Where’s The Evidence?

[Arising_uk]

In what way are they fundamentally contradictory?

They don't believe in the same 'God/s'?

Are they not (in the majority) in agreement that there are consequences to be considered upon ones actions?

Do you think atheists don't believe this?

Sure, but is it not 'God' that decides the 'time' and 'location' of your birth, within which ever culture that 'it' decides is appropriate...ps. i know upon which conditions that decision is based.

You think Woden decided this for the Scandinavians?

Sure, but perhaps no religion is ultimatley 'false' since 'God' intended your existence to persevere with the inception of that particular doctrine.

So 'God's' happy for me to persevere with my Atheism?

Sure, and surely something such as the bible should be taken with a grain of salt...do you really think 'God' would have intended it to be taken literally...really?!!

So there is no 'word of 'God' '?

I don't buy bull (bible) i dont just buy crap...i do know that God (if divine) or whoever created 'it' is taking the piss...wanting us to think a little harder...and i do know that a judging God/'God' exists...and possibly its reason is the onset of entropy.

What's entropy got to do with it?

What if God is all existence all matter all energy all reality. It didnt start the universe perhaps, yet i know from experience that it CAN govern all of our reality.

You're punting Spinoza's 'God' and if so then it cannot break 'its' own laws and as such it cannot interfere in the running of things.

Perhaps as an atheist you should attempt to prove otherwise.

Perhaps you ought to show how it can govern all of our reality. Better still, just show me this 'God'?

Again, one does not have to take such doctrine literally as it was never intended to be so...to do so is to truly buy bull...to not think for ones self...the sages want more from us.

What 'sages'?

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

To pray is an interesting word. Is it yet another random coincidence in the English language that pray is a homophone to prey?

Yes.

The end of the New Testament talks of the beast 666. Why?

Ask bob.

Isnt the beast our energy? Our food? Do we not prey for our food?

No, our food is prey.

Was not Christ born amongst the animals? Did he not tell us to eat his flesh and drink his blood..Again, one must take the buy bull with a tiny grain of salt.

A whole salt shaker but you appear to be picking and choosing the bits that suit you?

All of us prey every day - except perhaps the vegetarians.

Pretty much the bulk of us in the west do no such thing anymore. unless you think you're the great white-hunter tracking down shrink-wrapped chicken?

God has a giant stake\steak in ENTROPY....

What has entropy got to do with it? What do you mean by "entropy"?

Be good and your soul just may reincarnate human...be evil and you may end up the energy of man..

And yet animals eat each other?

Why port any?
Y PORT NE
ENTROPY.

Means what?

A God\god becomes increasingly probable as entropy increases...unfortunatly ATHEIST...its a fact.

How so?

My evidence of a 'God'\god here:- '
Beyond Reasonable Doubt:- http://www.androcies.com

You think this is beyond reasonable doubt!?

[attofishpi]

In what way are they fundamentally contradictory?

They don't believe in the same 'God/s'?

Ah but they do...they and you just don't know it. Man's creation of many forms of religion doesn't change the state of God.

Are they not (in the majority) in agreement that there are consequences to be considered upon ones actions?

Do you think atheists don't believe this?

I'm certain they do...however the consequences perceived by an atheist fall far short of the .mark.

Sure, but is it not 'God' that decides the 'time' and 'location' of your birth, within which ever culture that 'it' decides is appropriate...ps. i know upon which conditions that decision is based.

You think Woden decided this for the Scandinavians?

Terry Wogan? Sorry expat for too long.

Sure, but perhaps no religion is ultimatley 'false' since 'God' intended your existence to persevere with the inception of that particular doctrine.

So 'God's' happy for me to persevere with my Atheism?

Probably. I don't admit to knowing it to that extent. I'm pretty sure 'it' is happier with your existence than mine.

Sure, and surely something such as the bible should be taken with a grain of salt...do you really think 'God' would have intended it to be taken literally...really?!!

So there is no 'word of 'God' '?

Nope. Just a whole load of mishmash that 'it' intends to dwell within one's psyche.

I don't buy bull (bible) i dont just buy crap...i do know that God (if divine) or whoever created 'it' is taking the piss...wanting us to think a little harder...and i do know that a judging God/'God' exists...and possibly its reason is the onset of entropy.

What's entropy got to do with it?

Take a holistic consideration of the universe and intelligent species exsiting and developing within it. Ok lets take ourselves as an approach. We are likely in the future to discover a way for immortality. At some point in said universe increasing entropy is gonna be a real pain in the ass for such an existence. Does a conditional 'God' now sound appropriate?

What if God is all existence all matter all energy all reality. It didnt start the universe perhaps, yet i know from experience that it CAN govern all of our reality.

You're punting Spinoza's 'God' and if so then it cannot break 'its' own laws and as such it cannot interfere in the running of things.

You do love to bring Spinoza up a lot. Im not punting anything from Spinoza, as ive stated to you before, Spinoza was one of the wishful thinkers in relation to God...a God the church keep fluffing up for the masses that its "ALL GOOD".
What 'laws' are you referring to?

Perhaps as an atheist you should attempt to prove otherwise.

Perhaps you ought to show how it can govern all of our reality. Better still, just show me this 'God'?

Personal experience Arising...for 17 years i have been tested and i have tested it back. This God is all that you are and all that you see\taste\touch\smell\hear.

Again, one does not have to take such doctrine literally as it was never intended to be so...to do so is to truly buy bull...to not think for ones self...the sages want more from us.

What 'sages'? "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

Those that know what i still seek. The true nature of God. Who the frig is calling them Gods?

To pray is an interesting word. Is it yet another random coincidence in the English language that pray is a homophone to prey? The end of the New Testament talks of the beast 666. Why?
Isnt the beast our energy? Our food? Do we not prey for our food?

No, our food is prey.

Ok fair play. Do some not pray for our prey? The homophone is not a random coincidence.

Was not Christ born amongst the animals? Did he not tell us to eat his flesh and drink his blood..Again, one must take the buy bull with a tiny grain of salt.

A whole salt shaker but you appear to be picking and choosing the bits that suit you?

Its one of the stronger points within the aforementioned mishmash that God has insisted dwell within our psyche.

God has a giant stake\steak in ENTROPY....

What has entropy got to do with it? What do you mean by "entropy"?

As i mentioned above re. entropy\God...We are likely in the future to discover a way for immortality. At some point in said universe increasing entropy is gonna be a real pain in the ass for such an existence. Does a conditional 'God' now sound appropriate?
Case in point - since i know God exists and to the extent that i am aware of it...i do not consider it far-fetched that 'the future' mentioned...is now.

Be good and your soul just may reincarnate human...be evil and you may end up the energy of man..
Why port any?
Y PORT NE
ENTROPY.

Means what?

A ""soul"" to port where? and why?

A God\god becomes increasingly probable as entropy increases...unfortunatly ATHEIST...its a fact.

How so?

As mentioned slightly above...technology will bring forth immortality...immortality requires energy...useful energy over time depletes (entropy increases)...technology will implement a way of 'knowing and judging' all wo\man lets call it 'AI'....it may as well be considered a f'ing God.
Mount Sinai...SIN_AI...(where purportedly Moses received the commandments)

My evidence of a 'God'\god here:- '
Beyond Reasonable Doubt:- http://www.androcies.com

You think this is beyond reasonable doubt!?

Coupled with my argument. Yes. To reasonable minds.

[Arising_uk]

Ah but they do...they and you just don't know it. Man's creation of many forms of religion doesn't change the state of God.

According to you, what makes you right and those others wrong and how can you demonstrate this in such a way as to convince those others? No need to convince me as I think your 'God' non-existent in the sense you wish i'it' to be.

I'm certain they do...however the consequences perceived by an atheist fall far short of the .mark.

In what sense? Are you an Atheist such that you can know this?

Terry Wogan? Sorry expat for too long.

Funny, but not an answer to what I asked.

Probably. I don't admit to knowing it to that extent. I'm pretty sure 'it' is happier with your existence than mine.

Why would 'it' care either way?

Nope. Just a whole load of mishmash that 'it' intends to dwell within one's psyche.

So it is the word of 'God' but just a load of mish-mash that 'it' intends we should be burdened with?

Take a holistic consideration of the universe and intelligent species exsiting and developing within it. Ok lets take ourselves as an approach. We are likely in the future to discover a way for immortality. At some point in said universe increasing entropy is gonna be a real pain in the ass for such an existence. Does a conditional 'God' now sound appropriate?

Why do you think it probable that immortality will be discovered? It's more probable that we'll just go extinct.

You do love to bring Spinoza up a lot. Im not punting anything from Spinoza, as ive stated to you before, Spinoza was one of the wishful thinkers in relation to God...a God the church keep fluffing up for the masses that its "ALL GOOD".

That's Leibniz not Spinoza. That you think Spinoza a 'wishful thinker' is hysterical given what you punt.

What 'laws' are you referring to?

The laws of Physics and Logic.

Personal experience Arising...for 17 years i have been tested and i have tested it back. This God is all that you are and all that you see\taste\touch\smell\hear.

Ah! Okay, so not a 'God' 'God' but a psychological tool.

Those that know what i still seek. The true nature of God. Who the frig is calling them Gods?

Essentially your subconscious then as as far as I can understand this you are not saying there is a 'God' in any religious sense.

Ok fair play. Do some not pray for our prey? The homophone is not a random coincidence.

Yes it is, as is all language. What are you going to do when English changes beyond all recognition as it has in the past.

Its one of the stronger points within the aforementioned mishmash that God has insisted dwell within our psyche.

And yet this mish-mash does not dwell in the psyche of over two-thrids of the world?

As i mentioned above re. entropy\God...We are likely in the future to discover a way for immortality. At some point in said universe increasing entropy is gonna be a real pain in the ass for such an existence. Does a conditional 'God' now sound appropriate?

Who would this conditional 'God' be a 'God' to?

See my response above about immortality.

Case in point - since i know God exists and to the extent that i am aware of it...i do not consider it far-fetched that 'the future' mentioned...is now.

You think we are in a simulation now?

A ""soul"" to port where? and why?

No-where as dead is dead. Why? Because we are moral.

As mentioned slightly above...technology will bring forth immortality...immortality requires energy...useful energy over time depletes (entropy increases)...technology will implement a way of 'knowing and judging' all wo\man lets call it 'AI'....it may as well be considered a f'ing God.

Ah! A Transhumanist. Well maybe, as us currently living in a sim may make sense of it all.

Immortality does take energy so why would the solution be more energy use and not less, why more complexity and not less?

Mount Sinai...SIN_AI...(where purportedly Moses received the commandments)

You think he knew the place as Sinai? What about سيناء‎?

Coupled with my argument. Yes. To reasonable minds.

Your argument is what? That we are living in a sim already? 'God' is The Great Programmer? And you know this because you were assaulted and had a bang on the head and now can 'hear' a 'sage' in your head? That English is the language of the Great Programmer? That immortality is probable and due to entropy these immortals will be in 'sims' to save energy and we are in one of them right now? On this matter, why do you think such beings would waste the energy running such a thing as an ancestor sim?

Reasonable minds can find questions about your assumptions, look forward to you assuaging them.

[attofishpi]

Ah but they do...they and you just don't know it. Man's creation of many forms of religion doesn't change the state of God.

According to you, what makes you right and those others wrong and how can you demonstrate this in such a way as to convince those others?

I'm right because i KNOW of God's existence...all the others 'believe'. I no longer consider myself a theist, i don't simply 'believe'. Further, i don't much care what others believe, i'm more concerned with those that don't believe, atheists.

No need to convince me as I think your 'God' non-existent in the sense you wish i'it' to be.

Ain't wishin anything bud...getting a bit sick of atheists suggesting i am...ps. you best keep thinking

I'm certain they do...however the consequences perceived by an atheist fall far short of the .mark.

In what sense? Are you an Atheist such that you can know this?

I know an atheist believes the consequences of his\her actions are dealt only by man or natural circumstance...far short of the .mark.

Terry Wogan? Sorry expat for too long.

Funny, but not an answer to what I asked.

Please reiterate the question.

Probably. I don't admit to knowing it to that extent. I'm pretty sure 'it' is happier with your existence than mine.

Why would 'it' care either way?

I don't care...it was your question.

Nope. Just a whole load of mishmash that 'it' intends to dwell within one's psyche.

So it is the word of 'God' but just a load of mish-mash that 'it' intends we should be burdened with?

Yeah...what a piece of work.

Take a holistic consideration of the universe and intelligent species exsiting and developing within it. Ok lets take ourselves as an approach. We are likely in the future to discover a way for immortality. At some point in said universe increasing entropy is gonna be a real pain in the ass for such an existence. Does a conditional 'God' now sound appropriate?

Why do you think it probable that immortality will be discovered? It's more probable that we'll just go extinct.

And if we don't\didn't? You do now agree that a conditional 'God' would be appropriate?

You do love to bring Spinoza up a lot. Im not punting anything from Spinoza, as ive stated to you before, Spinoza was one of the wishful thinkers in relation to God...a God the church keep fluffing up for the masses that its "ALL GOOD".

That's Leibniz not Spinoza. That you think Spinoza a 'wishful thinker' is hysterical given what you punt.

As i have quoted Spinoza to you before...he believe God is ALL GOOD.

What 'laws' are you referring to?

The laws of Physics and Logic.

This is a statement you made in relation to Spinoza, a man who incorrectly believed God was ALL GOOD...i don't think i need you to expand on his logic.

Personal experience Arising...for 17 years i have been tested and i have tested it back. This God is all that you are and all that you see\taste\touch\smell\hear.

Ah! Okay, so not a 'God' 'God' but a psychological tool.

Interpretation and analysis of interactions with God\'God' where my intelligence is the tool? Sure, but still God\'God', i assure i am very intelligent.

Those that know what i still seek. The true nature of God. Who the frig is calling them Gods?

Essentially your subconscious then as as far as I can understand this you are not saying there is a 'God' in any religious sense.

The sage(s) know the truth to the true nature God\'God's existence and that is all that i am seeking.

Ok fair play. Do some not pray for our prey? The homophone is not a random coincidence.

Yes it is, as is all language. What are you going to do when English changes beyond all recognition as it has in the past.

Ha, you mean when and if God contorts it further, you're still not getting me are you! I think the strongest language on the planet will stabilise to quite a degree, dialects that contributed to its current state are in decline.

Its one of the stronger points within the aforementioned mishmash that God has insisted dwell within our psyche.

And yet this mish-mash does not dwell in the psyche of over two-thrids of the world?

Really? Should i care? Im sure aborigines in the Amazon jungle have their own forms of spiritual consequence, possibly courtesy of a witch doctor of some sort in the past having interactions with God.

As i mentioned above re. entropy\God...We are likely in the future to discover a way for immortality. At some point in said universe increasing entropy is gonna be a real pain in the ass for such an existence. Does a conditional 'God' now sound appropriate?

Who would this conditional 'God' be a 'God' to?

All of us have been warned.

Case in point - since i know God exists and to the extent that i am aware of it...i do not consider it far-fetched that 'the future' mentioned...is now.

You think we are in a simulation now?

I wouldn't call it a simulation...its a universe within which we are immersed...still banking on God being 'divine' however.

A ""soul"" to port where? and why?

No-where as dead is dead. Why? Because we are moral.

Not sure what moral has got to do with it, pehaps you'd like some tea. This really makes ME laugh Arising, not just about you but all 'intelligent' atheists...as i have stated in another thread...that your mind is amidst a vibrating field of energy that phycisists admit is more baffling the more is understood and yet you state with such certainty that dead is dead...(no port.) Further, that you, by remaining atheist, disregard an entire POV where new critical analysis should be considered, is to be extremely closed minded.

As mentioned slightly above...technology will bring forth immortality...immortality requires energy...useful energy over time depletes (entropy increases)...technology will implement a way of 'knowing and judging' all wo\man lets call it 'AI'....it may as well be considered a f'ing God.

Ah! A Transhumanist. Well maybe, as us currently living in a sim may make sense of it all.

No not really, just poking at possibilities as to why\how the 'God' i know MIGHT exist. Perhaps our technology became so advanced that we created a universe, perhaps we are in that universe...no simulation.

Immortality does take energy so why would the solution be more energy use and not less, why more complexity and not less?

The solution is not necessarily more complex, and complexity is not necessarily less energy efficient.

Mount Sinai...SIN_AI...(where purportedly Moses received the commandments)

You think he knew the place as Sinai? What about سيناء‎?

Again, you really are not getting this are you. Who cares what Moses knew it as. What is important is here and now what we know it as in the common protocol of planet Earth, English. Further to this however, i wish i did know other languages, perhaps there is more anomaly riddled within from God.

Coupled with my argument. Yes. To reasonable minds.

Your argument is what? That we are living in a sim already?

No.
My argument is that God/'God' exists. That if its an intelligent species created 'God' then it is likely to have a reason for existence, and that reason for existence is the progression of entropy. If 'God' is intelligent species made then it is not necessarily a 'sim' but a real working universe, as part of the multiverse.

'God' is The Great Programmer?

Mmm, perhaps in a sense it could be considered such - if 'divine'

And you know this because you were assaulted and had a bang on the head and now can 'hear' a 'sage' in your head?

Now you are really belittling the vast amount of circumstances that have brought me to know. And you don't even accurately portray the circumstance that you are once again mentioning. Would you like me to clarify what actually happened? Btw - it was a broken arm and simple broken nose - no brain damage thankyou very much, but i know when my argument (that God\'God' exists) is particularly strong, as it must be as its the truth, one must resort to such antics.

[uwot]

What I don't get, Andrew, is if god is manipulating language so that we can interpret messages, why doesn't she just tell us?

[Wyman]

What I don't get, Andrew, is if god is manipulating language so that we can interpret messages, why doesn't she just tell us?

Or as Nietzsche asked, 'Is it that He has problems communicating?'

[uwot]

Or as Nietzsche asked, 'Is it that He has problems communicating?'

It's a good point, isn't it? If god means us to understand something, they are clearly not omnipotent.

[Wyman]

Or as Nietzsche asked, 'Is it that He has problems communicating?'

It's a good point, isn't it? If god means us to understand something, they are clearly not omnipotent.

Yes, you would think He could communicate His purposes clearly to those He made in His own image, not relying on burning bushes or strange allegories, numerology or ambiguous 'signs.'

[Impenitent]

"There is no original text..." Nietzsche

-Imp

[attofishpi]

What I don't get, Andrew, is if god is manipulating language so that we can interpret messages, why doesn't she just tell us?
It's a good point, isn't it? If god means us to understand something, they are clearly not omnipotent.

Its a very good question.

This is something i have pondered over the years and mentioned a couple of times on this forum.

Is there a reason for DOUBT?

Have a think about it, I think there is.

[uwot]

Is there a reason for DOUBT?

Have a think about it, I think there is.

The thing is, there could be any number of reasons for doubt. I've heard all sorts of variations of the free-will argument, which are nearly always consistent with the hypothesis that there exists a god of the sort that would demand or create such free-will. I don't know what sort of god you are pondering, but after years of doing so, a coherent story should be the least of your achievements.
I've seen you say that you have personal experience of god. What role does doubt have in your relationship with her?

[Melchior]

The article contains nothing but fallacies.

[Wyman]

The article states:

Although evidentialism is much harder to clarify and defend than it might seem, there is no denying its prima facie reasonableness.

And then goes on to apply this evidentialism to atheism. (Side note:Is the author being ironic, applying evidentialism to evidentialism?) Prima facie means that there is enough evidence (barely) to go forward in court - that is, enough evidence to plausibly assume the proposition to be true, effectively shifting the burden of proof to the other side.

He then goes on to propose that atheism requires evidence in its support, just as it (atheism) demands of theism. However, the question first has to be: is there prima facie evidence on either side to even get to the threshold level of debate?

For instance, we do not daily debate whether aliens are controlling our thoughts before getting on with our activities. Only if their is some prima facie evidence to call our attention to the subject would we give pause.

Atheists are saying that theists can not even make a prima facie case. I think, however, that theists can make a prima facie case - although in the end, they could still be wrong.

Dawkins makes such a case when he goes through the evolutionary evidence of, for instance, a Giraffe's laryngeal nerve:

From Wikipedia:

Evidence of evolution[edit]
The extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes,[26]:74–75 is cited as evidence of evolution. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.[27]:360–362

Also, our testicles begin in our lower abdomen and then have to drop because of a similar evolutionary 'hiccup.' There are many other examples of how jumbled up and irrational is the design of our bodies. This evidence strongly favors an evolutionary interpretation over a intelligent design interpretation. There are other examples.

This may still leave open a kind of 'first cause' role of a god, where he or she set things rolling. But here as well, there would be (and perhaps could not be) any evidence.

[Questionmark]

...There are many other examples of how jumbled up and irrational is the design of our bodies. This evidence strongly favors an evolutionary interpretation over a intelligent design interpretation. There are other examples.

"jumbled up and irrational ... design of our bodies"

Isn't this just a point of view? I think its wonderful we actually see everything up side down, but our mind flips it around.. there are many other examples too.

"strongly favors evolutionary interpretation over intelligent design"

Why is this an either or question? But like you said yourself;

This may still leave open a kind of 'first cause' role of a god, where he or she set things rolling. But here as well, there would be (and perhaps could not be) any evidence.

May still leave? Its as wide as a door can get open. Science has nothing directly to do with religion. But what you are pointing out is the point of the article;

You cant say God doesn't exist because if so, you couldn't prove its absence and since you cant prove that, etc.

As Christopher Hitchens is fond of saying, “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Agnosticism, knowing you dont know, etc.

Besides that, I like your post. I understand the alien part, but the whole God-question is a result of self conscious and our urge to understand where we came from, compared to the possible existence of fairies midgets and pots of gold as often is used as an argument by atheists.

He then goes on to propose that atheism requires evidence in its support, just as it (atheism) demands of theism. However, the question first has to be: is there prima facie evidence on either side to even get to the threshold level of debate?

For instance, we do not daily debate whether aliens are controlling our thoughts before getting on with our activities. Only if their is some prima facie evidence to call our attention to the subject would we give pause

Well, I assume you understand where the whole dillema comes from in the first place. Only problem is what you mentioned, the article expects proof from the atheists, which always will be impossible to prove if there were to be no Deity or what so ever.

[Wyman]

Wyman wrote:
This may still leave open a kind of 'first cause' role of a god, where he or she set things rolling. But here as well, there would be (and perhaps could not be) any evidence.

May still leave? Its as wide as a door can get open. Science has nothing directly to do with religion. But what you are pointing out is the point of the article;

You cant say God doesn't exist because if so, you couldn't prove its absence and since you cant prove that, etc.

First, I made a typo in the above, leaving out a 'not' after the 'would' in the second sentence.

Questionmark:

There seems to be a confusion between 'proving' something as opposed to accepting evidence for or against it. You cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God in the sense of a deductive proof.

However, under principles generally accepted by rational, scientifically minded individuals, you can look at evidence and draw some conclusions. The evidence will only tend to support one side or the other. It will never be dispositive.

Talk of first causes, on the other hand, does not even admit the possibility of evidence-based hypotheses. It is outside the realm of empirical inquiry, so that posits of God have no more or less plausibility than posits of fairies or angels or 'turtles all the way down.'

So I disagree with your characterization of the discussion to a degree. No, we cannot 'prove' anything in an absolute sense - this is what I would call 'Humean' skepticism (excepting mathematical proofs, which assume the truth of the axioms). Thus, we can never absolutely 'prove' or disprove the existence of God; and therefore, if you are a Humean skeptic, you must also be agnostic. But that agnosticism applies to every proposition, such as the famous one 'The sun will rise tomorrow.' This gets you nowhere. Moving on...

If we look at probabilities and proceed in a pragmatic, empirical spirit (leaving talk of absolutes and 'proofs' behind us as nonsensical), we can indeed meaningfully speak of evidence tending against the existence of God.

I don't think that the other side, the theists, can similarly speak of evidence tending towards that existence. I see this as the point of Hitchens (by reference, as I've never read anything by him) and Dawkins.