How God could fail to convey His message?

[Immanuel Can]

Because there clearly is no evidence at all for God

Funny...almost the entire human race disagrees with you. Worldwide, there is very little so common as belief in the necessity of a Divine Being or supernatural beings. And with good reason: even Dawkins confesses that the natural world induces one very strongly to such a belief. He argues, in The Blind Watchmaker, that we must "resist the impulse" anyway, but he has no reason why except that he doesn't like the conclusion.

But as it is, there are very compelling philosophical and empirical arguments for God; and anyone who was even a bit serious about the question would surely know that. You haven't investigated, it's clear: you've just jumped to your conclusion.

Typical Atheism, that.

[Arising_uk]

As I trust you know, science is probabilistic, not absolute. ...

No, Physics in QM and QED might well be but other Sciences are not.

... As such, all science is, in that sense "circumstantial" -- though I find that word inapt.

You are right to, the word is Empirical and so far there is no empirical evidence for your 'God'.

As Descartes has demonstrated, there is no such thing as "incontrovertible evidence" of anything -- ...

Not quite, 'I am' is incontrovertible evidence that I exist.

not even that the external or empirical world exists at all. ...

Language gives us that.

To expect it outside of mathematics and such closed systems of symbols would simply be to betray a lack of understanding of how human knowledge actually works. We need to ask instead for what the relative strength of the evidence on each side is, and to weigh it for probability.

True and the evidence and the way knowledge works makes your 'God exists' proposition very weak.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sorry IC, but there is nothing that necessarily proves there is a god, there are only ever things that mere mortals attribute as those that their vision of god might be responsible.

The fact that all human knowledge of the world is inductive means that there is no such thing as "necessary proof" for anything. There is only stronger or weaker evidence that a particular belief is rational or warranted. The question to be resolved is only how strong the evidence in this case is.

Both sides equally can't prove either way.

If by "prove" you mean by way of absolute certainty, the same is true of ANY belief a person can hold. But it's not equal. The reason it isn't is that whereas Theism looks for indicative evidence, Atheism has no evidence for its belief at all. The person who says, "I think there may be a God" can go looking for evidence; but how does an Atheist find evidence for the "nothing" in which He believes? So while this does not conclude the issue, it makes the Atheist's epistemological task much more difficult than anything the Theist would have to do.

Yes, I've noticed you've used the word "evidence" throughout, but it's circumstantial and "circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference." --wikipedia--

This is the problem with taking definitions off wikis: sometimes they're a bit of a hack. In this case, there is no such thing as empirical knowledge for which there is no need for "additional evidence or inference." The author of the definition is simply naive.
Let us test your assertion:

From dictionary.com:
"circumstantial evidence
noun
1. proof of facts offered as evidence from which other facts are to be inferred (contrasted with direct evidence )."

From oxforddictionaries.com:
"circumstantial
Pronunciation: /ˌsərkəmˈstan(t)SH(ə)l/
adjective
1(Of evidence or a legal case) pointing indirectly toward someone’s guilt but not conclusively proving it."

I'll remind you that the Oxford Dictionary is supposedly the premier reference source regarding the English language.

From merriam-webster.com:
"circumstantial evidence
noun: evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue"

OK the facts are in: I'm extremely sorry IC, but those that are the experts in the language you attempt to command, say otherwise, so either you're mistaken or will go so far as to attempt to lie to have things your way, which is it? If you don't answer, I can only assume that you're a liar, fearing exposure, as it's indeed human to err. I do it all the time!

Science would be absolutely nowhere if it relied on circumstantial evidence rather than direct.

"Direct" what? "Direct evidence"? But Theism has that. Atheists won't accept it anyway.

As I trust you know, science is probabilistic, not absolute. It is an excellent thing: but we must not misunderstand what it is telling us. Contrary to popular delusion, it does not give us absolute certainties. It gives us instead higher-probability hypotheses, and helps us not rely on lower-probability ones. But it does not "prove" as such; it doesn't even pretend to. As such, all science is, in that sense "circumstantial" -- though I find that word inapt.

There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence of your gods existence. If so name it.

As Descartes has demonstrated, there is no such thing as "incontrovertible evidence" of anything -- not even that the external or empirical world exists at all. To expect it outside of mathematics and such closed systems of symbols would simply be to betray a lack of understanding of how human knowledge actually works. We need to ask instead for what the relative strength of the evidence on each side is, and to weigh it for probability.

[attofishpi]

That there is an intelligent 'being' projecting our reality.

And what's projecting 'its'?

Of course its only a calculated belief based on experience of 'it' - that all matter and reality is part of it.

If the sage indicates more to me in relation to you i will advise.

What do you mean more!?

Ah nothing much really. I can only quiz by making a statement and getting a binary answer if the statement is correct or not - by way of three taps on my right knee - if im 'right' ergo the left knee is 'incorrect'!

[attofishpi]

Because there clearly is no evidence at all for God

Do you agree that a person could be shown clear evidence of God, but left without the evidence to provide to others?

[Immanuel Can]

OK the facts are in: I'm extremely sorry IC, but those that are the experts in the language you attempt to command, say otherwise, so either you're mistaken or will go so far as to attempt to lie to have things your way, which is it? If you don't answer, I can only assume that you're a liar, fearing exposure, as it's indeed human to err. I do it all the time!

Don't be so sorry...The fault isn't really mine.

I did not imply "circumstantial evidence" isn't in dictionaries, or that it's not a real thing. What I said was that you had misunderstood what "circumstantial evidence" is, and thus were misusing the word...or to put it more decorously, I said I found your use of the word "inapt." Moreover, I asserted that because all scientific evidence is inductive, there never comes a point where further evidence is unnecessary or irrelevant. So to the extent that any definition pretends that isn't so, it's the definition that's wrong...no matter where you cull it.

You incorrectly make a distinction between scientific evidence, which you think is "necessary" evidence, and evidence for God, which you wrongly call "circumstantial." But "circumstantial" isn't actually the word you want. You want the word "empirical," or inductive. For ALL empirical evidence is inductive. There's no other kind except in maths and formal logic.

Theism has both philosophical and inductive or empirical evidence: scientific evidence is empirical, and scientific knowing is inductive. So if the having of inductive knowledge and empirical (what you errantly call "circumstantial") evidence is a fault, you've just rejected all science.

[surreptitious57]

Because there clearly is no evidence at all for God

almost the entire human race disagrees with you

Argumentum ad populum : the validity of a position is not determined by how popular that position may be


Worldwide there is very little so common as belief in the necessity of a Divine Being or supernatural beings

Argumentum ad populum again and also why is belief in God a necessity instead of a choice as it should be


And with good reason : even Dawkins confesses that the natural world induces one very strongly to such a belief

Well he is not speaking for me because irrational belief is something which I personally have no time for at all


He argues in The Blind Watchmaker that we must resist the impulse anyway

I am not resisting this impulse as I do not have it so it does not apply to me


but he has no reason why except that he does not like the conclusion

He does and the reason is it would be entirely irrational to think this


But as it is there are very compelling philosophical and empirical arguments for God

Very compelling philosophical ones maybe but definitely not so for empirical ones


and anyone who was even a bit serious about the question would surely know that

But I assume that you can provide a very compelling empirical argument for God


You have not investigated it is clear : you have just jumped to your conclusion

But were you to produce any actual evidence then I would change my position


Typical Atheism that

Not a typical atheist

For as I already said before I am an apatheist and so it matters not to me whether or not God exists and so if he

does then he does and likewise if he does not then he does not and so whichever it is it does not affect me at all

[surreptitious57]

Do you agree that a person could be shown clear evidence of God but left without the evidence to provide to others

One of the criteria for accepting evidence is that it must be viewed by more than one so as to reduce or eliminate bias

Without such inter subjectivity it cannot be accepted although this is merely one necessary factor since there are others

[Immanuel Can]

I am an apatheist and so it matters not to me whether or not God exists and so if he

does then he does and likewise if he does not then he does not and so whichever it is it does not affect me at all[/color]

For someone "apathetic," you're spending a lot of time talking about a thing about which you claim to have no opinion.

[SpheresOfBalance]

OK the facts are in: I'm extremely sorry IC, but those that are the experts in the language you attempt to command, say otherwise, so either you're mistaken or will go so far as to attempt to lie to have things your way, which is it? If you don't answer, I can only assume that you're a liar, fearing exposure, as it's indeed human to err. I do it all the time!

Don't be so sorry...The fault isn't really mine.

I did not imply "circumstantial evidence" isn't in dictionaries, or that it's not a real thing. What I said was that you had misunderstood what "circumstantial evidence" is, and thus were misusing the word...or to put it more decorously, I said I found your use of the word "inapt." Moreover, I asserted that because all scientific evidence is inductive, there never comes a point where further evidence is unnecessary or irrelevant. So to the extent that any definition pretends that isn't so, it's the definition that's wrong...no matter where you cull it.

You incorrectly make a distinction between scientific evidence, which you think is "necessary" evidence, and evidence for God, which you wrongly call "circumstantial." But "circumstantial" isn't actually the word you want. You want the word "empirical," or inductive. For ALL empirical evidence is inductive. There's no other kind except in maths and formal logic.

Theism has both philosophical and inductive or empirical evidence: scientific evidence is empirical, and scientific knowing is inductive. So if the having of inductive knowledge and empirical (what you errantly call "circumstantial") evidence is a fault, you've just rejected all science.

So a liar it is, because that is not what you said, you said and I quote:

This is the problem with taking definitions off wikis: sometimes they're a bit of a hack. In this case, there is no such thing as empirical knowledge for which there is no need for "additional evidence or inference." The author of the definition is simply naive.

Your summation is highlighted in red above. I proved that in fact he's not naive, as all the other reference sources prove. Now you're saying something totally different, which makes you a liar. So if you'll lie about the meaning of words, then change you story after being shown otherwise, you'll lie about anything. In fact your whole belief system as to your god is a lie you tell yourself everyday so as to quell your fear of dying.

Your bit,

...there is no such thing as empirical knowledge for which there is no need for "additional evidence or inference.

is total BS. If I tell you that a tornado is capable of forcing a soda straw into a telephone pole, then show you a video of it actually happening, which is proven to not have been edited in anyway, and/or you actually witnessing such with your own video camera; that is in fact empirical knowledge.

empirical [em-pir-i-kuh l]
adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

So if your god actually showed himself, talking to everyone on the face of the earth at the exact same time, in the air, over radios, tv's, in reflections, such that everyone saw and heard it simultaneously, stating that the writings of the bible are one hundred percent correct, then proceeded to take everyone's senses on a ride through both time and space showing everyone all he knew, even so far as to show him actually creating another world in the same way as he did earth, it would in fact be empirical knowledge that everyone would witness.

You say the things you say as an attempt to lie your way through your unprovable belief system, even going so far as to attempt to disprove your own empirical knowledge that you have gained in your lifetime. You try and be as slippery as you can, but in fact your inability to be convincing is extremely apparent. But of course you'll continue to try and dodge all the honest logic that shows your belief as the BS that it is, because you fear so completely, a world without your god to protect you, especially from eternal death.

You see, to say, and I quote,

In this case, there is no such thing as empirical knowledge for which there is no need for "additional evidence or inference.

you've shot your case to hell, as you can't have it both ways, if no one can have empirical knowledge that there is no god then you can't have it that there is a god. In your world, nothing is provable, no not even your god! But of course, "thank god," that your world is fictitious.

You're not seeing this, as you're not really here, I'm not here, you're not looking at a computer monitor, or typing on a computer keyboard, because there is no such thing as empirical knowledge for which there is no need for "additional evidence or inference.

[Immanuel Can]

Argumentum ad populum : the validity of a position is not determined by how popular that position may be

True only in certain cases. But in the case of seeing evidence, if a thousand people says they saw it and one says he did not, then suddenly the weight of consensus becomes relevant. Something is made true by consensus: but something that is actually perceived by a lot of people is more likely to be. That's inductive evidence.

He does and the reason is it would be entirely irrational to think this

Quote it. I quoted him, so if you know what you're talking about, you can too.

Very compelling philosophical ones maybe but definitely not so for empirical ones

Untrue. But I note that you've realized your word-choice of "circumstantial" was wrong, and have amended it. Bravo.

But your problem remains: if you reject the evidence for Theism because it is inductive, then you also reject science. Happy with that?

But were you to produce any actual evidence then I would change my position

Why don't I. Just go to Reasonablefaith.org. You'll find lots of good arguments that will help you there. They've also got cool videos.

[thedoc]

Many years ago I had an experience that I could only attribute to the presence of the Holly Spirit, and I reasoned that if the Holy Spirit exists, then so does God, since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God.

But there are other explanations for such events? To me it seems as tho' you are just confirming what you believed already.

I have thought of that possibility, but having been there and directly experienced it, I can think of no other explanation that fits, and others who were not there don't know what the experience was, so have no clear understanding of it. It is easy to hand wave it away out of ignorance.

[Immanuel Can]

The author of the definition is simply naive.

He is.

Your bit,

...there is no such thing as empirical knowledge for which there is no need for "additional evidence or inference.

is total BS.

Now you're talking naively too.

If I tell you that a tornado is capable of forcing a soda straw into a telephone pole, then show you a video of it actually happening, which is proven to not have been edited in anyway, and/or you actually witnessing such with your own video camera; that is in fact empirical knowledge.

Nope. Even if you could know for sure that the video was not faked, Descartes showed you could not know the phone pole was real. You could only say you were, say, 99.999% sure...but never absolutely sure.

empirical [em-pir-i-kuh l]
adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

The third part of the definition is naive, unless it adds "inductively" to the word "provable." That means only probabilistically. No human, empirical knowledge is ever more than probabilistic.

That's basic epistemology.

[thedoc]

Argumentum ad populum : the validity of a position is not determined by how popular that position may be.

A logical fallacy is not necessarily wrong, it's just that the argument does not support the claim. But if the majority hold a belief, then it can be states as true, that the majority do believe.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The author of the definition is simply naive.

He is.
Quit misquoting me, you realize that's lying right! Figures!!!!!

Your bit,

...there is no such thing as empirical knowledge for which there is no need for "additional evidence or inference.

is total BS.

Now you're talking naively too.
Not at all, actually it's been you all along!

If I tell you that a tornado is capable of forcing a soda straw into a telephone pole, then show you a video of it actually happening, which is proven to not have been edited in anyway, and/or you actually witnessing such with your own video camera; that is in fact empirical knowledge.

Nope. Even if you could know for sure that the video was not faked, Descartes showed you could not know the phone pole was real. You could only say you were, say, 99.999% sure...but never absolutely sure.
I might believe that you missed me saying, 'that you saw it on your own camera,' if it weren't for the fact that I know you purposely ignored it to suit your agenda.
But sure, NOTHING IS BLACK OR WHITE, rather only ever CONTINUOUSLY VARIABLE SHADES OF GRAY. But what you have to come to terms with, is that your belief system, compared to science, is much, much, much, (did I say MUCH), lower in PROBABILITY. Of course your fear is far too great for you to admit it. I understand, I am indeed a student of psychology.

empirical [em-pir-i-kuh l]
adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

The third part of the definition is naive, unless it adds "inductively" to the word "provable." That means only probabilistically. No human, empirical knowledge is ever more than probabilistic.

That's basic epistemology.

And relatively speaking your belief system in a god is probabilistically extremely low, as compared to the scientific method. (Did I say, "extremely?")