use Israeli victories and tactics as models for training their officer cadets, because Israeli tactics are far from text book conformity, in other words, any objective military expert would say that Israel should have lost, and describe their victories and survival as, "miraculous." Don't you agree with this?
God promised the Jews a land of milk and honey, and just look at Israel today! Hardly any natural resources, but a booming economy and it's main resource is the brains of its people, just compare the number of Nobel prizes won by Jews with a small population compared to the handfull won by the millions of surrounding Arab countries. Is God blessing them or what?
(continued)
Latest Posts
Reeves Is Now After Your Pension Funds
News13 mins ago
Editor's Blog39 mins ago
Body & Soul41 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
