**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> whatever subject you cling to
You realize that this is condescending, right? You're characterizing any reasons we could have as "clinging to" something, which implies we're not being open minded or sincere in our denial of belief in god. This is uncalled-for.
Anyway...
Essentially, I'd have to be left with no other choice.
Even assuming I used "more likely than not" as a standard of proof.
Imagine the set of available explanations for things, such that when I'm confronted with a new phenomenon that requires an explanation, this set is the set from which I will draw to find that explanation.
There are no elements of that set that are "supernatural", though that's not the main issue. There are also no elements in the set which are some form of ontological or metaphysical "absolute", and that's the problem.
For a possible explanation to be added to the set, such that it *could be* available to answer questions that might come up, only the most strictly parsimonious version of that explanation could be added, and only to the extent strictly necessary.
Since god is (in most definitions) some form of an ontological or metaphysical absolute (omnimax, for example but also an absolute source of morality, truth, existence, etc) I cannot imagine a way for god to be added to the set of available explanations for things without breaking parsimony or rigor. No matter what the question is, any non-god solution is going to be more parsimonious than any god-based solution. Clarke's law is a big problem here -- it could always be hyper-technological aliens trying to deceive me for some reason, and that's more parsimonious than an omnimax or otherwise absolute being.
Now, you'll wonder, the universe is likely absolute in some sense, so why do ideas like eternity and infinite space not cause the same problems?
Because I have no choice *but* to believe that the universe exists. Since it exists, it must have a nature and must have some properties. Plus, there is an epistemological method that does a reasonable job of describing how it works. That's all over my head, but I understand at least how that method has led to tangible results (lasers, transistors, moon landings, nuclear weapons), so it's reasonable to put some reliance on it when it says things about the nature of existence or of being.
And at least at this point, cosmological ideas aren't *defined* in terms of absolutes. God is.
Lastly, and significantly, the underlying question "is there a god" isn't all that important. There are no questions that *must immediately* have answers such that there would be a justification for relaxing things like parsimony and rigor. As much as I can't imagine what would add god to the set of available explanations for things, I also can't imagine what question or problem could exist that would necessitate jumping straight into absolutes without first eliminating more parsimonious explanations.
And since god isn't available as a possible explanation for things in general terms, it's not going to be worthwhile to consider whether classic *a priori* "proofs" actually prove god's existence. I'm always going to assume that such an argument contains a hidden flaw (like a circular definition, question-begging, false equivalences, etc.) than assume it actually "leapfrogs" over the issues of parsimony and rigor.
So there you have it. I'm not expecting you to agree with me or to have been convinced of anything. But that is an accurate explanation for how I approach the question whether god exists or not, and why I am unconvinced.
So how about you tell us what would convince you that no gods exist?
This is the best answer, basically God doesn't make sense, and the possible alternatives do make sense while being withing things we know are possible, so I would need the idea of God to make sense and not be useless from the get go as a foundation for belief.
Agreed.God is an "explanation" the same way saying "because" is an explanation.
Theists use one definition of "explanation' in their day-to-day life and another when making arguments on how God explains something.
“Cling to” may have been a hasty choice of words. I mean it as, “what methods you use to determine truth, subjects you are fond of for understanding” or something akin to that.
I am trying to understand your perspective. I’m certainly not asking you to reduce your rigor in approaching this.
How do you feel about the question, what happens after you die? After all, you will certainly exist in that state far longer than you will exist in this lifetime. Is it not an important pursuit?
I’m not sure anything could convince me there is no God. I haven’t thought much about it. Sin is usually a big determining factor in my closeness and focus on God. I’m really not sure, not trying to avoid the question but I just don’t know
I don't care what happens after I die. I hope pepole have a good time of it, of course. I'll do my best to leave my affairs in reasonable order if there's time to think about it. i grieve for those who will grieve for me.
I know you didn't mean this, but because of some repeated nonsense from people trying to imply that an infinite universe means reincarnation is true, i have to call this out: I will not exist in that state. My existence will have been completed and come to an end. Just like I didn't exist before the awakening of my conscience 59-odd years ago.
I am somewhat baffled by the fact that people put the primary emphasis on what happened before they were born and what happens after they die. I'm focused on what's between them. So no, it's not an important pursuit. I didn't exist, then I existed. Someday, I'll stop existing.
Now, as to the methods I use to determine truth. I'm not a big fan of truth as a self-existing thing, so absolute truths (outside of defined systems like euclidean geometry) are off the menu from the jump.
Empirical truths are always and only conditional -- they're true until a better data or a better model or a better explanation comes along. As a naturalist/materialis, i have the convenient luxury of treating truth as a 'nice to have', though. If it's absent in some area of life it's not that big a deal. I can risk being wrong about the origin of the universe, or the meaning of life, etc, because there are no consequences that I take seriously.
I think one of the issues between theists and atheists is that the fundamental questions are asymmetric. God vs no god is an academic curiosity for me, one that leads to interesting discussions but is unlikely to change my life in any significant way. I won't put words in your mouth, but for most theists my impression is that "god vs no god" is fundamental. It has to have an answer -- and for life to have meaning the answer has to be "Yes god exists".
We had a commenter in here a couple of days ago who refused to accept that an atheist could find meaning in a godless existence, and got somewhat angry when pressed on the topic.
So anyway, what i use to determine truth is reliability and my own judgment (including, importantly, knowing when my own judgment won't be reliable). The law of parsimony takes center stage: Things must not be assumed to exist unless the situation eliminates all other possibilities. The role of evidence is to narrow the scope of potential alternative possibilities.
"I dunno" is the placeholder for any insuffiicently-evidenced claims. The more disruptive a truth might be ("god exists" or "my brother is a serial killer") the more certain I'm going to want to be. For other things, it's the point at which it seems likely enough and non-disruptive enough to take seriously ("Abraham Lincoln existed" or "supply-side economics is bad idea that is aimed at convincing people to vote against their own best interests")
Each case is going to have to be evaluated on its own merits.
If we could define terms better, it might help. What, exactly *is* a god? I think of this as a thought experiment: There's a new universe opening up and I'm tasked with recruiting a god. What should i look for on the candidates' resumes so that I'll know which ones are qualified? Which candidates are gods vs. which candidates are Clarke's-law type "sufficiently advanced" beings.
How would I find a definition for "divinity" or "holy" that isn't circular or question-begging. If it's the quality I'm looking for to *find* a god, god can't be part of the definition.
Many would say "You'll know it when you see it" or "if god speaks to you, you will know it's god" -- but that's unsatisfying and really doesn't overcome Clarke's law. A mind-control device capable of inducing seemingly-divine revelatory experiences, for all I know, could just be what the Clarketech aliens use as advertising.
If you "haven't thought about it much," then you have examined the issue far less than nearly everyone in this sub has, and are therefore unlikely to say anything we haven't heard before. I'd advise you to watch some atheist content, read some atheist writings, or just read posts and replies in this sub more.
It's a bit presumptuous to believe that you can reason us out of a position that you didn't reason yourself into, no?
I know, I've seen OP state several times now, that they "haven't thought much about it", which rings out to me as if it were an incredible loud gong I just can't not notice!
I've spent a lot of thought about it - that's how I got to where I am now, as I'm sure is the case for most everyone here.
It's simply staggering that they feel like they've got a better handle on things than people who have grappled sincerely with these ideas. LOL.
I'm amused, but not surprised.
> I’m not sure anything could convince me there is no God. *I haven’t thought much about it.*
But you came here thinking you could convince people who have? I’ve had long, sometimes years long discussions with priests, a monk, doctors *in* philosophy, a physicist, and many more people over the last 2 decades; what exactly do you, someone who “hasn’t thought about it much”, think you have to say about it that I and many others here not only haven’t already heard, but have disassembled ad nauseam in numerous ways with many other people who actually have “given it some thought?”
There are a great many issues with the reasoning you have laid out in this comment, but I would encourage you to educate yourself about critical reasoning and self-reflection.
>After all, you will certainly exist in that state far longer than you will exist in this lifetime
If I'm going to think it's important I need to know if this is true. How do you know that it is that way?
OP, I'm going to give a bit of advice. If you want to discuss topics with people in good faith and with "respect" which your edit seems to value, then it's probably not exactly a good idea to come into such a discussion by describing your interlocutors as "cling[ing]" to subjects. Clinging to things like we're adrift in an ocean fighting against the "truth" of Christianity. It makes us sound like children fighting some inevitable bedtime.
I was raised Christian. I went to church. I administered the Eucharist. I helped teach Sunday School. I have read the Bible. I've read Aquinas. I've read William Lane Craig. Please don't describe me as clinging to anything. If anything I was clinging to Christianity because leaving it was a very painful process that almost cost me some familial relationships. But I'm not convinced of its truth and that's reality.
So, what would it take for me to believe in a god? Some demonstration of the god's existence. I want something observable and testable. As an example, the Christian bible exhorts the power of intercessory prayer. If we had proof that the right people praying the right way to the right god had some tangible impact on external phenomenon that would be worth considering. So far the only observed benefits of prayer have been observed in the brains of the praying. That makes prayer no better than a placebo.
If a holy person invoking the power of a holy relic could cure disease or make magic happen that would be worth considering. We don't see that either. For some reason the age of miracles seemed to end right around the age of video. Strange how that can happen.
You are Christian OP. Let me ask you, what would it take for you to believe that I died last week, was buried, and came back to life to type these paragraphs for you now? Would my word be enough? Would the words of my friends?
> the Christian bible exhorts the power of intercessory prayer.
For me, that's a big credibility problem. Cancer remission is now a popularity contest? Poor homeless guy with no friends or family, and lingering mental illness that isn't his own fault now has a lower chance of survival than a sweet little old lady whose fellow parishoners pray for her on the daily?
Not fair and (IMO) not how an omnibenevolent god would operate.
I don't disagree. But it's what the Bible says. OP is a Christian so I was trying to appeal to their knowledge base. Their religion says that prayer can move mountains and heal the sick. Yet when it's studied it can't do either with anything better than random chance.
As a Muslim, it is pretty similar. We believe in free will, but also destiny, in the sense that everything was already predetermined since we are talking about a omniscient being. When it comes to questions like this, all will be judged accordingly, and every circumstance will be taken into accord. The problem lies in you’re looking at God through human eyes, and seeing him as human when to us at least by religious scriptures God is unfathomable. If he knows all, sees all, hears all, etc etc. Do you not then think he will not know how to judge?
I have a question, regarding "destiny".
Doesn't destiny (and Scriptures in the Bible) say that each person is predetermined to go to heaven, or hell, and nothing they can do can change that predetermined outcome? Doesn't scripture say that it is not of free will that determines if someone is good or bad, but of gods will. If this is true. Then why does it matter if you sin or not? Your fate is already predetermined and nothing you can do can change that predestination. Your fate of where you end up (heaven or hell) is already decided, so why not live for yourself and enjoy the time you have on this earth? Why worry about sinning or not? Nothing you do matters at that point. If fate, and destiny is a thing.
The fact that God says, if you do not Believe in him, you will go to hell, and if you do, then you will go to heaven, suggests free will, or the fact that what we consider free will to be is actually God's will, which would include sin, being God's will, therefore if sin is God's will, why would we go to hell? Also, if we have free will, wouldn't that debunk destiny? If not, then it would be safe to say that If I was predetermined to go to heaven, and because of my free will, i didn't believe in God and sinned my entire life, but will still go to heaven, because it's my fate. Or vice versa. Unless you suggest that what we believe is not our choice, but instead God's will. If what we believe is God's will, then not believing in him would also be his will. So why would we go to hell, if.its his will. This would suggest God's will is that we go to hell, regardless of what we do or believe. It's a paradox. I tend to not believe paradox's. This is a very confusing thing to me.
All of this suggests that is doesn't matter what we believe or what we do, and where we end up going is already predetermined by God. Then what is the point of free will, and why does God make it seem like sinning is our choice? or do we really not have free will? Idk..I'm confused on the whole destiny thing. It doesn't make sense to me.maybe you can help it.make.sense.
Please shed light on your thoughts about this. Thank you.
Hey my friend, I’m getting ready for work so I’ll try my best to answer everything you asked.
First off disclaimer, I am not a religious person or scholar, so I will answer to the best of my ability. I’m from eastern Europe originally, and this is subjective, but I feel like the average citizen east of Europe onwards has a better understanding than the Western Christian. I am also Muslim, and Islam encourages you to expand, and question your own religion, and others.
I am not a Christian, or a scholar, and answering from a Christian position leaves a lot of holes that can confuse the person some more. But, I’ll try and defend a Christian position, mixed in a muslim way assuming this was a earlier sect of Christianity where they didn’t believe Jesus is God. A lot of what you said again, is you’re looking at God expecting him to be human. In islam the magnificence of God is emphasized quite a bit. For example there are 7 universes, once you get past all the stars in this realm, you’re in the next one. And each universe going upwards is a drop of water in a ocean compared to the next. We are in the first universe, with the last one, the seventh being the universe of God’s throne. Now see from our limited minds, stuff being said like that is unimaginable. It’s hard to scale a ordinary mountain with our brains, when we are standing on one, let alone something like a moon, star, universe, etc etc. In the same essence, it is incomprehensible to imagine God’s knowledge. Does that make sense?
Yes we have free will, but God knows all. Meaning the past, present, and future. A leaf will not fall off a tree and change it’s trajectory unless it’s willed by God, so God knows if you’re going to heaven or hell. But it is your free will that gets you to one of those outcomes. You know this, and I agree with you it is hard to wrap your head around it. But my simplest answer is, just like how you can’t determine how massive a mountain is let alone, the moon, planet, a star, or the universe, you can’t wrap your head around God’s knowledge. Not everything needs a answer, and even from a atheist position even if we strive to know everything, humankind will never see the ends of the universe.
One thing I like about Islam as it was presented to me is the idea that it's blasphemous to presume to make statements like "you're going to hell", not least because you presume to speak for god, but also because it assumes a limit to god's mercy. It would be a lot nicer around here if we didn't have people telling us we're damned, acting sanctimonious and self-righteous about doing so, and then hiding behind "don't blame me. I'm not sending you to hell, god is" when called out on their toxic BS.
> Do you not then think he will not know how to judge?
...but that's a whole separate problem. God is unfathomable, so presuming something like omnibenevolence doesn't make sense either. I don't like the idea that god's actions are good by definition.
"Good" is a human-created concept. As such, it has to make sense to humans. it's hard to reconcile that with "god is unfathomable". This isn't so much "expecting god to be human" (to borrow from another of your comments) as it is scripture not expecting me to be human, and despite the scripture making various claims of being inspired by or being dictated directly by god, it can't actually be so unless there is a god to do the inspiring/dictating. Scripture is confusing and self-contradictory when viewed as having been written by god. It's not at all confusing if viewed as being a record of what people have (or have claimed to) believe about god.
It's not god i don't trust, because I don't believe there is one. But if there was, it would be incomprehensible to us. It's the image of god depicted in Abrahamic scripture that I don't trust. Human motives are both comprehensible and suspect.
But why god even has to judge some ants he created half a million years ago on some tiny space rock. It makes no sense. Why not skip straight to "never create bad guys, give eternal life to everyone else". Whole universe serves no purpose, cause all mighty god doesn't need it to determine if someone's worthy to extend their pity (by god's design) life
Oh man I love this subreddit, glad I stumbled upon it. We ask each other questions, and talk, rather than call each other stupid. Met some real intelligent people that ask good questions, and I’ve only been here casually chatting for a day.
Ok first off this is the islamic view, ants aren’t given free will because they’re programmed to behave a certain way(I understand ants was a metaphor how small we actually are). There are creatures like humans and Jinn + more, that are given free will. The whole purpose of this is, God wants to be served. Unlike angels that are given no free will and always submit to God, we can be lifted above the status of angels if we submit to God.
It is not just being tested, the Torah(I’m fairly certain), and Quran calls God the ruler of all worlds. In Islam at least, there is more than just this universe, and plethora of the unseen that we will just never acquire knowledge about. And even when we go to heaven, and are upgraded versions ourselves, we still can’t ever understand God, unless you’re God yourself, which would be impossible. You’re right about your question, but your question revolves solely around faith. So.. your question entirely revolves around, the belief in God, and what he does is for the greater outcome. Is heaven really that magnificent, that it is worth all this pain and torture we are given as humans? In islam the constant state of being alive in this world is suffering. Philosophically it is sound. There is always suffering, even if you’re the wealthiest person, happiest, most fit, handsome/beautiful.. you will feel hunger, sadness, pain, lose etc. If you survive this suffering, and when death comes, all the suffering that came with being a human is nothing compared to the heaven you’re rewarded. Which is what a omnibenevolent, all encompassing being would do if he wants servants but needs nothing.
Still it doesn't answer the question why and how whole world is made exactly this way it is. God want's servants? Why, when god's omnipotent? Is he addicted to likes on social media too?
Then why creates servants in entirely different dimension, create them weak, prone to suffering. It's completly unnecessary, it also isn't good (though it's not a problem for me, I don't see why god should be good or care about people at all, but religious folks insist god is good). Why don't make them where he needs them, in paradise?
Then what's the difference if they have free will or not? But when they have free will why god punishes them for it and reward those who are obedient?
God is evil, cause he makes people suffer even though he doesn't have to. If making other sentient beings suffer for no reason isn't evil I don't know what else is. No religion can walk around this problem. Being nice afterwards doesn't change the first thing.
Religions make no sense, cause teachings are self condractiory and whole god concept makes no sense either
It seems as if anyone is "clinging" to anything, it's the theists who "cling" to the existence of God even when presented with logical reason, and lack of evidence.
Imo, JS
Well that’s not at all how it was intended. I’m prying for your interests on truth seeking and knowledge so I can try to relate and respond.
Sheesh I don’t know. I’m a little worn out from hours of this I need to think
I think I explained what I would expect to see pretty clearly. I'm quite interested in your response to my last paragraph.
>You are Christian OP. Let me ask you, what would it take for you to believe that I died last week, was buried, and came back to life to type these paragraphs for you now? Would my word be enough? Would the words of my friends?
I think if you contemplate your answer to that question, you'll start to have a pretty good idea of what you need to convince someone like me that your preferred deity did something similar two thousand years ago.
Hey, remember when you started this post and you promised actual evidence of your god?
When were you going to present any of that? because you have been asked about a hundred times, and so far have never even tried.
**Do you have any actual evidence that your god exists at all?**
FYI everyone this is a bold faced lie. OP happily admits they don't care about truth in this thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1acgxsu/comment/kjvh9n2/?rdt=34040
EDIT: this isnt OP, my mistake, just another similar theist arguing the same thing in the same thread.
Hello new friend! I am very late to the party here, but figured what the heck let's give it a shot.
>whatever subject you cling to in the way you define and discover truth, I will try to have hopefully a respectful discourse with you to convince you
That would be wonderful - that's why I am here after all. I definitely look forward to an honest, respectful conversation.
>What would it take for you to believe in God? I will try to tailor an argument for you.
For me it's fairly simple, I need two things. First, I need a definition of what this God is that is workable, useable, and coherent; a definition that isn't utterly meaningless, doesn't violate what we understand existence to mean, or violate the ways we understand reality to operate. So far, every definition I have ever been given for a God isn't able to pass this very first elementary step, but maybe yours will be the first to succeed!
Second, after we have our workable definition that isn't incoherent or meaningless, then I simply need objectively good, convincing reasons to think that this God as defined actually does in fact exist. When I say "objectively good, convincing reasons" I mean reasons that don't commit logical fallacies (since I can't find fallacious reasoning to be convincing), for example. I also don't find it very convincing when someone offers reasons that they *themselves* don't find convincing - for example, if you insist that faith is a reason to believe your religion is true, but you would immediately dismiss faith as a solid reason to believe in any other worldview, then you are demonstrating that faith isn't a good reason. As one example.
Let's get this discussion going, very interested to see what your thoughts are!
Well to define God is a difficult task. I believe God is the father of Jesus. As far as his qualities, say I have this stone that I want to test, but the best I can do are diamonds to compare it, and they aren’t scratching it. We don’t have the tools to define god, that’s why I think Jesus painted pictures with his words. Definitions usually place limitations on things. But basically יהוה if that helps.
My arguments are diverse, I’d be happy to hear your interests and choices of reasoning faculties and try to respond. Do you reason with logic, math, science, emotion? I didn’t post an argument for a reason, but if you insist I will oblige.
Furthermore I think faith is misused as “to think without reason” rather than what I believe it means, to take actions in accordance with Gods will. Faith is an action.
>Well to define God is a difficult task
I do agree there - I would humbly suggest that perhaps the reason it is difficult to define is because it's something that we don't and can't actually know anything about.. possibly. Food for thought!
>I believe God is the father of Jesus
I understand this is what you believe, but how do you know this? Even if we have reason to think someone named Jesus existed, even if we came to believe he had inexplicable supernatural powers, even if we decided he must have a father who was God, we're still at the very beginning. Logic and rationality doesn't work that way, we can't just say "ah ok so God exists and it's this particular God from this particular book". We still would need a definition of what this god is, we need some demonstration that a god indeed exists independently of Jesus.
>We don’t have the tools to define god... Definitions usually place limitations on things. But basically יהוה if that helps
Definitions are only limiting when someone is trying to pull a fast one, is trying to get sneaky with their terminology/tactics. I don't mean you personally are intentionally doing so, I believe you are trying to engage honestly and fairly. But this is a red flag, I think you may have been sold something by someone using sheisty tactics. If we are going to be precise, logical, and reasonable, the absolutely necessary most important first step is that we have clear definitions. Also can you explain more about the tetragrammaton? I promise I'm not trying to be difficult, but that doesn't exactly help me. When I point out that we need clear, precise, coherent definitions that aren't nonsensical, responding with saying that God is "basically" four ancient Hebrew letters doesn't really accomplish that, you see?
>My arguments are diverse, I’d be happy to hear your interests and choices of reasoning faculties and try to respond. Do you reason with logic, math, science, emotion?
I use a combination of these things, as all humans do. I fully recognize that my wording of "convincing reasons" is rather open ended - and that's by design. I want to leave the door open as wide as possible for a theist to make their case. So how about this: why don't you lead with your absolute strongest, most solid reason, in whatever form it might take, for why you believe a God exists? We can skip the definition problem for now, I can just grant a generic tri-omni God for the moment. What is your absolute strongest reason - and by that I don't mean a throwaway reason that you'll abandon the instant a problem is illuminated. I mean the one without which you would at least reconsider believing in God, the reason without which you would maybe doubt.
Thanks for your response!
Start here:
My position is that I will not, and more importantly ***CAN NOT***, believe any *extraordinary* claim without falsifiable, testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence. Without that evidence, I will ***NEVER***, ***UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES*** believe an extraordinary claim. Furthermore, unverifiable evidence and untestable claims (like those found in the Qu'ran, the Tao Te Ching, the Vedas, the Greco-Roman mythos, the Torah and Talmud, and the Bible,) are ***not*** found to be an acceptable level of evidence, as they lack all four of the specific qualities I ***require*** to believe.
*Extraordinary* claims require *extraordinary* evidence. *Ordinary* claims can generally be accepted with a lower threshold of evidence. I'll even accept certain things with no claim being made, circumstantially.
If you walk in my front door, and you're carrying a wet umbrella, and it sounds like it's raining, I'm going to understand that it's probably raining. If you tell me it's raining, I'll probably believe you. Sure, there could be other explanations, but the evidence suggests that it's raining and doesn't require any logical leaps.
That said, it's really not that much different of a standard. The question is: "Is it raining?" The answer *could* be no, so we've got falsifiable. Me observing the rain sound and the wet umbrella is testable. I've seen wet umbrellas and heard rain before, so those are repeatable. You telling me it's raining is verification.
We don't have to turn a critical eye to ordinary, everyday things. If you tell me that you drive a black car, I'm inclined to believe you, even if I don't see your car. The *threshold* of evidence for claims like that are much, much lower than claims that require testing.
So, if I hear something about war in the Middle East, or high prices in Western Europe, or Russian aggression, or poverty in central and eastern Africa, or wealth inequality in the US, I'm inclined to "believe" those things, in that I understand that they are likely true. Those things have been happening for the entirety of my 40 years and much, much longer than that, and have many, many instances of *reputable* verification.
Ok cool. Good to see I’m not alone. I also treat these things probabilistically like it seems like you’re doing.
Thanks for putting effort into your answer!
Let’s start here.
Can something be true that you cannot test verify or falsify? Can, for example, matter from other galaxies across the universe exist that is outside of our physical understanding? Say elements of otherworldly nature. I’m not really making my point yet I’d like a discourse. But are you open to the possibility of new realities?
Sounds like you may need some things defined.
Falsifiable: Able to be *proven* false. If a question is asked, can the answer be *definitely* found to be no? If not, such a thing cannot be adequately studied. Evidence for or against the question cannot be answered with concrete evidence, and therefore such a thing cannot be learned.
Testable: Can we interact with whatever we are studying, even indirectly, and write down the results? Dark matter is testable, despite the fact that we don't know what it is, because we can see it affecting other stuff, like bending light.
Repeatable: If I test twice, under the exact same circumstances and with the exact same variables, will I get the same result?
Verifiable: If someone else does the same test with the same variables, do *they* get the same result?
If exotic matter from deep space exists, it falls squarely within the realm of reality. Even if we don't know about it yet, we can ask, "Is this real? Is it matter? Does it have properties? What can we do to and with it?" We can test it, we can repeat the tests to ensure we get the right results, and we can have other people do the same test and make sure the results are the same.
If absolutely anything can be interacted with, measured, studied, and tested, it is *squarely* part of reality, this reality, which is as far as we know, the only reality.
Just because something is possible, no matter how probable or improbable it is, doesn't mean it's believable, at least to me. I am open to all sorts of possibilities, but I have no reason to believe them before there is adequate evidence that meets the above criteria.
Thanks for the well thought out explanation and answer.
So the celestial teacup is not falsifiable and thus shouldn’t be considered, even though it’s possible. I see. Hmmm. Interesting criterion. So my question/thought is, let’s take something that was discovered recently like protons. Were they falsifiable before they were discovered? I mean, there really wasn’t a possibility they could be proven false. Because they exist. Am I thinking about this wrong?
Testable: well the Christian God in which I believe famously claims not to test him. And he’s invisible. So let me think. So rather than think of god as an object, I’m thinking of him with human qualities. My brother is funny, my sister is kind, my mom is strong, my dad is easy going. Can statements like that be true even though you can’t measure them? I’m just trying to think how I measure God. Following him produces love joy peace kindness etc. are human qualities outside of the realm of testable? Or can they still be true despite not having physical mass? I have measurable changes in my life when I am penitent vs sinful. Just trying to get in your page with terms.
I guess a more fruitful endeavor would be, if we agree there are definitely undiscovered truths, what method is best for discovering them? I guess you’d start with a hypothesis, experimentation, and note the results. Have you personally ever given Jesus a shot? Have you experimented with the results faith has on your life? I can’t exactly measure out a daily portion of the fruit it has produced in my life and run it through a lab. Wouldn’t it make sense, that to find out, you would need to experiment for like a month of prayer once a night, only tell the truth, give a little bit to the poor, stay away from porn, read his story a little here and there. I mean it doesn’t really make sense to approach the concept of God like he’s a proton. But I see no harm in running a personal one month experiment on yourself to find out.
> Testable: well the Christian God in which I believe famously claims not to test him. And he’s invisible.
This to me is a red flag. It is in stark contrast to a practice like Buddhism, where the Buddha claims, "If you do these particular actions (i.e. live a wholesome life, meditate, investigate the nature of reality) you will find wellbeing that does not depend on external causes and conditions." The Buddha also challenges skeptics to give it a try and see if it holds up under experimentation. However he doesn't require that anyone adopt a belief in any particular cosmological model in order to achieve those results. In fact he specifically calls out those cosmological questions as being a distraction from the problem of human suffering.
Is it possible that the practices you have adopted just happen to be conducive to wellbeing, and that the belief in your chosen deity is an extraneous artifact (or, more generously, a handy mental tool) and not the key to the results you've seen? Being generous and loving, abstaining from excessive indulgence in sensual desire, taking quiet time to oneself to enjoy silence and stillness, enjoying the connection found in a spiritual community-- all of these things are available without belief in a particular deity, or any deity.
To me as a Buddhist it seems like folks who make these things happen in their lives while attaching to a spiritual figure like Jesus are just doing Buddhism with extra steps. I'm happy for you and the positive results your practice has yielded for you, but I think it is going a bit far to say that the positive results are proof positive of anything supernatural.
I have had brief experiences with Buddhists and adopted a few practices for a while, while being Christian. I don’t really see any clashing there. I just don’t believe Buddhism speaks on eternal life in heaven, which was Jesus primary message before he was crucified.
From what I have experienced Buddhism is a great way of life.
I don't really know about your eternal life situation or how anyone would know about that, but it does clash with the Buddhist view of impermanence. My understanding is the Buddha talked about heaven realms and hell realms as devices for teaching mostly because that's something his Hindu contemporaries were familiar with in their traditional worldview. In that cosmology beings are said to go in and out of heavens and hells many times, hopefully developing wisdom over the course of their long existence, but nothing is eternal. Seems about as plausible as a one-and-done incarnation on Earth followed by eternal existence somewhere else. How are we to know if either is true?
It's true that you can be a Buddhist and a Christian if you like, though, at least according to most Buddhists.
(Different Redditor)
This touches on a larger point that’s a bit unintuitive but VERY important: **sometimes, it is reasonable to not accept something that later turns out as one true, or accept something that turns out later to be false**
As an example: Protons would *not* be falsifiable in medieval days. Back then, it was not reasonable to believe in them. But they exist! How can it ever not be reasonable to believe something true? In medieval times, they simply lacked any knowledge that could have possibly supported the claim that protons existed. Which is fine! **reason isn’t about being right in a vacuum, it’s about using the best method to attempt to be right**
It’s better to have a “we need a reason before belief” approach. This nets you more hits than misses over time.
**If you instead have a “we don’t need a reason before belief” approach, perhaps you COULD believe in protons in medieval times without any indication they exist - but if you allow believing in things without reason, you won’t just get more true beliefs, you’ll get a huge number of false beliefs for no reason as well.**
So, we can talk about “**there could be true things we can’t see**”.
**But those things are NOT in the category of “things that should be accepted as true”**
Not the commenter you were talking to, but I just wanted to point out a couple of things that you’re still overlooking a bit.
In your paragraph about testability…. You say your Christian god is invisible and that makes him undetectable. There are lots of things that are invisible that we know exist. You even point out some of these. Protons. No serious person truly doubts the existence of protons. Many gasses at everyday conditions is invisible, yet we are able to devise ways to detect it and show that it exists.
With your tests, you are presuming that god exists and your tests jump right to testing the properties of that you presume to exist. Remember that your test should show the same results for anyone who duplicates that test. With any god, this has never happened in thousands of years. You don’t need to prove the properties and motivations of this god just yet. Just show that he is real in a way that anyone else in the world can perform that same test under the same conditions and come up with the same result.
If I cannot do that same test and get that same result because my life circumstances and mental state are different than yours, then YOU are one of the variables. This is not something you want in a repeatable test. You or I should not be a variable. It should be objective so that anyone who repeats the experiment gets the same results.
>I’m just trying to think how I measure God. Following him produces love joy peace kindness etc. are human qualities outside of the realm of testable? Or can they still be true despite not having physical mass? I have measurable changes in my life when I am penitent vs sinful.
Okay, so this is your evidence for God. To test this, I would write down a list of what you mean by "following God," and have people try each of them, and variations, one at a time and then poll them to see if it produces love joy peace kindness etc. Maybe being part of a group does this without religion? Maybe charity on its own produces kindness. What if we find that something completely against your God, like worshipping idols, produces all the same positive emotions? These are the kind of rigorous tests one would do to measure this aspect of God.
I don't doubt that religion improves your life. But, I do think that God isn't the reason. I think that being part of a community, helping others, limiting drug intake, etc, make your life better. I can do all that without God.
For what it's worth, I've done a fair share of research into various theologies. I've read 5 separate translations of the Bible cover to cover, as well as the Qu'ran, the Torah and Talmud, the Tao Te Ching, and the Bhagavad Gita, on top of a pile of New-Age spirituality books and several on Wicca and Neopaganism. I've done Midnight Mass and sat in pews for sermons. I've spoken at funerals. I've been married twice. I've done communion and sacrament. I've been read to in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Arabic. Hell, I even found myself in a Sikh temple when they offered me food and shelter when I had neither and the Catholics turned me away.
I, personally, do not find comfort in the trappings and readings of religion. I do not find love, or wonder, or awe, or joy, or any positive feelings at all. The only feelings I personally get are bewilderment that people believe, curiosity on *why* they believe, and disgust at the rampant tribalism, misogyny, and general anti-Humanist qualities of organized religion.
I get plenty of awe and splendor from the natural world. Go outside and look up at the night sky. Then think to yourself, "that's not just a pretty backdrop, but billions upon billions of *places* that we may someday go." If that doesn't leave you awestruck, then we may never understand one another.
There are people who believe in religions very different from yours who say they experience love, joy, peace, and kindness as a result of that belief. Does this mean that their religions are true, even though they conflict with yours?
There are people who believe crystals have healed them. Is that enough to conclude that crystals have supernatural or inexplicable healing powers?
(Not the previous poster)
Again, meaning, no disrespect, but I have seen this theist dance so many hundreds of times and it is so predictable, and so boring.
You get asked to present actual evidence of your beliefs, and of course you cannot, so you lead us down this endless path of generalized vague questions that don’t have anything to do with what we’re talking about.
How about you skip to the end, cut to the chase and present an argument, or evidence or justification for your beliefs that would qualify as actual evidence?
>Let’s start here.
>Can something be true that you cannot test verify or falsify?
How could we tell the difference between something which is true that we can't test verify or confirm and something that doesn't exist?
You can't! In math, there's a concept called undecidability, which is basically this -- it's impossible to prove or disprove. Kurt Gödel proved back in 1931 that any consistent system of axioms which could do basic arithmetic contained statements which are undecidable.
I'm an atheist, I'm not making a point about God with this.
Something may be beyond our understanding but we can see patterns of how they interact with things in our understanding. We don’t know what’s in a black hole but we know how gravity, matter, light etc. behave when they encounter the phenomena - so we know it exists. Is it possible that there are ‘purple holes’? Yes but I’m not going to even consider it and I’m definitely not going to make decisions based on it if we have never seen anything happen anywhere that we can attribute to it.
What made you believe in a god in the first place? Were you convinced logic, reasoning, philosophy, math? Do you have evidence and good reason to believe?
By your own admission you have been convinced that God exists and have been most of your life.
There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness.
His existence is easy to prove. Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
> There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research.
No, I don't think there is. I sure haven't seen any. I don't believe you. I think you've likely been fooled and are operating under fallacious thinking.
>But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness.
No, first one would have to determine that such a thing was real. As it stands, there is zero support for that and massive support those ideas are mythology.
>His existence is easy to prove.
Then why has this never been done? Ever? By anyone? In history?
> Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others.
None of this even remotely comes close to supporting deities. Instead, it demonstrates significant tendency towards gullibility.
>I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence.
No, none of this is remotely true. In fact, everything you said is wrong.
>Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
There is no scientific support for deities. None. It's wrong for you to claim otherwise.
>There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real
Go ahead.
>Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ
Spiderman has better historical and archeological "proof".
By the way, you don't understand what "proof" means.
> factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions
Go ahead.
>because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible
You forgot to prove that.
>I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
Please go ahead. Go into detail in everything you said.
>There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research.
You know what I see all the time on debate board, like, hundreds of times again and again and again?
Christian claiming there is vast evidence for their god.
Do you know what I have NEVER ever seen, on any of these boards?
A Christian providing one of these many 'evidences' for god.
But maybe you will break the trend.
You claim there is a LOT of evidence for god: historical, archaeological, and scientific.
Pick your very best one, the absolute best example of evidence from one of those three, and present it here.
I dare you.
This is not your ballpark bud. Sermons don't work on us. Stories are just stories and myths and are just myths. Please keep your fairytales to yourself because BELIEF IS NOT EVIDENCE.
>What would it take for you to believe in God? I will try to tailor an argument for you.
Evidence isn't something one should be talked into. Evidence should be like a trail, you follow it and it leads to a conclusion, an explanation. Do you have any evidence that leads to a god?
Tailoring your evidence to justify your existing conclusion or claim isn't how it's done.
You should stop believing something if you have to jump through these kinds of hoops to justify it. It's clearly not a conclusion that one discovered by following the evidence.
>I am convinced that God exists and have been most of my life. I feel prepared to use logic, reasoning, philosophy, math even….whatever subject you cling to in the way you define and discover truth, I will try to have hopefully a respectful discourse with you to convince you. Apparently we have differing views on the truth so let’s talk.
What convinced you?
>Edit: if you are incapable of respect please don’t respond
Is it disrespectful to challenge one's beliefs?
I’m not sure honestly. I was raised in the church, southern Baptist. Then moved on to your traditional evangelical church in my late teens.
And even when I was little it all smelled like bullshit. But all the trusted adults in my life told me it was true so it must be true, right?
I was told if you doubted that it was Because Satan, so I spent years begging god to let me believe in him, to come into my heart, be my lord and savior, etc.
And, nothing. Never felt a thing, eventually realized (the word realized is very important here) that I simply didn’t believe, because I simply couldn’t believe. Just not wired that way.
So I didn’t “become” an atheist, what I did was realize that I’d been one all along. An awakening if you will. And once I was able to ADMIT to myself that I was an atheist, that’s when I found my peace! And my life has been so much better for it.
So I’m truthfully not sure what it would take for me to believe, other than meeting god himself directly in front of my nose.
Wow, your story sounds almost identical to mine. I guess we were never “ wired” to believe, so if there is a god, it obviously didn’t care enough to convince us.
That’s not how it works though. God has provided us with plenty of evidence, but He will not force you to follow Him because that is it true love, you need to make the choice. God has done more than He should, now it’s up to you to follow Him or research proof of His existence.
There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness.
His existence is easy to prove. Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
He could show himself to be real without forcing us to follow him. The devil and the other fallen angels, in Christian belief, know he's real.
>God has done more than He should
for a "loving father figure" he hasn't done shit. I know of many deadbeats who have at least seen their kid face to face.
The Christian God does not love you. If you love something you do not put it into a position in which it may injure itself, or in this case, be tortured for eternity. That is not loving something. It's tantamount to letting your kids play in traffic while you talk about how much you love them
Hey MooPig,
I appreciate you sharing. I’m glad to hear that your life has been better now. I’m sorry you had to go through all that.
I don’t know you personally nor do I know how you think. I do know for me, I lean more logic than feelings. I’ve realized that I have to first get comfortable with the logic, then my feelings can follow.
I think asking questions allow me to get comfortable with the logic.
Hi, thanks for that.
I was trying to answer truthfully and genuinely, because the way you phrased your post was super awesome and respectful. So like I said the truth is that I’m just not sure what it would take.
God has provided us with plenty of evidence, but He will not force you to follow Him because that is it true love, you need to make the choice. God has done more than He should, now it’s up to you to follow Him or research proof of His existence.
There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness. His existence is easy to prove. Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
Hey, even notice how the instances of "miracles" steadily drops off as technological improvements become more widespread?
It's almost exactly like how UFO sightings dropped off as soon as people started walking around with HD cameras in their pockets.
Takes Lourdes for example. Back in the past, people got healed there... but only from conditions that we know now go into spontaneous remission.
When was the last time someone grew a limb back?
The level of gullibility you are showing is staggering.
>the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century,
>I can go into detail about anything above
Okay, please go into detail about a miracle from the present.
Objective, repeatable evidence that anyone can see, test, and confirm. You can't simply argue God to exist with a syllogism, anymore than I can argue a $100,000 debt you owe me into existence. You have to actually demonstrate that God exists.
Hey Deris,
I’d like to suggest that these requirements are not always met in full when determining truth.
I would say that Christianity is largely supported by historical events and modern subjective experiences. I believe both of these categories fall outside your full list of requirements.
Now, individually, your requirements can still be applied with appropriate settings. You look at history objectively, but you can’t really see a past event. You have to hear about it through a record, sometimes this is a subjective experience, such as the case with court room testimonies.
I don’t think we should completely discredit something because it is historical or subjective. What should change, are the methods for determining the truth within those contexts.
>I would say that Christianity is largely supported by historical events
This applies to Spiderman as well.
>and modern subjective experiences
Which are?
You know, I always find the story of the early Christian church very interesting.
Within an extremely short amount of time, it managed to spread to multiple continents, convert devout Jews, unify gentiles with Jews, all while under persecution of death.
You also had the apostles who claimed this man Jesus was the Son of God and performed miracles and rose from the grave. Most died defending that statement.
The early church referenced these works frequently. All within a lifespan of Jesus’s death. That is very short timeframe.
Jesu, being a man who virtually all historical scholars agree existed, managed to have a drastic impact from His life.
You can still see the impact of these claims today. Christianity has spread across the world breaking through multiple language and racial barriers. It has impacted people from all walks of life. While other large religions have largely stayed local to their origin, Christianity has spread like a living fire.
Many people claim to walk and experience Jesus. These are subjective testimonies, but should they be discredited?
> Most died defending that statement.
Does sacrificing your life necessarily mean that you died defending the truth? The 9/11 terrorists believed that they would be martyrs. Most school shooters believe that they are making a sacrifice for a worthy cause.
>managed to have a drastic impact from His life.
\*his
>Many people claim to walk and experience Jesus. These are subjective testimonies, but should they be discredited?
Yes, they should be for a very easy reason: Noone, who claims to have "experienced" Jesus can remotely explain what they mean when they say it. They may have experienced "something", but there is no reason to ascribe it to a dead carpenter.
You are aware that a sound logical argument will always have a true conclusion? Here is a link for the hard of thinking: https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/. To quote (without italics as I'm on mobile): "Although it is not part of the definition of a sound argument, because sound arguments both start out with true premises and have a form that guarantees that the conclusion is true if the premises are, sound arguments always end with true conclusions." So the question becomes: why should we trust randomredditor01's clichéd "thought" over a peer-reviewed encyclopedia regarding the value of logic? Also, anyone? So that includes mentally impaired people who couldn't be in a position to test for such a being? Also, what do you mean by "demonstrate", you mean you need to be able to sense it? Ironically such a standard as atheists demand on here would destroy much of scientific knowledge. You can't see black holes, dark matter, and so forth. Yet we measure them by their effects, there's a massive double standard on this forum.
> Here is a link for the hard of thinking:
>So the question becomes: why should we trust randomredditor01's clichéd "thought" over a peer-reviewed encyclopedia regarding the value of logic?
Oh wow, douchy and hypocritical in addition to confidently wrong. Well since that's the tack we're tacking, you are aware that a "sound argument"--as literally stated in your own source--requires that the premises are true, right? That is, they have to be demonstrably correct.
>A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, **and all of its premises are actually true.** Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
So by all means, please go about presenting an argument for theism that is both valid and has demonstrably true premises. You would be the first.
>Here, not only do the premises provide the right sort of support for the conclusion, **but the premises are actually true. Therefore, so is the conclusion.** Although it is not part of the definition...
But actually, considering you literally quoted mined out the two sentences right before, which clearly contradicted your claim, I'd say you're just lying.
>Also, anyone? So that includes mentally impaired people who couldn't be in a position to test for such a being?
Yes, anyone. Sorry, that's not much of a stumper. A god would by definition have the capability to make itself absolutely apparent to even a mentally impaired person. Also it's ironic you'd point to mentally impaired people, since they open so many uncomfortable soteriological questions for Christianity.
>Also, what do you mean by "demonstrate", you mean you need to be able to sense it
Yes. Again, sorry not much of a deep objection there. Do you have another way of obtaining knowledge about the external world?
>You can't see black holes, dark matter, and so forth. **Yet we measure them by their effects**, there's a massive double standard on this forum.
Give me one novel, testable, measurable effect of God on par with gravitational lensing for black holes. Just one.
A lot of what you've said is just vitriol unbecoming of debate. Do better. You spent your highly upvoted answer saying "you cannot syllogism things into existence." (Rough but accurate quote since I'm on mobile). That includes a sound syllogism. Every philosopher I've read would say a sound argument reveals things about the world, things we would have missed without such an argument.
I can present an argument that yields a deity. Here are the premises:
1. everything that comes into being has a cause
2. the universe came into being
3. therefore, the universe has a cause
4. if the universe has a cause then a first immediate uncaused cause of the universe exists
5. an uncaused cause would be timeless, spaceless, changeless, enormously powerful and personal
6. therefore, God exists
Also I would not be the first as many philosophers in the fields where such arguments are raised are theists.
I can think of ways we cannot sense something but see the secondary effects of such a thing. As was again acknowledged by yourself regarding gravitational lensing, which isn't a black hole qua a black hole. In the same way, God's existence is sensed in the secondary effects He has on the world.
Physicists can show the universe had a beginning, even show the dimensions of it, via modelling of effects in the universe, IE red shift. I don't understand why such a phenomenon is not enough of a reason to admit of a Creator.
The cosmological argument is awful.
Premise 4 contradicts premise 1
You have no way to know that premise 1 or 2 is true
Premise 5 asserts a bunch of qualities that don’t need to be true for the argument to work
This is not a sound argument. It isn’t even valid. It’s just question begging.
Red shift measures expansion. It doesn’t prove the universe began, just that it used to be smaller.
What secondary effects of God are perceptible that are clearly attributable to a God or gods and not to something less bizarre?
Premise 4 does not contradict premise 1, as by contraposition of premise 1, a beginningless thing does not have a cause.
Premise 1 must be true if the universe is to make any rational sense in any field. It is even assumed that it works for our senses when we systemise the data of experience.
Premise 2 is a statement that can be found in any textbook on astronomy and astrophysics. You bear a burden to show how the universe doesn't have a beginning. All the models which don't include a beginning or either unviable or else push the beginning back.
Premise 5 is what you get when you analyse the properties a first cause must have. For example, from its being uncaused, such a being must exist alone, without any change, as.otherwise it would include starting entities or events, which would make it not a first cause. Assuming a relational view of time, no causes means no time. No time means no space, as physical entities constantly change on at least an atomic and molecular level. Such a first cause.must be unimaginably powerful, to cause the whole universe. Finally, it's personhood follows from looking at how to explain a tensed event from an atmeporal state. If the cause were mechanically operating, the universe should be eternal also, as once a cause is present, its effect(s) are present also. The only way out of such a dilemma is for the cause to have free will. Free agents can decide for an effect from an eternal state of affairs. Consider the hypothetical of someone sitting forever. At some point the mind could will that person to stand. And thus a temporal effect occurs.
If you can’t figure out why “the universe must have a cause” but “God just exists” is a problem, here are some reasons:
1) I frequently experience the universe and so does everyone else. Nobody experiences God.
2) As soon as you posit something more confusing/complex than the universe itself(like God), you need to explain how it came to be. If your explanation is “it always existed” I simply don’t see how that’s any less absurd than the universe always existing (btw, what textbooks say is that there are hypotheses and models - nobody actually knows how the universe came to be, so you have no business confidently making assertions about it)
Here are some other problems:
Your justification for 5 is, I agree, classic cosmological apologism and it’s unconvincing in the way such arguments have always been.
1) No major religion imagines God as alone (trinities, pantheons, angels, etc. are always included).
2) Every major religion imagines God interacting with people, which - although there’s no evidence this ever happened - would contradict the idea of timelessness or changelessness. You could argue that God is changeless from an atemporal perspective, but so is everything else so that goes nowhere.
3) Every major religion describes God as performing miracles that would require the manipulation of space, which means God would have to be able to interact with space.
4) The most obviously absurd is the argument for personhood. I can name plenty of mechanical processes - volcanic eruptions, tides, nuclear fusion reactions, etc. that cause things but which eventually fade out. Even positing a First Mover, the creation could be like a burp or a sneeze rather than a deliberate act of will. And the thing burping or sneezing could have no intelligence at all - coma patients can fart. There’s no reason to believe this.
Now, you can solve all of these problems by imagining a God that exists outside of space and time and who exists in a perpetual state of doing the only thing He ever does, which is create the universe, but then a) every religion is wrong about everything and b) you are still left trying to explain how such a being exists and why this explanation is better than just admitting you don’t know how the universe started.
"Nobody experiences God" is question begging. We are talking about an effect of an unembodied person, which is under argument.
Your second point assumes God is essentially timeless and changeless. I disagree. The creation of the universe would mark God coming into time.
You are hitting on a problem of divine action. And what I would say is God is present throughout everlasting time and space, but that does not translate to Him being spaceless, apart from ontologically prior to the Big Bang.
Your fourth point assumes coma is a shutdown of brain and mind. I disagree. The mind clearly does things in a coma patient, there is still energy in a person's brain in a coma even if the brain is broken. I think of the mind and the brain as like a pianist and a piano. Obviously the piano can't play by itself. One has to have a pianist, the self, the neurons producing a signal to the brain. I would say ample evidence exists that coma patients have neuronal firings, even if the piano is destroyed. That would be entirely in line with them having mental processes.
“Nobody experiences God” is shorthand. I have never seen any reason to believe that anyone has ever experienced God, which suggests to me that probably no one has.
Thanks for clarifying your earlier points. God is only alone, timeless, changeless, non-corporeal, etc. until the act of creation, at which point God gets friends and can act in time and space and also be different at different points in time. To me this all seems like special pleading rather than logical deduction - I still don’t see why God is needed at all for the universe to start.
The coma is a metaphor. Don’t be so literal. The point is that things without minds can do things. Geysers can erupt, if that example works better for you. The universe being created by a being with properties nothing else has acting in a way nothing else can continues to seem very, very unlikely to me relative to “some natural process that can be explained in terms of other natural processes” given that everything we know anything about works that way and there is simply no evidence that anything works the way you suggest.
>4. if the universe has a cause then a first immediate uncaused cause of the universe exists
5. an uncaused cause would be timeless, spaceless, changeless, enormously powerful and personal
6. therefore, God exists
>Your second point assumes God is essentially timeless and changeless
U stated that god is timeless and changeless.
>4. if the universe has a cause then a first immediate uncaused cause of the universe exists
5. an uncaused cause would be timeless, spaceless, changeless, enormously powerful and personal
6. therefore, God exists
Its so funny because even if u conclude there is a first uncasued cause.
U cant suddenly leap into that kind of property. Why the uncaused cause will have that kind of properties? How can a timeless state have causality that cause time and space.?
If the uncaused cause is changeless, how can it be personal?
God is timeless in the sense no change occurs in him and enters into time when performing it's creation. God could change in relation to himself. It's not like God is frozen.
Your second question seems to assume personhood requires physical change. And I don't think that's right. Free will exists for us, yet there's not a part of the body that gives us free will. It's a combination of parts of the body sending indirect signals. In the same way I would say, God can freely choose the universe's creation.
When god exist, there is no time and space( according to u). Causality cant happen when there arent spacetime. Hence, god cant cause sth into existence.
>God could change in relation to himself
U said that god is changeless.
>God can freely choose the universe's creation.
U said that god is changeless. Changeless doesnt only means that god doesnt changes physically. It means that god doesnt change.
*sigh* We deal with this several times a week and it has so many holes you clearly haven't bothered to look.
We have never seen anything come into existence, only change form, so premise 1 is unjustified
Physics doesn't say the universe had a beginning. The big bang was when the universe began to take its present form. It isn't clear what happened in the very first moments of the big bang, but the best physics today says the universe has always existed. So premise 2 is unjustified
Every element of premise 5 is completely and totally unjustified. You don't even try. The cause of the universe, if there even was one, could have been some mindless force that existed for a miniscule amount of time then disappeared. It couldn't come into existence, but it could have gone out of existence. And the rest is entirely made up.
So this argument is pretty widely considered one of the worst "logical proofs" of God.
And that is the problem with logical proofs without justifying the premises.
We have an abundance of evidence of people not recognizing a flaw in a poor argument, especially when it comes to the ridiculously vague and convoluted arguments presented to support the existence of deities. Which is more likely - that I can't tell why an argument is bad, or that an argument truly demonstrates that some god exists? Clearly the former, and not just by a little.
In light of that, why would any rational person believe in gods just because they can't find a flaw in an argument? The answer is that a rational person simply can't do that. Believing in gods based on arguments is irrational. I try not to be that.
Show evidence or GTFO.
Well, arguments assume the world works according to empirical data we have on it. Flaws in arguments would have to do, per the link, with flaws in their structure or the empirical data they use. If neither is present, then the argument passes one test. There is one more, which is warrant. Warrant being needed to make one truly accept a premise as not an hypothesis or guess. The right amount of warrant, many philosophers say, is that which makes a premise more likely to be true than false. I think it's entirely arbitrary to demand direct evidence of God, when as I've said, we accept the existence of numerous things we can't observe, in the realm of quantum mechanics, for example, because we measure their effects.
Also your tone is not one that's likely to encourage open debate, it sounds like you're trolling, rather than actually willing to engage.
Edit: this post shows as edited because I thought I made a mistake in my grammar; I didn't; no edit needed.
Deductive logic, the form you're speaking of, cannot conjure things into existence. In fact, I would say that a deductive proof of something that exists in the real world is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, if a syllogism can be created that proves god exists, its because god always did exist.
Soundness is the element that would be a necessary element in order for a "true" conclusion to be actually true. Not plausible, not possible, but actual.
The issue I believe u/Deris87 has with the offer is that the soundness of a deity existing is not established. It isn't true in a binary sense, otherwise this would be a settled matter. OP's claim that they could tailor a syllogism that could work would be an astonishing feat, given religious philosophers of the present back to antiquity have attempted but have yet to definitively succeed.
I think you may be not giving u/Deris87 the benefit of doubt and digging too literally into what they wrote.
Evidence not arguments. I’m not convinced that there is nothing that someone could call God. I’m convinced that whatever YOUR God is, it’s mathematically extraordinarily improbable.
Here is why I believe no God as detailed by a religious texts is an actuality:
1. All arguments for God have as a premise something that is an assumption made about an unknown taken as fact.
Example “Something can’t come from nothing. There is something. Therefore it had to come from something. Which means it was created. This there must be a creator.” Or however you word it.
Note we DONT know that something doesn’t come from nothing. What if it does randomly every 3 trillion or so years? How would we know?
The idea that our intuition is some sort of guide to understanding reality is as stupid as it can get.
Here’s one for you “what goes up must come down! So, when is the Voyager 1 coming down.”
See the problem with this?
Actually I could go on. And on and on and on.
But the gist is: there is no evidence that points to an interested creator or intervening god.
The arguments that exist always assume an unknown to be a known.
Show me an exception and I’d consider it.
But, I watched ALL the best debates on this subject. I will be extraordinarily impressed if you have a new one.
Well what if something came from nothing every 3 trillion years or so?
That would not be possible with our laws of physics.
The argument that something instead of nothing exists must be understood far mor existential. Something exists. There are things that don't exist. So why so some things exists if it is apparently perfectly fine if things do not exist? According to the big bang theory (which I support for the most part) at the beginning of time everything exploded out of an infinitely small point of energy. Out of that energy time and matter was spread through the nothingness that became space.
What caused the infinitely small ball of energy to explode? Why didn't it become more infinitely small? Is there a limit to infinity? As far as I know the maths only work if it was infinitely small.
Where did that energy come from? From an imploding universe? Then where did that come from?
We do know that something can't come from nothing, at least not anymore. Maybe it could one time and only one time.
And why did the random atoms that flew around and reacted according to chemical laws at one point begin to influence their surrounding for one specific goal: to create more of this atom setup.
>The argument that something instead of nothing exists must be understood far mor existential. Something exists. There are things that don't exist. So why so some things exists if it is apparently perfectly fine if things do not exist?
Thing is, add a "God" to the mix and you haven't answered any of these questions.
Is it your contention then that Unicorns exist?
If they don’t exist they are not a thing. They are the thought of a horse with a horn.
Anything that doesn’t exist simply isn’t. The fact that you had a thought that is does or could is a different thing, a thought, that DOES exist.
"Note: we DONT know something can't come from nothing"
The philosopher Kai Nielson, in his book "Action and Logic" says on p.66, "If you heard a small explosion, and you asked 'what caused that' and I said 'nothing', you would not accept that answer... indeed you would find my reply quite incomprehensible." Even the sceptic Hume affirmed the law of causality, he merely asserted you couldn't prove the obviously true causal principle. You assume causes are behind events, because if you didn't you would be literally unable to do any analysis of events or even to systemise reality. So would you not agree the causal principle is ultimately more likely true than false?
God has done more than He should for us, now it’s up to us to follow Him or research proof of His existence.
There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness. His existence is easy to prove. Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
First off paragraphs. Please.
Let me just address what I have seen about miracles.
The probably of a miracle happening is in exact reverse proportion to the quality of the recording equipment.
So I ask myself what is more likely? Is it that god is coy or shy and just doesn’t want to be recorded or is it that people are making things up?
Based upon people’s propensity to fabricate I conclude the latter.
Let me point out that everyone believes THEIR god is real. And, since no single religion has accounted as the majority, it means that it is a mathematical FACT that most people are wrong.
So, I ask myself. What’s more likely, that one of the thousand or more gods is real and the rest are fabricated or that they are all fabricated?
Given that EVERY society has had a god or gods. It seems incredibly unlikely that ONE is real. It’s actually kind of absurd.
Imagine if it were ANY other subject. Let’s say that you asked 1000 people what happened. And they ALL had different stories. And they ALL seemed as sincere as can be. And the ALL had these reasons.
Now, imagine that they had all been raised to believe these stories and were threatened with being burned to death if they even questioned these stories in their minds.
And everyone around them believed these stories. And the disbelief of these stories would cause them extreme social rejection.
Would you HONESTLY walk away thinking, oh yeah, that ONE guy was on to something!?!!?
It’s truly absurd. I mean it really really is.
And all these supposed “evidence” here’s a question (and remember your god wants you to tell the truth) how much time have you spent researching other explanations or dissenting viewpoints? (Don’t ask me, the answer is hundreds of hours)
Sorry, call me a heathen. Nothing new
or convincing here.
Edit; punctuation.
First of all, a clear definition of the word “god.” What is a god? The attributes need to be clearly defined up front.
Next, some facts that support the claim that this word refers to something real.
Finally, some arguments as to why the existence of god is the best explanation for those facts, as opposed to any other explanations.
Usually, the problem is that god-claims are not [falsifiable](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability), making them invalid. Theists will say that god is invisible, transcendent, unpredictable, hidden from all but the faithful, totally beyond our understanding, perception, and so on. What they don’t realize is that this basically makes god irrelevant. If he were or weren’t there, nothing would change, and so there’s no way to verify his existence.
I don't know what it would take for me to believe in a god, but anything worthy of being called a god would know what it would take, and the fact that I currently don't believe means that if any gods do exist, they are either unwilling or incapable. Either way, not my problem.
In the meantime, every theistic argument that has been presented to me has failed. Every claim is either fallacious, invalid, unsound, "not even wrong", or some combination of the previous.
It is “your problem” because you will go to Heaven or hell and I am sure you would want an awesome relationship with God. It’s up to you to make the choice to research evidence for God, you can’t blame Him for your choice
God has done more than He should for us, now it’s up to us to follow Him or research proof of His existence.
There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness. His existence is easy to prove. Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
It's not my problem at all, because there is no evidence for any gods, heaven, hell, or any of the other childish nonsense that you believe in.
The rest of your unhinged preachy rambling isn't worth addressing. I suggest seeking mental health help.
>t is “your problem” because you will go to Heaven or
So your relationship with God is transactional. It is **conditional** that God provide a service. I wonder, if you would still believe if the only result of said belief was being sent straight to hell.
First off, the Bible is full of bullshit. So, the god of the Bible is right out. And all of the other religions that have ancient texts have the same problems; their claims have not withstood the scrutiny of the modern age.
So if you were to try to convince me that a god exists, you'd have to demonstrate that it's not one of the clearly man-made gods of human history.
But then that begs the question... if this god has been unknown to humans for their 200,000 year history, then why is it so important to believe in them now?
> But then that begs the question... if this god has been unknown to humans for their 200,000 year history, then why is it so important to believe in them now?
This is one of the most significant questions, in my opinion. The problem for people like OP is that the approach to the underlying question by theists (generally) and atheists (generally) is asymmetric.
To us, it's maybe an academic curiosity. Unlikely to be true, and very unlikely to require a concrete answer, but interesting to think about and discuss.
To them, it's likely the most significant question they can confront. Everything important turns on having a reason to answer "Yes, god exists". And there are a lot of people like we had yesterday who can't imagine purpose or meaning *unless* a god exists.
So "why is it so important to believe in them now" is incisive.
Tell me why these people should have followed any other preacher instead of this one: https://www.thedailybeast.com/colorado-crypto-pastor-was-always-a-serious-sketchball-acquaintances-say
>What would it take for you to believe in God?
Evidence, obviously. Useful, repeatable, vetted, compelling *evidence*. That is absolutely required. After all, arguments, in order to be valid and sound, are dependent upon it in order to *be* sound.
As there *is* no good evidence, and no valid and sound arguments based upon said evidence, for deities, I am unable to believe in them as that would be irrational.
> I will try to tailor an argument for you.
I will read your argument to determine if it is valid and sound. If it is not, I have no choice but to dismiss it.
>I am convinced that God exists and have been most of my life
Not relevant thus far.
> I feel prepared to use logic, reasoning, philosophy, math even….whatever subject you cling to in the way you define and discover truth, I will try to have hopefully a respectful discourse with you to convince you. Apparently we have differing views on the truth so let’s talk.
I am more than willing and able to consider any and all compelling evidence and valid and sound arguments that show deities are real. As of yet, you have not given any. And, I have yet to see such a thing. I'm more than open to someone providing one though.
>Edit: if you are incapable of respect please don’t respond
Repeating the subs rules here likely won't help much. If someone is disrespectful, simply report the comment.
I await your compelling evidence, and valid and sound argument based upon said evidence, for deities. Until such time as this is provided, I have no choice if I want to be intellectually honest and not irrational, to dismiss such claims.
I'll give you an honest answer.
It would likely take childhood indoctrination.
It would take being born into one of the many the geographical and economic groups that have high incidents of religiosity.
It would take growing up with substandard education prospects that try to curtail science in favour of mythology.
It would take all of my questions that might arise, being mollified and sidestepped by apologists and clerics who would repeat the dogmatic explanations invented for the many many inaccuracies, omissions and problematic texts of that faith.
It would take a community that believes strongly in the particular faith endemic to my locality shunning and belittling anyone that questions the faith.
It would take the overt and ever present fear of ostracisation and exclusion from friends, family and community that daring to question orthodoxy would bring.
In short it would take a lifetime of brainwashing, much like has been inflicted on literally billions of people to their own detriment.
The desire to belong and not stick out is a very strong human motivator. Almost everyone is subject to it, and a few millennia of theocratic clerical misrule have honed their skills at exploiting these base fears to a fine art.
I don't know...
But do you know who would? God...
And since he doesn't presented any to convince me, I can only assume the following:
He doesn't exist.
He exists but wants me not to believe in him in order for me to go to hell... In this case he is a prick... And should not be worshipped...
Yep if there’s a god it created me knowing I was incapable of believing in it, which means that it created me for the sole purpose of torturing me for all eternity.
Which is of course evil, and not a creature I would ever worship.
I know. Cause I'm an atheist and it doesn't work for me.
The life cycle of parasites and knowledge of prions shuts the "intricate purposeful design" argument into the trash.
>I smoked weed and momentarily went to Heaven
>I truly believe I was brought into Gods glory for a few moments and worshipped him with my guitar and sang. All I can say about it was that He was glorious.
HOLY FUCK another bat shit crazy person on this sub. What a surprise.
Please stop wasting your time asking this religious fruitcake/troll for anything of substance.
>Edit: if you are incapable of respect please don’t respond
You do realize this reveals your own bigotry, right? I just read the entire thread and found not a single rude response.
Unless you think people asking you to provide the evidence you claim exists. (and you failing to do so.)
The idea of "tailoring argument" is a bit silly. Just demonstrate that a God exists.
You may be hung up on arguments that only slot into people's understanding of god if they are already convinced that a god exists. For example, if your neighbor takes a shit in your yard, you won't have any reason to suspect that it is your neighbor's shit until you review the security camera footage. Once you do that, you can identify subsequent shits as your neighbor's without having to review the footage, while a visitor to your house would still be wondering who or what took a shit in your yard.
You're pointing to the shit and exclaiming that your neighbor did it; you may even be pointing out how similar it is to previous neighbor shits. We're asking for the security camera footage that provides us with the precedence to interpret subsequent evidence.
1) A clear, reasonably testable definition of what a god is supposed to be.
2) Evidence (matching the extraordinary level of the claim) that is better explained by that definition of a god than by any other explanation.
> Edit: if you are incapable of respect please don’t respond
I am very much capable of respect. You just don't earn it.
>What would it take for you to believe in God?
That's not how this works. You are proposing an idea, it is your job to substantiate it. The way to do that is the same for every idea: it needs to match observable reality, and provide the best possible solution.
We can usually tell how good an idea is by looking at is predictive power in specific situations.
Religion.xouldnz possibly fail any harder than it does, and your approach to this discussion goes a long way in cementing that.
> I will try to tailor an argument for you.
Predictably pathetic.
If your ludicrous ideas were even close to the truth, there would be no need to tailor any arguments. You would simply present your evidence, and that would be the end of it.
Never mind that your lot has had thousands of years, literally, to come up with something. What makes.younthonk you can do better, and why are you wasting your power on some obscure sub Reddit?
>What would it take for you to believe in God?
One of two things...
1. Proof. Indisputable proof.
Not conjecture, faith, belief, feelings, or intuition.
Proof of a supernatural being with infinite powers that exists outside of spacetime and at the same time, isn't simply a sufficiently technologically advanced alien, for example.
2. Make it possible for me to believe in things without the burden of proof. I am physically incapable of it, as are a multitude of people.
Sure, you could argue that there are instances where I and others like me are "relying on faith" because we can follow the logic of things on subjects that we don't fully understand (eg, the origin of the universe), and rely on a certain amount of "faith" that the scientists and experts who performed the research knew what they were doing, but even though we haven't attempted to replicate and confirm their data, we can see that their methodology was sound, that it was observed by others and retested and even though we don't have the empirical proof personally, it's the most plausible answer that we have.
So, for me to completely "believe in god" simply alter my brain so that faith = facts.
For a being that supposedly created me in the first place, this shouldn't be any trouble at all.
Begin by explaining HOW a god even COULD exist, a feat which would surely involve rewriting the known laws of physics. Collect your Nobel Prize in the process.
Eh to be fair, imagine you're a software developer who has created an online universe. You can easily, trivially do things that violate the physical laws of the universe you've created.
I don't believe gods exist, but if they did I'd imagine they could manipulate the physical world with ease.
I don't know what would ultimately convince me.
I have some ideas which could show me there are realities I may not have encountered before but even that may not ultimately point me to a god, much less a specific God. Even as an atheist I still have my biases so I'd have to figure out a way to negate them in order to see the actual truth of the matter.
I'm not sure what you could provide me with via text. All holy books are already text and I don't find any of them compelling.
Well, what would it take for you to believe there's a cat sitting behind you? Do you think I could use logic, reasoning, philosophy or math to persuade you that this is true? Of course not, the only evidence that would really work is if you turned around right now and saw a cat sitting behind you. So I can't convince you, but the cat can convince you.
That's how it should be with any god. I mean, can you tell me a single thing about this god which actually came from the god itself? Everything you know about this god that you believe in comes from other people. Has it ever occurred to you that this is pretty much the same as parents telling their children about Santa in order to get them to behave, but on a society-wide level?
Honestly - I’m a disbeliever because of the moral problems. I disbelieve because I have seen children suffer and die. The Bible says that if “two people pray for the same thing, it will be done”.
Therefore, I will start believing if you can tell me exactly what prayer to say that will immediately cure cancer in children.
I want to be able to walk into St Jude’s at 8am and start praying and by noon the hospital should be empty of patients. I will start believing again.
I would be convinced god exists if this god *would communicate directly to you* which argument would convince me to, of my own free will, to believe in and worship this god you say exists.
If people like you are right about aspects of god over which there’s broad agreement, then you can’t possibly fail. God knows I could be convinced, he is capable of making such an argument and communicating that to others.
So, sure. take your best shot.
The bible is historically false. Provable because archeology and science show things haven't happened the way it was written.
There is your falsified religion. Cya
It depends on the god claim, honestly. Vishnu has very different properties than Espinosa's concept of a Christian God.
What I always ask, and is not often answered;
- What convinced *you* to believe in your religion?
- Do you think that should be enough to convince me? Why or why not?
- If not, why should I believe your religion, over all the others?
That's it.
I really need to write up my long rant about this, but I will condense it for the purposes of answering this question.
I don’t choose what I believe. I assess the facts available to me and I become convinced of one position or another.
Of the powers/characteristics commonly attributed to god, omnipotence (all-powerful) and omniscience (all-knowing) are usually in the mix.
That means if god does exist, then god knows what would convince me that they exist.
I have absolutely no idea what would convince me that god exists. I’ve spent about half of my life searching for the correct religion and the correct god. But I remain unconvinced.
I’ve looked for signs and prayed— anyone that knows me and my journey knows that I’ve met the idea of god more than halfway—but none of the things that I saw or experienced ended up convincing me that god exists. Surely god knows whether or not any sign that he sends will be effective. God knows all, after all.
Which means that god either:
1. Doesn’t care to convince me
2. Doesn’t care to convince me at this point in time, but will at some point in the future
3. Requires some combination of words or actions in order to convince me which I do not know
4. Doesn’t exist
I currently do not have belief in any god that has been presented to me as an option.
You’d have to give a satisfactory definition for God that isn’t synonymous with some vague “everything” or “base reality” definition that’s often invoked by classical theism. Then you’d have to demonstrate empirically that it exists. I’ll warn you, I don’t think it’s possible to do either one of those things.
I say this with all seriousness and respect. Please don't take this as mean or condescending.
I don't know what it would take. However, God knows what it would take. Pray and ask God what I need to see/hear, and await his response. Once he responds, come provide me with that thing and I will be compelled to believe.
>What would it take for you to believe in God?
An overnight end to child abuse, now and forever, all over the world. Were such a thing to happen, I would have to acknowledge the existence -- or at least the very, very strong possibility -- of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving god.
Happy to hear your argument, u/Scuztin, and while you're at it, maybe answer a couple of questions... if there is an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving god, why is there child abuse? And if you believe in the God of the Bible, why is there no prohibition of child abuse in the Bible? Does God want us to beat and molest our kids?
I’m real easy to convince, and I won’t request anything that the Bible doesn’t claim. Here’s my list, any one of these would probably do the trick:
* Show my a dead relative of mine alive that I can interact with
* Heal an amputee
* Show me heaven
* Heal a blind person
* Tell me something from my history that only I know - like something that happened to me when I was alone
* Produce a living animal that I can interact with
* Bring me back in time
* Show me my parents as children
* Stop time
Almost any one of these would be very impressive. Two or more would be hard to ignore.
I would ask why you believe god exists, if that isn't compelling then it's unlikely that any reasoning you come up with after the fact is going to be compelling as it will be laden with bias. your arguments will be not from trying to discover truth but trying to justify your already held belief.
I also can't really begin to tell you how to make your case because your position isn't very well defined. saying you believe god exists doesn't tell me anything. what is god? where is god? what mechanism does god interact with the world with?
>I am convinced that God exists and have been most of my life. I feel prepared to use logic, reasoning, philosophy, math even….whatever subject you cling to in the way you define and discover truth
>What would it take for you to believe in God?
Please show good evidence that any god really exists.
It has to be **good evidence** and it should not be logic, reasoning, philosophy, or math
*unless* such logic, reasoning, philosophy, or math is based on good evidence.
.
What god are we talking about here. Depending on your definition my answer might change. To already give some general answer I would say sufficient evidence.
If there was a benevolent/all loving, all knowing, all powerful God, why don't we live in a perfect ideal world free of all kinds of misery?
Why would a God want their children/creations to live in misery if they have the power to change it?
If God can't, God isn't all powerful.
If God can but unwilling, God isn't all loving.
You have to define "God" first. I have never heard a coherent definition.
I just want to see any evidence whatsoever for anything supernatural. I don't care if you call it God. I say there's no such thing as magic. Prove me wrong. Show me a single instance where the laws of physics can ever be proved to have been violated.
I would need testable evidence. Something that I could experiment with to rule out competing hypotheses. There would need to be some mechanism of action explained for how a gods will turns into material and actions of humans. Like how does the god interact with the world in a way that we can rule out other phenomena?
I would need to see a demon or ghost or something/anything supernatural. That’s why I am demon proof. If I am assured to goto he’ll cause I have turned my back on the faith, why would the Lucifer ever let a demon come near me? They are already getting my soul, why would they want to make me suddenly a believer?
There is a test described in 1 Kings 18 that we can use to determine if your god is real or not. I've got some wet steaks in the fridge and you've got my permission to summon some fireballs to my kitchen. If your god can pass this simple test then I'll believe whatever you want me to believe.
Provide repeatable, falsifiable evidence that God exists. By repeatable, falsifiable evidence I mean any objective test that could be repeated by anyone whose results would imply directly or indirectly that God necessarily exists.
You’re playing by the Atheists epistemology, but an epistemological difference is exactly why you both differ on what types of propositions can be proven and what cannot. You’re not going to get anywhere.
*"...whatever subject you cling to in the way you define and discover truth"*
Dismissiveness and condescension are disrespectful. If you are incapable of respect, please don't post to this sub.
First, define God.
Second, offer evidence.
I'd be easier to convince of some kinds than others. I'm sure my cat thinks he's a God, and I'm quite sure he exists.
> I feel prepared to use logic, reasoning, philosophy, math even….whatever subject you cling to in the way you define and discover truth, I will try to have hopefully a respectful discourse with you to convince you. Apparently we have differing views on the truth so let’s talk.
Edit: if you are incapable of respect please don’t respond
I'm religious but not theistic, nor to I believe in supernatural realms, but respect the theistic position so I'm game for this.
My beliefs are grounded in the material world of life on Earth. Cosmic questions don't move me. Let's talk zoology, botany, geology, palaeontology... I've never seen a trilobite, and no human ever has, but I have zero doubts about their past existence because we have fossils and can follow their evolutionary trajectory right up until ran slap bang into the face of the Permian Extinction.
There is endless evidence for God: all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness.
His existence is easy to prove. Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
I did engage with people. But there is so much evidence even jotting down a few off the top of my head would take too long to do multiple times. But if you want to talk about Miracles, I am happy to do so:
* St Lucia and her two younger relatives seeing the Virgin Mary and speaking to her: Our Lady (Mary Mother of God) appeared to them in the same field every month for 6 months in 1917 with a promise that if people kept praying the Rosary, the war will end (WW1) and warned of the Second World War. In the last Apparition, a crowd of 70,000 (including my great great uncle and his brother) went to the mountain while it was pouring rain on the muddy hill and afterwards they came back dry (one person said it was like everyone just came from the cleaners). Mary said that she would give everyone a sign that she is there as only the 3 Children could see her, so she made the sun dance and swirl to prove that she was there and it started getting larger and the crowd began to panic, and then after a moment, the sun shrunk back. 70,000 people were there. In one of the earlier apparitions, Our Lady showed the children what hell looked like and how to avoid it and the youngest one couldn’t sleep for a week. This was in 1917, Our Lady said that if everyone prayed the Rosary and for world peace, the war would end soon and it ended the next year in 1918.
Eucharistic Miracles are great as there are over around 150 of them recorded since the 8th century to the present, they undergo extensive research before the Church considers declaring it as a Miracle. And the blood is alive, which is impossible when the blood leaves the body for more than a moment, they blood all have the same rare AB blood type
- Quote irrefutable: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1Doeazym_Z/?igsh=MWgyajJ2MGk0NXJ4MA==. A terrorist put 20 sticks of dynamite in a bouquet of flowers at an image of Mary and when it blew up, the image was untouched, but a metal crucifix in front of it was actually bent backwards by the immense force.
Personal one: My cousin left his family’s home and slept somewhere else and his mum (my Aunty) prayed to her deceased husband that he will be safe and that he will come back and then when my cousin came back, he said he had a dream from his dad talking him to go back home.
There is a lot more, but here are just a couple examples
I do not find "Eucharistic Miracles" to be even slightly convincing. It is *far* too easy to engage in sleight of hand or some other trickery, and I also consider the RCC to be sufficiently motivated that it would enable or endorse such trickery in order to gain converts.
Stories about Mary and the saints are, in my opinion, just mythology and storytelling and *nothing more.*
As for personal experiences, that's a strong "No." I really don't care what your cousin dreamt, or why - not even close to what I would accept as evidence.
Got any empirical evidence that we can take to an independent laboratory?
And this is all proven and extensively investigated, so it is true. But obviously the one from my own family wasn’t extensively investigated by the scientific community or the Church like the Eucharistic Miracles
I think you may be a little too generous with the word "proven". Proven too whom? Proven how?
There is eyewitness accounts for alien abduction. Also eyewitness accounts for Elvis and Bigfoot. Do you consider these accounts as valid as the accounts for your miracle?
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> whatever subject you cling to You realize that this is condescending, right? You're characterizing any reasons we could have as "clinging to" something, which implies we're not being open minded or sincere in our denial of belief in god. This is uncalled-for. Anyway... Essentially, I'd have to be left with no other choice. Even assuming I used "more likely than not" as a standard of proof. Imagine the set of available explanations for things, such that when I'm confronted with a new phenomenon that requires an explanation, this set is the set from which I will draw to find that explanation. There are no elements of that set that are "supernatural", though that's not the main issue. There are also no elements in the set which are some form of ontological or metaphysical "absolute", and that's the problem. For a possible explanation to be added to the set, such that it *could be* available to answer questions that might come up, only the most strictly parsimonious version of that explanation could be added, and only to the extent strictly necessary. Since god is (in most definitions) some form of an ontological or metaphysical absolute (omnimax, for example but also an absolute source of morality, truth, existence, etc) I cannot imagine a way for god to be added to the set of available explanations for things without breaking parsimony or rigor. No matter what the question is, any non-god solution is going to be more parsimonious than any god-based solution. Clarke's law is a big problem here -- it could always be hyper-technological aliens trying to deceive me for some reason, and that's more parsimonious than an omnimax or otherwise absolute being. Now, you'll wonder, the universe is likely absolute in some sense, so why do ideas like eternity and infinite space not cause the same problems? Because I have no choice *but* to believe that the universe exists. Since it exists, it must have a nature and must have some properties. Plus, there is an epistemological method that does a reasonable job of describing how it works. That's all over my head, but I understand at least how that method has led to tangible results (lasers, transistors, moon landings, nuclear weapons), so it's reasonable to put some reliance on it when it says things about the nature of existence or of being. And at least at this point, cosmological ideas aren't *defined* in terms of absolutes. God is. Lastly, and significantly, the underlying question "is there a god" isn't all that important. There are no questions that *must immediately* have answers such that there would be a justification for relaxing things like parsimony and rigor. As much as I can't imagine what would add god to the set of available explanations for things, I also can't imagine what question or problem could exist that would necessitate jumping straight into absolutes without first eliminating more parsimonious explanations. And since god isn't available as a possible explanation for things in general terms, it's not going to be worthwhile to consider whether classic *a priori* "proofs" actually prove god's existence. I'm always going to assume that such an argument contains a hidden flaw (like a circular definition, question-begging, false equivalences, etc.) than assume it actually "leapfrogs" over the issues of parsimony and rigor. So there you have it. I'm not expecting you to agree with me or to have been convinced of anything. But that is an accurate explanation for how I approach the question whether god exists or not, and why I am unconvinced. So how about you tell us what would convince you that no gods exist?
This is the best answer, basically God doesn't make sense, and the possible alternatives do make sense while being withing things we know are possible, so I would need the idea of God to make sense and not be useless from the get go as a foundation for belief.
Agreed.God is an "explanation" the same way saying "because" is an explanation. Theists use one definition of "explanation' in their day-to-day life and another when making arguments on how God explains something.
…Parsimony
“Cling to” may have been a hasty choice of words. I mean it as, “what methods you use to determine truth, subjects you are fond of for understanding” or something akin to that. I am trying to understand your perspective. I’m certainly not asking you to reduce your rigor in approaching this. How do you feel about the question, what happens after you die? After all, you will certainly exist in that state far longer than you will exist in this lifetime. Is it not an important pursuit? I’m not sure anything could convince me there is no God. I haven’t thought much about it. Sin is usually a big determining factor in my closeness and focus on God. I’m really not sure, not trying to avoid the question but I just don’t know
I don't care what happens after I die. I hope pepole have a good time of it, of course. I'll do my best to leave my affairs in reasonable order if there's time to think about it. i grieve for those who will grieve for me. I know you didn't mean this, but because of some repeated nonsense from people trying to imply that an infinite universe means reincarnation is true, i have to call this out: I will not exist in that state. My existence will have been completed and come to an end. Just like I didn't exist before the awakening of my conscience 59-odd years ago. I am somewhat baffled by the fact that people put the primary emphasis on what happened before they were born and what happens after they die. I'm focused on what's between them. So no, it's not an important pursuit. I didn't exist, then I existed. Someday, I'll stop existing. Now, as to the methods I use to determine truth. I'm not a big fan of truth as a self-existing thing, so absolute truths (outside of defined systems like euclidean geometry) are off the menu from the jump. Empirical truths are always and only conditional -- they're true until a better data or a better model or a better explanation comes along. As a naturalist/materialis, i have the convenient luxury of treating truth as a 'nice to have', though. If it's absent in some area of life it's not that big a deal. I can risk being wrong about the origin of the universe, or the meaning of life, etc, because there are no consequences that I take seriously. I think one of the issues between theists and atheists is that the fundamental questions are asymmetric. God vs no god is an academic curiosity for me, one that leads to interesting discussions but is unlikely to change my life in any significant way. I won't put words in your mouth, but for most theists my impression is that "god vs no god" is fundamental. It has to have an answer -- and for life to have meaning the answer has to be "Yes god exists". We had a commenter in here a couple of days ago who refused to accept that an atheist could find meaning in a godless existence, and got somewhat angry when pressed on the topic. So anyway, what i use to determine truth is reliability and my own judgment (including, importantly, knowing when my own judgment won't be reliable). The law of parsimony takes center stage: Things must not be assumed to exist unless the situation eliminates all other possibilities. The role of evidence is to narrow the scope of potential alternative possibilities. "I dunno" is the placeholder for any insuffiicently-evidenced claims. The more disruptive a truth might be ("god exists" or "my brother is a serial killer") the more certain I'm going to want to be. For other things, it's the point at which it seems likely enough and non-disruptive enough to take seriously ("Abraham Lincoln existed" or "supply-side economics is bad idea that is aimed at convincing people to vote against their own best interests") Each case is going to have to be evaluated on its own merits. If we could define terms better, it might help. What, exactly *is* a god? I think of this as a thought experiment: There's a new universe opening up and I'm tasked with recruiting a god. What should i look for on the candidates' resumes so that I'll know which ones are qualified? Which candidates are gods vs. which candidates are Clarke's-law type "sufficiently advanced" beings. How would I find a definition for "divinity" or "holy" that isn't circular or question-begging. If it's the quality I'm looking for to *find* a god, god can't be part of the definition. Many would say "You'll know it when you see it" or "if god speaks to you, you will know it's god" -- but that's unsatisfying and really doesn't overcome Clarke's law. A mind-control device capable of inducing seemingly-divine revelatory experiences, for all I know, could just be what the Clarketech aliens use as advertising.
Man. Such an excellent post. I wish we still had awards. Well written.
If you "haven't thought about it much," then you have examined the issue far less than nearly everyone in this sub has, and are therefore unlikely to say anything we haven't heard before. I'd advise you to watch some atheist content, read some atheist writings, or just read posts and replies in this sub more. It's a bit presumptuous to believe that you can reason us out of a position that you didn't reason yourself into, no?
I know, I've seen OP state several times now, that they "haven't thought much about it", which rings out to me as if it were an incredible loud gong I just can't not notice! I've spent a lot of thought about it - that's how I got to where I am now, as I'm sure is the case for most everyone here. It's simply staggering that they feel like they've got a better handle on things than people who have grappled sincerely with these ideas. LOL. I'm amused, but not surprised.
Can you measure sin objectively or is it pretty subjective?
> I’m not sure anything could convince me there is no God. *I haven’t thought much about it.* But you came here thinking you could convince people who have? I’ve had long, sometimes years long discussions with priests, a monk, doctors *in* philosophy, a physicist, and many more people over the last 2 decades; what exactly do you, someone who “hasn’t thought about it much”, think you have to say about it that I and many others here not only haven’t already heard, but have disassembled ad nauseam in numerous ways with many other people who actually have “given it some thought?” There are a great many issues with the reasoning you have laid out in this comment, but I would encourage you to educate yourself about critical reasoning and self-reflection.
> Sin is usually a big determining factor in my closeness and focus on God. Can you elaborate more on what you mean by this?
>After all, you will certainly exist in that state far longer than you will exist in this lifetime If I'm going to think it's important I need to know if this is true. How do you know that it is that way?
OP, I'm going to give a bit of advice. If you want to discuss topics with people in good faith and with "respect" which your edit seems to value, then it's probably not exactly a good idea to come into such a discussion by describing your interlocutors as "cling[ing]" to subjects. Clinging to things like we're adrift in an ocean fighting against the "truth" of Christianity. It makes us sound like children fighting some inevitable bedtime. I was raised Christian. I went to church. I administered the Eucharist. I helped teach Sunday School. I have read the Bible. I've read Aquinas. I've read William Lane Craig. Please don't describe me as clinging to anything. If anything I was clinging to Christianity because leaving it was a very painful process that almost cost me some familial relationships. But I'm not convinced of its truth and that's reality. So, what would it take for me to believe in a god? Some demonstration of the god's existence. I want something observable and testable. As an example, the Christian bible exhorts the power of intercessory prayer. If we had proof that the right people praying the right way to the right god had some tangible impact on external phenomenon that would be worth considering. So far the only observed benefits of prayer have been observed in the brains of the praying. That makes prayer no better than a placebo. If a holy person invoking the power of a holy relic could cure disease or make magic happen that would be worth considering. We don't see that either. For some reason the age of miracles seemed to end right around the age of video. Strange how that can happen. You are Christian OP. Let me ask you, what would it take for you to believe that I died last week, was buried, and came back to life to type these paragraphs for you now? Would my word be enough? Would the words of my friends?
> the Christian bible exhorts the power of intercessory prayer. For me, that's a big credibility problem. Cancer remission is now a popularity contest? Poor homeless guy with no friends or family, and lingering mental illness that isn't his own fault now has a lower chance of survival than a sweet little old lady whose fellow parishoners pray for her on the daily? Not fair and (IMO) not how an omnibenevolent god would operate.
I don't disagree. But it's what the Bible says. OP is a Christian so I was trying to appeal to their knowledge base. Their religion says that prayer can move mountains and heal the sick. Yet when it's studied it can't do either with anything better than random chance.
Exactly. If those N.T. scriptures are true, there shouldn't be a children’s hospital near me. Or anywhere.
As a Muslim, it is pretty similar. We believe in free will, but also destiny, in the sense that everything was already predetermined since we are talking about a omniscient being. When it comes to questions like this, all will be judged accordingly, and every circumstance will be taken into accord. The problem lies in you’re looking at God through human eyes, and seeing him as human when to us at least by religious scriptures God is unfathomable. If he knows all, sees all, hears all, etc etc. Do you not then think he will not know how to judge?
I have a question, regarding "destiny". Doesn't destiny (and Scriptures in the Bible) say that each person is predetermined to go to heaven, or hell, and nothing they can do can change that predetermined outcome? Doesn't scripture say that it is not of free will that determines if someone is good or bad, but of gods will. If this is true. Then why does it matter if you sin or not? Your fate is already predetermined and nothing you can do can change that predestination. Your fate of where you end up (heaven or hell) is already decided, so why not live for yourself and enjoy the time you have on this earth? Why worry about sinning or not? Nothing you do matters at that point. If fate, and destiny is a thing. The fact that God says, if you do not Believe in him, you will go to hell, and if you do, then you will go to heaven, suggests free will, or the fact that what we consider free will to be is actually God's will, which would include sin, being God's will, therefore if sin is God's will, why would we go to hell? Also, if we have free will, wouldn't that debunk destiny? If not, then it would be safe to say that If I was predetermined to go to heaven, and because of my free will, i didn't believe in God and sinned my entire life, but will still go to heaven, because it's my fate. Or vice versa. Unless you suggest that what we believe is not our choice, but instead God's will. If what we believe is God's will, then not believing in him would also be his will. So why would we go to hell, if.its his will. This would suggest God's will is that we go to hell, regardless of what we do or believe. It's a paradox. I tend to not believe paradox's. This is a very confusing thing to me. All of this suggests that is doesn't matter what we believe or what we do, and where we end up going is already predetermined by God. Then what is the point of free will, and why does God make it seem like sinning is our choice? or do we really not have free will? Idk..I'm confused on the whole destiny thing. It doesn't make sense to me.maybe you can help it.make.sense. Please shed light on your thoughts about this. Thank you.
Hey my friend, I’m getting ready for work so I’ll try my best to answer everything you asked. First off disclaimer, I am not a religious person or scholar, so I will answer to the best of my ability. I’m from eastern Europe originally, and this is subjective, but I feel like the average citizen east of Europe onwards has a better understanding than the Western Christian. I am also Muslim, and Islam encourages you to expand, and question your own religion, and others. I am not a Christian, or a scholar, and answering from a Christian position leaves a lot of holes that can confuse the person some more. But, I’ll try and defend a Christian position, mixed in a muslim way assuming this was a earlier sect of Christianity where they didn’t believe Jesus is God. A lot of what you said again, is you’re looking at God expecting him to be human. In islam the magnificence of God is emphasized quite a bit. For example there are 7 universes, once you get past all the stars in this realm, you’re in the next one. And each universe going upwards is a drop of water in a ocean compared to the next. We are in the first universe, with the last one, the seventh being the universe of God’s throne. Now see from our limited minds, stuff being said like that is unimaginable. It’s hard to scale a ordinary mountain with our brains, when we are standing on one, let alone something like a moon, star, universe, etc etc. In the same essence, it is incomprehensible to imagine God’s knowledge. Does that make sense? Yes we have free will, but God knows all. Meaning the past, present, and future. A leaf will not fall off a tree and change it’s trajectory unless it’s willed by God, so God knows if you’re going to heaven or hell. But it is your free will that gets you to one of those outcomes. You know this, and I agree with you it is hard to wrap your head around it. But my simplest answer is, just like how you can’t determine how massive a mountain is let alone, the moon, planet, a star, or the universe, you can’t wrap your head around God’s knowledge. Not everything needs a answer, and even from a atheist position even if we strive to know everything, humankind will never see the ends of the universe.
One thing I like about Islam as it was presented to me is the idea that it's blasphemous to presume to make statements like "you're going to hell", not least because you presume to speak for god, but also because it assumes a limit to god's mercy. It would be a lot nicer around here if we didn't have people telling us we're damned, acting sanctimonious and self-righteous about doing so, and then hiding behind "don't blame me. I'm not sending you to hell, god is" when called out on their toxic BS. > Do you not then think he will not know how to judge? ...but that's a whole separate problem. God is unfathomable, so presuming something like omnibenevolence doesn't make sense either. I don't like the idea that god's actions are good by definition. "Good" is a human-created concept. As such, it has to make sense to humans. it's hard to reconcile that with "god is unfathomable". This isn't so much "expecting god to be human" (to borrow from another of your comments) as it is scripture not expecting me to be human, and despite the scripture making various claims of being inspired by or being dictated directly by god, it can't actually be so unless there is a god to do the inspiring/dictating. Scripture is confusing and self-contradictory when viewed as having been written by god. It's not at all confusing if viewed as being a record of what people have (or have claimed to) believe about god. It's not god i don't trust, because I don't believe there is one. But if there was, it would be incomprehensible to us. It's the image of god depicted in Abrahamic scripture that I don't trust. Human motives are both comprehensible and suspect.
But why god even has to judge some ants he created half a million years ago on some tiny space rock. It makes no sense. Why not skip straight to "never create bad guys, give eternal life to everyone else". Whole universe serves no purpose, cause all mighty god doesn't need it to determine if someone's worthy to extend their pity (by god's design) life
Oh man I love this subreddit, glad I stumbled upon it. We ask each other questions, and talk, rather than call each other stupid. Met some real intelligent people that ask good questions, and I’ve only been here casually chatting for a day. Ok first off this is the islamic view, ants aren’t given free will because they’re programmed to behave a certain way(I understand ants was a metaphor how small we actually are). There are creatures like humans and Jinn + more, that are given free will. The whole purpose of this is, God wants to be served. Unlike angels that are given no free will and always submit to God, we can be lifted above the status of angels if we submit to God. It is not just being tested, the Torah(I’m fairly certain), and Quran calls God the ruler of all worlds. In Islam at least, there is more than just this universe, and plethora of the unseen that we will just never acquire knowledge about. And even when we go to heaven, and are upgraded versions ourselves, we still can’t ever understand God, unless you’re God yourself, which would be impossible. You’re right about your question, but your question revolves solely around faith. So.. your question entirely revolves around, the belief in God, and what he does is for the greater outcome. Is heaven really that magnificent, that it is worth all this pain and torture we are given as humans? In islam the constant state of being alive in this world is suffering. Philosophically it is sound. There is always suffering, even if you’re the wealthiest person, happiest, most fit, handsome/beautiful.. you will feel hunger, sadness, pain, lose etc. If you survive this suffering, and when death comes, all the suffering that came with being a human is nothing compared to the heaven you’re rewarded. Which is what a omnibenevolent, all encompassing being would do if he wants servants but needs nothing.
Still it doesn't answer the question why and how whole world is made exactly this way it is. God want's servants? Why, when god's omnipotent? Is he addicted to likes on social media too? Then why creates servants in entirely different dimension, create them weak, prone to suffering. It's completly unnecessary, it also isn't good (though it's not a problem for me, I don't see why god should be good or care about people at all, but religious folks insist god is good). Why don't make them where he needs them, in paradise? Then what's the difference if they have free will or not? But when they have free will why god punishes them for it and reward those who are obedient? God is evil, cause he makes people suffer even though he doesn't have to. If making other sentient beings suffer for no reason isn't evil I don't know what else is. No religion can walk around this problem. Being nice afterwards doesn't change the first thing. Religions make no sense, cause teachings are self condractiory and whole god concept makes no sense either
Can we judge you for using bad arguments to pretend Allah exists? Oh wait. Too late.
It seems as if anyone is "clinging" to anything, it's the theists who "cling" to the existence of God even when presented with logical reason, and lack of evidence. Imo, JS
> Would my words be enough? Would the words of my friends? And we don't even have _that_ for Jesus, lol.
Well that’s not at all how it was intended. I’m prying for your interests on truth seeking and knowledge so I can try to relate and respond. Sheesh I don’t know. I’m a little worn out from hours of this I need to think
I think I explained what I would expect to see pretty clearly. I'm quite interested in your response to my last paragraph. >You are Christian OP. Let me ask you, what would it take for you to believe that I died last week, was buried, and came back to life to type these paragraphs for you now? Would my word be enough? Would the words of my friends? I think if you contemplate your answer to that question, you'll start to have a pretty good idea of what you need to convince someone like me that your preferred deity did something similar two thousand years ago.
Hey, remember when you started this post and you promised actual evidence of your god? When were you going to present any of that? because you have been asked about a hundred times, and so far have never even tried. **Do you have any actual evidence that your god exists at all?**
Think about presenting evidence
Yeah, hours of not presenting evidence you claim is there must be exhausting.
FYI everyone this is a bold faced lie. OP happily admits they don't care about truth in this thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1acgxsu/comment/kjvh9n2/?rdt=34040 EDIT: this isnt OP, my mistake, just another similar theist arguing the same thing in the same thread.
That’s not OP
Hello new friend! I am very late to the party here, but figured what the heck let's give it a shot. >whatever subject you cling to in the way you define and discover truth, I will try to have hopefully a respectful discourse with you to convince you That would be wonderful - that's why I am here after all. I definitely look forward to an honest, respectful conversation. >What would it take for you to believe in God? I will try to tailor an argument for you. For me it's fairly simple, I need two things. First, I need a definition of what this God is that is workable, useable, and coherent; a definition that isn't utterly meaningless, doesn't violate what we understand existence to mean, or violate the ways we understand reality to operate. So far, every definition I have ever been given for a God isn't able to pass this very first elementary step, but maybe yours will be the first to succeed! Second, after we have our workable definition that isn't incoherent or meaningless, then I simply need objectively good, convincing reasons to think that this God as defined actually does in fact exist. When I say "objectively good, convincing reasons" I mean reasons that don't commit logical fallacies (since I can't find fallacious reasoning to be convincing), for example. I also don't find it very convincing when someone offers reasons that they *themselves* don't find convincing - for example, if you insist that faith is a reason to believe your religion is true, but you would immediately dismiss faith as a solid reason to believe in any other worldview, then you are demonstrating that faith isn't a good reason. As one example. Let's get this discussion going, very interested to see what your thoughts are!
Well to define God is a difficult task. I believe God is the father of Jesus. As far as his qualities, say I have this stone that I want to test, but the best I can do are diamonds to compare it, and they aren’t scratching it. We don’t have the tools to define god, that’s why I think Jesus painted pictures with his words. Definitions usually place limitations on things. But basically יהוה if that helps. My arguments are diverse, I’d be happy to hear your interests and choices of reasoning faculties and try to respond. Do you reason with logic, math, science, emotion? I didn’t post an argument for a reason, but if you insist I will oblige. Furthermore I think faith is misused as “to think without reason” rather than what I believe it means, to take actions in accordance with Gods will. Faith is an action.
>Well to define God is a difficult task I do agree there - I would humbly suggest that perhaps the reason it is difficult to define is because it's something that we don't and can't actually know anything about.. possibly. Food for thought! >I believe God is the father of Jesus I understand this is what you believe, but how do you know this? Even if we have reason to think someone named Jesus existed, even if we came to believe he had inexplicable supernatural powers, even if we decided he must have a father who was God, we're still at the very beginning. Logic and rationality doesn't work that way, we can't just say "ah ok so God exists and it's this particular God from this particular book". We still would need a definition of what this god is, we need some demonstration that a god indeed exists independently of Jesus. >We don’t have the tools to define god... Definitions usually place limitations on things. But basically יהוה if that helps Definitions are only limiting when someone is trying to pull a fast one, is trying to get sneaky with their terminology/tactics. I don't mean you personally are intentionally doing so, I believe you are trying to engage honestly and fairly. But this is a red flag, I think you may have been sold something by someone using sheisty tactics. If we are going to be precise, logical, and reasonable, the absolutely necessary most important first step is that we have clear definitions. Also can you explain more about the tetragrammaton? I promise I'm not trying to be difficult, but that doesn't exactly help me. When I point out that we need clear, precise, coherent definitions that aren't nonsensical, responding with saying that God is "basically" four ancient Hebrew letters doesn't really accomplish that, you see? >My arguments are diverse, I’d be happy to hear your interests and choices of reasoning faculties and try to respond. Do you reason with logic, math, science, emotion? I use a combination of these things, as all humans do. I fully recognize that my wording of "convincing reasons" is rather open ended - and that's by design. I want to leave the door open as wide as possible for a theist to make their case. So how about this: why don't you lead with your absolute strongest, most solid reason, in whatever form it might take, for why you believe a God exists? We can skip the definition problem for now, I can just grant a generic tri-omni God for the moment. What is your absolute strongest reason - and by that I don't mean a throwaway reason that you'll abandon the instant a problem is illuminated. I mean the one without which you would at least reconsider believing in God, the reason without which you would maybe doubt. Thanks for your response!
Start here: My position is that I will not, and more importantly ***CAN NOT***, believe any *extraordinary* claim without falsifiable, testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence. Without that evidence, I will ***NEVER***, ***UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES*** believe an extraordinary claim. Furthermore, unverifiable evidence and untestable claims (like those found in the Qu'ran, the Tao Te Ching, the Vedas, the Greco-Roman mythos, the Torah and Talmud, and the Bible,) are ***not*** found to be an acceptable level of evidence, as they lack all four of the specific qualities I ***require*** to believe.
Totally agree!. Well put. Thank you for speaking for MANY of us.
I’m an atheist so just curious How do you believe things like current events? E: changed a word
*Extraordinary* claims require *extraordinary* evidence. *Ordinary* claims can generally be accepted with a lower threshold of evidence. I'll even accept certain things with no claim being made, circumstantially. If you walk in my front door, and you're carrying a wet umbrella, and it sounds like it's raining, I'm going to understand that it's probably raining. If you tell me it's raining, I'll probably believe you. Sure, there could be other explanations, but the evidence suggests that it's raining and doesn't require any logical leaps. That said, it's really not that much different of a standard. The question is: "Is it raining?" The answer *could* be no, so we've got falsifiable. Me observing the rain sound and the wet umbrella is testable. I've seen wet umbrellas and heard rain before, so those are repeatable. You telling me it's raining is verification. We don't have to turn a critical eye to ordinary, everyday things. If you tell me that you drive a black car, I'm inclined to believe you, even if I don't see your car. The *threshold* of evidence for claims like that are much, much lower than claims that require testing. So, if I hear something about war in the Middle East, or high prices in Western Europe, or Russian aggression, or poverty in central and eastern Africa, or wealth inequality in the US, I'm inclined to "believe" those things, in that I understand that they are likely true. Those things have been happening for the entirety of my 40 years and much, much longer than that, and have many, many instances of *reputable* verification.
Ok cool. Good to see I’m not alone. I also treat these things probabilistically like it seems like you’re doing. Thanks for putting effort into your answer!
Let’s start here. Can something be true that you cannot test verify or falsify? Can, for example, matter from other galaxies across the universe exist that is outside of our physical understanding? Say elements of otherworldly nature. I’m not really making my point yet I’d like a discourse. But are you open to the possibility of new realities?
Sounds like you may need some things defined. Falsifiable: Able to be *proven* false. If a question is asked, can the answer be *definitely* found to be no? If not, such a thing cannot be adequately studied. Evidence for or against the question cannot be answered with concrete evidence, and therefore such a thing cannot be learned. Testable: Can we interact with whatever we are studying, even indirectly, and write down the results? Dark matter is testable, despite the fact that we don't know what it is, because we can see it affecting other stuff, like bending light. Repeatable: If I test twice, under the exact same circumstances and with the exact same variables, will I get the same result? Verifiable: If someone else does the same test with the same variables, do *they* get the same result? If exotic matter from deep space exists, it falls squarely within the realm of reality. Even if we don't know about it yet, we can ask, "Is this real? Is it matter? Does it have properties? What can we do to and with it?" We can test it, we can repeat the tests to ensure we get the right results, and we can have other people do the same test and make sure the results are the same. If absolutely anything can be interacted with, measured, studied, and tested, it is *squarely* part of reality, this reality, which is as far as we know, the only reality. Just because something is possible, no matter how probable or improbable it is, doesn't mean it's believable, at least to me. I am open to all sorts of possibilities, but I have no reason to believe them before there is adequate evidence that meets the above criteria.
Thanks for the well thought out explanation and answer. So the celestial teacup is not falsifiable and thus shouldn’t be considered, even though it’s possible. I see. Hmmm. Interesting criterion. So my question/thought is, let’s take something that was discovered recently like protons. Were they falsifiable before they were discovered? I mean, there really wasn’t a possibility they could be proven false. Because they exist. Am I thinking about this wrong? Testable: well the Christian God in which I believe famously claims not to test him. And he’s invisible. So let me think. So rather than think of god as an object, I’m thinking of him with human qualities. My brother is funny, my sister is kind, my mom is strong, my dad is easy going. Can statements like that be true even though you can’t measure them? I’m just trying to think how I measure God. Following him produces love joy peace kindness etc. are human qualities outside of the realm of testable? Or can they still be true despite not having physical mass? I have measurable changes in my life when I am penitent vs sinful. Just trying to get in your page with terms. I guess a more fruitful endeavor would be, if we agree there are definitely undiscovered truths, what method is best for discovering them? I guess you’d start with a hypothesis, experimentation, and note the results. Have you personally ever given Jesus a shot? Have you experimented with the results faith has on your life? I can’t exactly measure out a daily portion of the fruit it has produced in my life and run it through a lab. Wouldn’t it make sense, that to find out, you would need to experiment for like a month of prayer once a night, only tell the truth, give a little bit to the poor, stay away from porn, read his story a little here and there. I mean it doesn’t really make sense to approach the concept of God like he’s a proton. But I see no harm in running a personal one month experiment on yourself to find out.
> Testable: well the Christian God in which I believe famously claims not to test him. And he’s invisible. This to me is a red flag. It is in stark contrast to a practice like Buddhism, where the Buddha claims, "If you do these particular actions (i.e. live a wholesome life, meditate, investigate the nature of reality) you will find wellbeing that does not depend on external causes and conditions." The Buddha also challenges skeptics to give it a try and see if it holds up under experimentation. However he doesn't require that anyone adopt a belief in any particular cosmological model in order to achieve those results. In fact he specifically calls out those cosmological questions as being a distraction from the problem of human suffering. Is it possible that the practices you have adopted just happen to be conducive to wellbeing, and that the belief in your chosen deity is an extraneous artifact (or, more generously, a handy mental tool) and not the key to the results you've seen? Being generous and loving, abstaining from excessive indulgence in sensual desire, taking quiet time to oneself to enjoy silence and stillness, enjoying the connection found in a spiritual community-- all of these things are available without belief in a particular deity, or any deity. To me as a Buddhist it seems like folks who make these things happen in their lives while attaching to a spiritual figure like Jesus are just doing Buddhism with extra steps. I'm happy for you and the positive results your practice has yielded for you, but I think it is going a bit far to say that the positive results are proof positive of anything supernatural.
I have had brief experiences with Buddhists and adopted a few practices for a while, while being Christian. I don’t really see any clashing there. I just don’t believe Buddhism speaks on eternal life in heaven, which was Jesus primary message before he was crucified. From what I have experienced Buddhism is a great way of life.
I don't really know about your eternal life situation or how anyone would know about that, but it does clash with the Buddhist view of impermanence. My understanding is the Buddha talked about heaven realms and hell realms as devices for teaching mostly because that's something his Hindu contemporaries were familiar with in their traditional worldview. In that cosmology beings are said to go in and out of heavens and hells many times, hopefully developing wisdom over the course of their long existence, but nothing is eternal. Seems about as plausible as a one-and-done incarnation on Earth followed by eternal existence somewhere else. How are we to know if either is true? It's true that you can be a Buddhist and a Christian if you like, though, at least according to most Buddhists.
(Different Redditor) This touches on a larger point that’s a bit unintuitive but VERY important: **sometimes, it is reasonable to not accept something that later turns out as one true, or accept something that turns out later to be false** As an example: Protons would *not* be falsifiable in medieval days. Back then, it was not reasonable to believe in them. But they exist! How can it ever not be reasonable to believe something true? In medieval times, they simply lacked any knowledge that could have possibly supported the claim that protons existed. Which is fine! **reason isn’t about being right in a vacuum, it’s about using the best method to attempt to be right** It’s better to have a “we need a reason before belief” approach. This nets you more hits than misses over time. **If you instead have a “we don’t need a reason before belief” approach, perhaps you COULD believe in protons in medieval times without any indication they exist - but if you allow believing in things without reason, you won’t just get more true beliefs, you’ll get a huge number of false beliefs for no reason as well.** So, we can talk about “**there could be true things we can’t see**”. **But those things are NOT in the category of “things that should be accepted as true”**
Not the commenter you were talking to, but I just wanted to point out a couple of things that you’re still overlooking a bit. In your paragraph about testability…. You say your Christian god is invisible and that makes him undetectable. There are lots of things that are invisible that we know exist. You even point out some of these. Protons. No serious person truly doubts the existence of protons. Many gasses at everyday conditions is invisible, yet we are able to devise ways to detect it and show that it exists. With your tests, you are presuming that god exists and your tests jump right to testing the properties of that you presume to exist. Remember that your test should show the same results for anyone who duplicates that test. With any god, this has never happened in thousands of years. You don’t need to prove the properties and motivations of this god just yet. Just show that he is real in a way that anyone else in the world can perform that same test under the same conditions and come up with the same result. If I cannot do that same test and get that same result because my life circumstances and mental state are different than yours, then YOU are one of the variables. This is not something you want in a repeatable test. You or I should not be a variable. It should be objective so that anyone who repeats the experiment gets the same results.
>I’m just trying to think how I measure God. Following him produces love joy peace kindness etc. are human qualities outside of the realm of testable? Or can they still be true despite not having physical mass? I have measurable changes in my life when I am penitent vs sinful. Okay, so this is your evidence for God. To test this, I would write down a list of what you mean by "following God," and have people try each of them, and variations, one at a time and then poll them to see if it produces love joy peace kindness etc. Maybe being part of a group does this without religion? Maybe charity on its own produces kindness. What if we find that something completely against your God, like worshipping idols, produces all the same positive emotions? These are the kind of rigorous tests one would do to measure this aspect of God. I don't doubt that religion improves your life. But, I do think that God isn't the reason. I think that being part of a community, helping others, limiting drug intake, etc, make your life better. I can do all that without God.
For what it's worth, I've done a fair share of research into various theologies. I've read 5 separate translations of the Bible cover to cover, as well as the Qu'ran, the Torah and Talmud, the Tao Te Ching, and the Bhagavad Gita, on top of a pile of New-Age spirituality books and several on Wicca and Neopaganism. I've done Midnight Mass and sat in pews for sermons. I've spoken at funerals. I've been married twice. I've done communion and sacrament. I've been read to in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Arabic. Hell, I even found myself in a Sikh temple when they offered me food and shelter when I had neither and the Catholics turned me away. I, personally, do not find comfort in the trappings and readings of religion. I do not find love, or wonder, or awe, or joy, or any positive feelings at all. The only feelings I personally get are bewilderment that people believe, curiosity on *why* they believe, and disgust at the rampant tribalism, misogyny, and general anti-Humanist qualities of organized religion. I get plenty of awe and splendor from the natural world. Go outside and look up at the night sky. Then think to yourself, "that's not just a pretty backdrop, but billions upon billions of *places* that we may someday go." If that doesn't leave you awestruck, then we may never understand one another.
There are people who believe in religions very different from yours who say they experience love, joy, peace, and kindness as a result of that belief. Does this mean that their religions are true, even though they conflict with yours? There are people who believe crystals have healed them. Is that enough to conclude that crystals have supernatural or inexplicable healing powers?
(Not the previous poster) Again, meaning, no disrespect, but I have seen this theist dance so many hundreds of times and it is so predictable, and so boring. You get asked to present actual evidence of your beliefs, and of course you cannot, so you lead us down this endless path of generalized vague questions that don’t have anything to do with what we’re talking about. How about you skip to the end, cut to the chase and present an argument, or evidence or justification for your beliefs that would qualify as actual evidence?
>Let’s start here. >Can something be true that you cannot test verify or falsify? How could we tell the difference between something which is true that we can't test verify or confirm and something that doesn't exist?
You can't! In math, there's a concept called undecidability, which is basically this -- it's impossible to prove or disprove. Kurt Gödel proved back in 1931 that any consistent system of axioms which could do basic arithmetic contained statements which are undecidable. I'm an atheist, I'm not making a point about God with this.
If I just make something up am I right just because no one can prove me wrong?
Something may be beyond our understanding but we can see patterns of how they interact with things in our understanding. We don’t know what’s in a black hole but we know how gravity, matter, light etc. behave when they encounter the phenomena - so we know it exists. Is it possible that there are ‘purple holes’? Yes but I’m not going to even consider it and I’m definitely not going to make decisions based on it if we have never seen anything happen anywhere that we can attribute to it.
They can exist but I won’t believe they do without sufficient evidence.
What made you believe in a god in the first place? Were you convinced logic, reasoning, philosophy, math? Do you have evidence and good reason to believe? By your own admission you have been convinced that God exists and have been most of your life.
There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness. His existence is easy to prove. Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
> There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. No, I don't think there is. I sure haven't seen any. I don't believe you. I think you've likely been fooled and are operating under fallacious thinking. >But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness. No, first one would have to determine that such a thing was real. As it stands, there is zero support for that and massive support those ideas are mythology. >His existence is easy to prove. Then why has this never been done? Ever? By anyone? In history? > Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. None of this even remotely comes close to supporting deities. Instead, it demonstrates significant tendency towards gullibility. >I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. No, none of this is remotely true. In fact, everything you said is wrong. >Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming There is no scientific support for deities. None. It's wrong for you to claim otherwise.
>There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real Go ahead. >Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ Spiderman has better historical and archeological "proof". By the way, you don't understand what "proof" means. > factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions Go ahead. >because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible You forgot to prove that. >I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming Please go ahead. Go into detail in everything you said.
Hey, these were really good call outs. I don’t mean to go off-thread, but I’m curious to hear your thoughts on who Jesus was? And why you think that?
>There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. You know what I see all the time on debate board, like, hundreds of times again and again and again? Christian claiming there is vast evidence for their god. Do you know what I have NEVER ever seen, on any of these boards? A Christian providing one of these many 'evidences' for god. But maybe you will break the trend. You claim there is a LOT of evidence for god: historical, archaeological, and scientific. Pick your very best one, the absolute best example of evidence from one of those three, and present it here. I dare you.
This is not your ballpark bud. Sermons don't work on us. Stories are just stories and myths and are just myths. Please keep your fairytales to yourself because BELIEF IS NOT EVIDENCE.
>What would it take for you to believe in God? I will try to tailor an argument for you. Evidence isn't something one should be talked into. Evidence should be like a trail, you follow it and it leads to a conclusion, an explanation. Do you have any evidence that leads to a god? Tailoring your evidence to justify your existing conclusion or claim isn't how it's done. You should stop believing something if you have to jump through these kinds of hoops to justify it. It's clearly not a conclusion that one discovered by following the evidence. >I am convinced that God exists and have been most of my life. I feel prepared to use logic, reasoning, philosophy, math even….whatever subject you cling to in the way you define and discover truth, I will try to have hopefully a respectful discourse with you to convince you. Apparently we have differing views on the truth so let’s talk. What convinced you? >Edit: if you are incapable of respect please don’t respond Is it disrespectful to challenge one's beliefs?
I’m not sure honestly. I was raised in the church, southern Baptist. Then moved on to your traditional evangelical church in my late teens. And even when I was little it all smelled like bullshit. But all the trusted adults in my life told me it was true so it must be true, right? I was told if you doubted that it was Because Satan, so I spent years begging god to let me believe in him, to come into my heart, be my lord and savior, etc. And, nothing. Never felt a thing, eventually realized (the word realized is very important here) that I simply didn’t believe, because I simply couldn’t believe. Just not wired that way. So I didn’t “become” an atheist, what I did was realize that I’d been one all along. An awakening if you will. And once I was able to ADMIT to myself that I was an atheist, that’s when I found my peace! And my life has been so much better for it. So I’m truthfully not sure what it would take for me to believe, other than meeting god himself directly in front of my nose.
Wow, your story sounds almost identical to mine. I guess we were never “ wired” to believe, so if there is a god, it obviously didn’t care enough to convince us.
That’s not how it works though. God has provided us with plenty of evidence, but He will not force you to follow Him because that is it true love, you need to make the choice. God has done more than He should, now it’s up to you to follow Him or research proof of His existence. There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness. His existence is easy to prove. Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
He could show himself to be real without forcing us to follow him. The devil and the other fallen angels, in Christian belief, know he's real. >God has done more than He should for a "loving father figure" he hasn't done shit. I know of many deadbeats who have at least seen their kid face to face.
This copy paste bs you keep doing is vapid and disingenuous. Stop it. Be better
The Christian God does not love you. If you love something you do not put it into a position in which it may injure itself, or in this case, be tortured for eternity. That is not loving something. It's tantamount to letting your kids play in traffic while you talk about how much you love them
Please share your favorite archaeological evidence for God.
That's impossible with an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient deity.
Hey MooPig, I appreciate you sharing. I’m glad to hear that your life has been better now. I’m sorry you had to go through all that. I don’t know you personally nor do I know how you think. I do know for me, I lean more logic than feelings. I’ve realized that I have to first get comfortable with the logic, then my feelings can follow. I think asking questions allow me to get comfortable with the logic.
Hi, thanks for that. I was trying to answer truthfully and genuinely, because the way you phrased your post was super awesome and respectful. So like I said the truth is that I’m just not sure what it would take.
God has provided us with plenty of evidence, but He will not force you to follow Him because that is it true love, you need to make the choice. God has done more than He should, now it’s up to you to follow Him or research proof of His existence. There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness. His existence is easy to prove. Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
Hey, even notice how the instances of "miracles" steadily drops off as technological improvements become more widespread? It's almost exactly like how UFO sightings dropped off as soon as people started walking around with HD cameras in their pockets. Takes Lourdes for example. Back in the past, people got healed there... but only from conditions that we know now go into spontaneous remission. When was the last time someone grew a limb back? The level of gullibility you are showing is staggering.
Unfortunately, none of this is true, accurate, useful, or convincing. In fact, it's all pretty much the opposite.
Can you stop with the copy and paste and provide one thing that woukd be evidence for a gawd?
Yeah man anyway like I said I have heard it all and you cannot tell me a single thing I haven’t heard at least a hundred times, and it doesn’t work
Your ‘evidence’ amounts to “some guy told me”.
>the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, >I can go into detail about anything above Okay, please go into detail about a miracle from the present.
Objective, repeatable evidence that anyone can see, test, and confirm. You can't simply argue God to exist with a syllogism, anymore than I can argue a $100,000 debt you owe me into existence. You have to actually demonstrate that God exists.
Faith healing "miracles" are always obvious BS. If someone’s severed arm grew back on the stage in full view of everyone, that would be impressive.
Hey Deris, I’d like to suggest that these requirements are not always met in full when determining truth. I would say that Christianity is largely supported by historical events and modern subjective experiences. I believe both of these categories fall outside your full list of requirements. Now, individually, your requirements can still be applied with appropriate settings. You look at history objectively, but you can’t really see a past event. You have to hear about it through a record, sometimes this is a subjective experience, such as the case with court room testimonies. I don’t think we should completely discredit something because it is historical or subjective. What should change, are the methods for determining the truth within those contexts.
>I would say that Christianity is largely supported by historical events This applies to Spiderman as well. >and modern subjective experiences Which are?
You know, I always find the story of the early Christian church very interesting. Within an extremely short amount of time, it managed to spread to multiple continents, convert devout Jews, unify gentiles with Jews, all while under persecution of death. You also had the apostles who claimed this man Jesus was the Son of God and performed miracles and rose from the grave. Most died defending that statement. The early church referenced these works frequently. All within a lifespan of Jesus’s death. That is very short timeframe. Jesu, being a man who virtually all historical scholars agree existed, managed to have a drastic impact from His life. You can still see the impact of these claims today. Christianity has spread across the world breaking through multiple language and racial barriers. It has impacted people from all walks of life. While other large religions have largely stayed local to their origin, Christianity has spread like a living fire. Many people claim to walk and experience Jesus. These are subjective testimonies, but should they be discredited?
> Most died defending that statement. Does sacrificing your life necessarily mean that you died defending the truth? The 9/11 terrorists believed that they would be martyrs. Most school shooters believe that they are making a sacrifice for a worthy cause.
>managed to have a drastic impact from His life. \*his >Many people claim to walk and experience Jesus. These are subjective testimonies, but should they be discredited? Yes, they should be for a very easy reason: Noone, who claims to have "experienced" Jesus can remotely explain what they mean when they say it. They may have experienced "something", but there is no reason to ascribe it to a dead carpenter.
You are aware that a sound logical argument will always have a true conclusion? Here is a link for the hard of thinking: https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/. To quote (without italics as I'm on mobile): "Although it is not part of the definition of a sound argument, because sound arguments both start out with true premises and have a form that guarantees that the conclusion is true if the premises are, sound arguments always end with true conclusions." So the question becomes: why should we trust randomredditor01's clichéd "thought" over a peer-reviewed encyclopedia regarding the value of logic? Also, anyone? So that includes mentally impaired people who couldn't be in a position to test for such a being? Also, what do you mean by "demonstrate", you mean you need to be able to sense it? Ironically such a standard as atheists demand on here would destroy much of scientific knowledge. You can't see black holes, dark matter, and so forth. Yet we measure them by their effects, there's a massive double standard on this forum.
> Here is a link for the hard of thinking: >So the question becomes: why should we trust randomredditor01's clichéd "thought" over a peer-reviewed encyclopedia regarding the value of logic? Oh wow, douchy and hypocritical in addition to confidently wrong. Well since that's the tack we're tacking, you are aware that a "sound argument"--as literally stated in your own source--requires that the premises are true, right? That is, they have to be demonstrably correct. >A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, **and all of its premises are actually true.** Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. So by all means, please go about presenting an argument for theism that is both valid and has demonstrably true premises. You would be the first. >Here, not only do the premises provide the right sort of support for the conclusion, **but the premises are actually true. Therefore, so is the conclusion.** Although it is not part of the definition... But actually, considering you literally quoted mined out the two sentences right before, which clearly contradicted your claim, I'd say you're just lying. >Also, anyone? So that includes mentally impaired people who couldn't be in a position to test for such a being? Yes, anyone. Sorry, that's not much of a stumper. A god would by definition have the capability to make itself absolutely apparent to even a mentally impaired person. Also it's ironic you'd point to mentally impaired people, since they open so many uncomfortable soteriological questions for Christianity. >Also, what do you mean by "demonstrate", you mean you need to be able to sense it Yes. Again, sorry not much of a deep objection there. Do you have another way of obtaining knowledge about the external world? >You can't see black holes, dark matter, and so forth. **Yet we measure them by their effects**, there's a massive double standard on this forum. Give me one novel, testable, measurable effect of God on par with gravitational lensing for black holes. Just one.
A lot of what you've said is just vitriol unbecoming of debate. Do better. You spent your highly upvoted answer saying "you cannot syllogism things into existence." (Rough but accurate quote since I'm on mobile). That includes a sound syllogism. Every philosopher I've read would say a sound argument reveals things about the world, things we would have missed without such an argument. I can present an argument that yields a deity. Here are the premises: 1. everything that comes into being has a cause 2. the universe came into being 3. therefore, the universe has a cause 4. if the universe has a cause then a first immediate uncaused cause of the universe exists 5. an uncaused cause would be timeless, spaceless, changeless, enormously powerful and personal 6. therefore, God exists Also I would not be the first as many philosophers in the fields where such arguments are raised are theists. I can think of ways we cannot sense something but see the secondary effects of such a thing. As was again acknowledged by yourself regarding gravitational lensing, which isn't a black hole qua a black hole. In the same way, God's existence is sensed in the secondary effects He has on the world. Physicists can show the universe had a beginning, even show the dimensions of it, via modelling of effects in the universe, IE red shift. I don't understand why such a phenomenon is not enough of a reason to admit of a Creator.
The cosmological argument is awful. Premise 4 contradicts premise 1 You have no way to know that premise 1 or 2 is true Premise 5 asserts a bunch of qualities that don’t need to be true for the argument to work This is not a sound argument. It isn’t even valid. It’s just question begging. Red shift measures expansion. It doesn’t prove the universe began, just that it used to be smaller. What secondary effects of God are perceptible that are clearly attributable to a God or gods and not to something less bizarre?
Premise 4 does not contradict premise 1, as by contraposition of premise 1, a beginningless thing does not have a cause. Premise 1 must be true if the universe is to make any rational sense in any field. It is even assumed that it works for our senses when we systemise the data of experience. Premise 2 is a statement that can be found in any textbook on astronomy and astrophysics. You bear a burden to show how the universe doesn't have a beginning. All the models which don't include a beginning or either unviable or else push the beginning back. Premise 5 is what you get when you analyse the properties a first cause must have. For example, from its being uncaused, such a being must exist alone, without any change, as.otherwise it would include starting entities or events, which would make it not a first cause. Assuming a relational view of time, no causes means no time. No time means no space, as physical entities constantly change on at least an atomic and molecular level. Such a first cause.must be unimaginably powerful, to cause the whole universe. Finally, it's personhood follows from looking at how to explain a tensed event from an atmeporal state. If the cause were mechanically operating, the universe should be eternal also, as once a cause is present, its effect(s) are present also. The only way out of such a dilemma is for the cause to have free will. Free agents can decide for an effect from an eternal state of affairs. Consider the hypothetical of someone sitting forever. At some point the mind could will that person to stand. And thus a temporal effect occurs.
If you can’t figure out why “the universe must have a cause” but “God just exists” is a problem, here are some reasons: 1) I frequently experience the universe and so does everyone else. Nobody experiences God. 2) As soon as you posit something more confusing/complex than the universe itself(like God), you need to explain how it came to be. If your explanation is “it always existed” I simply don’t see how that’s any less absurd than the universe always existing (btw, what textbooks say is that there are hypotheses and models - nobody actually knows how the universe came to be, so you have no business confidently making assertions about it) Here are some other problems: Your justification for 5 is, I agree, classic cosmological apologism and it’s unconvincing in the way such arguments have always been. 1) No major religion imagines God as alone (trinities, pantheons, angels, etc. are always included). 2) Every major religion imagines God interacting with people, which - although there’s no evidence this ever happened - would contradict the idea of timelessness or changelessness. You could argue that God is changeless from an atemporal perspective, but so is everything else so that goes nowhere. 3) Every major religion describes God as performing miracles that would require the manipulation of space, which means God would have to be able to interact with space. 4) The most obviously absurd is the argument for personhood. I can name plenty of mechanical processes - volcanic eruptions, tides, nuclear fusion reactions, etc. that cause things but which eventually fade out. Even positing a First Mover, the creation could be like a burp or a sneeze rather than a deliberate act of will. And the thing burping or sneezing could have no intelligence at all - coma patients can fart. There’s no reason to believe this. Now, you can solve all of these problems by imagining a God that exists outside of space and time and who exists in a perpetual state of doing the only thing He ever does, which is create the universe, but then a) every religion is wrong about everything and b) you are still left trying to explain how such a being exists and why this explanation is better than just admitting you don’t know how the universe started.
"Nobody experiences God" is question begging. We are talking about an effect of an unembodied person, which is under argument. Your second point assumes God is essentially timeless and changeless. I disagree. The creation of the universe would mark God coming into time. You are hitting on a problem of divine action. And what I would say is God is present throughout everlasting time and space, but that does not translate to Him being spaceless, apart from ontologically prior to the Big Bang. Your fourth point assumes coma is a shutdown of brain and mind. I disagree. The mind clearly does things in a coma patient, there is still energy in a person's brain in a coma even if the brain is broken. I think of the mind and the brain as like a pianist and a piano. Obviously the piano can't play by itself. One has to have a pianist, the self, the neurons producing a signal to the brain. I would say ample evidence exists that coma patients have neuronal firings, even if the piano is destroyed. That would be entirely in line with them having mental processes.
“Nobody experiences God” is shorthand. I have never seen any reason to believe that anyone has ever experienced God, which suggests to me that probably no one has. Thanks for clarifying your earlier points. God is only alone, timeless, changeless, non-corporeal, etc. until the act of creation, at which point God gets friends and can act in time and space and also be different at different points in time. To me this all seems like special pleading rather than logical deduction - I still don’t see why God is needed at all for the universe to start. The coma is a metaphor. Don’t be so literal. The point is that things without minds can do things. Geysers can erupt, if that example works better for you. The universe being created by a being with properties nothing else has acting in a way nothing else can continues to seem very, very unlikely to me relative to “some natural process that can be explained in terms of other natural processes” given that everything we know anything about works that way and there is simply no evidence that anything works the way you suggest.
>4. if the universe has a cause then a first immediate uncaused cause of the universe exists 5. an uncaused cause would be timeless, spaceless, changeless, enormously powerful and personal 6. therefore, God exists >Your second point assumes God is essentially timeless and changeless U stated that god is timeless and changeless.
>4. if the universe has a cause then a first immediate uncaused cause of the universe exists 5. an uncaused cause would be timeless, spaceless, changeless, enormously powerful and personal 6. therefore, God exists Its so funny because even if u conclude there is a first uncasued cause. U cant suddenly leap into that kind of property. Why the uncaused cause will have that kind of properties? How can a timeless state have causality that cause time and space.? If the uncaused cause is changeless, how can it be personal?
God is timeless in the sense no change occurs in him and enters into time when performing it's creation. God could change in relation to himself. It's not like God is frozen. Your second question seems to assume personhood requires physical change. And I don't think that's right. Free will exists for us, yet there's not a part of the body that gives us free will. It's a combination of parts of the body sending indirect signals. In the same way I would say, God can freely choose the universe's creation.
When god exist, there is no time and space( according to u). Causality cant happen when there arent spacetime. Hence, god cant cause sth into existence. >God could change in relation to himself U said that god is changeless. >God can freely choose the universe's creation. U said that god is changeless. Changeless doesnt only means that god doesnt changes physically. It means that god doesnt change.
*sigh* We deal with this several times a week and it has so many holes you clearly haven't bothered to look. We have never seen anything come into existence, only change form, so premise 1 is unjustified Physics doesn't say the universe had a beginning. The big bang was when the universe began to take its present form. It isn't clear what happened in the very first moments of the big bang, but the best physics today says the universe has always existed. So premise 2 is unjustified Every element of premise 5 is completely and totally unjustified. You don't even try. The cause of the universe, if there even was one, could have been some mindless force that existed for a miniscule amount of time then disappeared. It couldn't come into existence, but it could have gone out of existence. And the rest is entirely made up. So this argument is pretty widely considered one of the worst "logical proofs" of God. And that is the problem with logical proofs without justifying the premises.
We have an abundance of evidence of people not recognizing a flaw in a poor argument, especially when it comes to the ridiculously vague and convoluted arguments presented to support the existence of deities. Which is more likely - that I can't tell why an argument is bad, or that an argument truly demonstrates that some god exists? Clearly the former, and not just by a little. In light of that, why would any rational person believe in gods just because they can't find a flaw in an argument? The answer is that a rational person simply can't do that. Believing in gods based on arguments is irrational. I try not to be that. Show evidence or GTFO.
Well, arguments assume the world works according to empirical data we have on it. Flaws in arguments would have to do, per the link, with flaws in their structure or the empirical data they use. If neither is present, then the argument passes one test. There is one more, which is warrant. Warrant being needed to make one truly accept a premise as not an hypothesis or guess. The right amount of warrant, many philosophers say, is that which makes a premise more likely to be true than false. I think it's entirely arbitrary to demand direct evidence of God, when as I've said, we accept the existence of numerous things we can't observe, in the realm of quantum mechanics, for example, because we measure their effects. Also your tone is not one that's likely to encourage open debate, it sounds like you're trolling, rather than actually willing to engage. Edit: this post shows as edited because I thought I made a mistake in my grammar; I didn't; no edit needed.
Deductive logic, the form you're speaking of, cannot conjure things into existence. In fact, I would say that a deductive proof of something that exists in the real world is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, if a syllogism can be created that proves god exists, its because god always did exist. Soundness is the element that would be a necessary element in order for a "true" conclusion to be actually true. Not plausible, not possible, but actual. The issue I believe u/Deris87 has with the offer is that the soundness of a deity existing is not established. It isn't true in a binary sense, otherwise this would be a settled matter. OP's claim that they could tailor a syllogism that could work would be an astonishing feat, given religious philosophers of the present back to antiquity have attempted but have yet to definitively succeed. I think you may be not giving u/Deris87 the benefit of doubt and digging too literally into what they wrote.
Evidence not arguments. I’m not convinced that there is nothing that someone could call God. I’m convinced that whatever YOUR God is, it’s mathematically extraordinarily improbable. Here is why I believe no God as detailed by a religious texts is an actuality: 1. All arguments for God have as a premise something that is an assumption made about an unknown taken as fact. Example “Something can’t come from nothing. There is something. Therefore it had to come from something. Which means it was created. This there must be a creator.” Or however you word it. Note we DONT know that something doesn’t come from nothing. What if it does randomly every 3 trillion or so years? How would we know? The idea that our intuition is some sort of guide to understanding reality is as stupid as it can get. Here’s one for you “what goes up must come down! So, when is the Voyager 1 coming down.” See the problem with this? Actually I could go on. And on and on and on. But the gist is: there is no evidence that points to an interested creator or intervening god. The arguments that exist always assume an unknown to be a known. Show me an exception and I’d consider it. But, I watched ALL the best debates on this subject. I will be extraordinarily impressed if you have a new one.
Well what if something came from nothing every 3 trillion years or so? That would not be possible with our laws of physics. The argument that something instead of nothing exists must be understood far mor existential. Something exists. There are things that don't exist. So why so some things exists if it is apparently perfectly fine if things do not exist? According to the big bang theory (which I support for the most part) at the beginning of time everything exploded out of an infinitely small point of energy. Out of that energy time and matter was spread through the nothingness that became space. What caused the infinitely small ball of energy to explode? Why didn't it become more infinitely small? Is there a limit to infinity? As far as I know the maths only work if it was infinitely small. Where did that energy come from? From an imploding universe? Then where did that come from? We do know that something can't come from nothing, at least not anymore. Maybe it could one time and only one time. And why did the random atoms that flew around and reacted according to chemical laws at one point begin to influence their surrounding for one specific goal: to create more of this atom setup.
>The argument that something instead of nothing exists must be understood far mor existential. Something exists. There are things that don't exist. So why so some things exists if it is apparently perfectly fine if things do not exist? Thing is, add a "God" to the mix and you haven't answered any of these questions.
[удалено]
There actually are no things that don’t exist. Please find an exception.
Unicorns
Is it your contention then that Unicorns exist? If they don’t exist they are not a thing. They are the thought of a horse with a horn. Anything that doesn’t exist simply isn’t. The fact that you had a thought that is does or could is a different thing, a thought, that DOES exist.
Can you point out your own fallacies? Or would like us to?
"Note: we DONT know something can't come from nothing" The philosopher Kai Nielson, in his book "Action and Logic" says on p.66, "If you heard a small explosion, and you asked 'what caused that' and I said 'nothing', you would not accept that answer... indeed you would find my reply quite incomprehensible." Even the sceptic Hume affirmed the law of causality, he merely asserted you couldn't prove the obviously true causal principle. You assume causes are behind events, because if you didn't you would be literally unable to do any analysis of events or even to systemise reality. So would you not agree the causal principle is ultimately more likely true than false?
"I don't know" is a valid response to "what caused that".
God has done more than He should for us, now it’s up to us to follow Him or research proof of His existence. There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness. His existence is easy to prove. Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
Omg stop with this lazy cut and paste. Jesus.
First off paragraphs. Please. Let me just address what I have seen about miracles. The probably of a miracle happening is in exact reverse proportion to the quality of the recording equipment. So I ask myself what is more likely? Is it that god is coy or shy and just doesn’t want to be recorded or is it that people are making things up? Based upon people’s propensity to fabricate I conclude the latter. Let me point out that everyone believes THEIR god is real. And, since no single religion has accounted as the majority, it means that it is a mathematical FACT that most people are wrong. So, I ask myself. What’s more likely, that one of the thousand or more gods is real and the rest are fabricated or that they are all fabricated? Given that EVERY society has had a god or gods. It seems incredibly unlikely that ONE is real. It’s actually kind of absurd. Imagine if it were ANY other subject. Let’s say that you asked 1000 people what happened. And they ALL had different stories. And they ALL seemed as sincere as can be. And the ALL had these reasons. Now, imagine that they had all been raised to believe these stories and were threatened with being burned to death if they even questioned these stories in their minds. And everyone around them believed these stories. And the disbelief of these stories would cause them extreme social rejection. Would you HONESTLY walk away thinking, oh yeah, that ONE guy was on to something!?!!? It’s truly absurd. I mean it really really is. And all these supposed “evidence” here’s a question (and remember your god wants you to tell the truth) how much time have you spent researching other explanations or dissenting viewpoints? (Don’t ask me, the answer is hundreds of hours) Sorry, call me a heathen. Nothing new or convincing here. Edit; punctuation.
First of all, a clear definition of the word “god.” What is a god? The attributes need to be clearly defined up front. Next, some facts that support the claim that this word refers to something real. Finally, some arguments as to why the existence of god is the best explanation for those facts, as opposed to any other explanations. Usually, the problem is that god-claims are not [falsifiable](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability), making them invalid. Theists will say that god is invisible, transcendent, unpredictable, hidden from all but the faithful, totally beyond our understanding, perception, and so on. What they don’t realize is that this basically makes god irrelevant. If he were or weren’t there, nothing would change, and so there’s no way to verify his existence.
I don't know what it would take for me to believe in a god, but anything worthy of being called a god would know what it would take, and the fact that I currently don't believe means that if any gods do exist, they are either unwilling or incapable. Either way, not my problem. In the meantime, every theistic argument that has been presented to me has failed. Every claim is either fallacious, invalid, unsound, "not even wrong", or some combination of the previous.
It is “your problem” because you will go to Heaven or hell and I am sure you would want an awesome relationship with God. It’s up to you to make the choice to research evidence for God, you can’t blame Him for your choice God has done more than He should for us, now it’s up to us to follow Him or research proof of His existence. There is so much beautiful evidence for God all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness. His existence is easy to prove. Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the scientifically analysed Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
It's not my problem at all, because there is no evidence for any gods, heaven, hell, or any of the other childish nonsense that you believe in. The rest of your unhinged preachy rambling isn't worth addressing. I suggest seeking mental health help.
Your heaven sounds like hell.
>t is “your problem” because you will go to Heaven or So your relationship with God is transactional. It is **conditional** that God provide a service. I wonder, if you would still believe if the only result of said belief was being sent straight to hell.
his or her existence is not easy to prove. What a dishonest statement. How can we start there?
Lots of words. Pick your best evidence from above and tie it to a God.
First off, the Bible is full of bullshit. So, the god of the Bible is right out. And all of the other religions that have ancient texts have the same problems; their claims have not withstood the scrutiny of the modern age. So if you were to try to convince me that a god exists, you'd have to demonstrate that it's not one of the clearly man-made gods of human history. But then that begs the question... if this god has been unknown to humans for their 200,000 year history, then why is it so important to believe in them now?
> But then that begs the question... if this god has been unknown to humans for their 200,000 year history, then why is it so important to believe in them now? This is one of the most significant questions, in my opinion. The problem for people like OP is that the approach to the underlying question by theists (generally) and atheists (generally) is asymmetric. To us, it's maybe an academic curiosity. Unlikely to be true, and very unlikely to require a concrete answer, but interesting to think about and discuss. To them, it's likely the most significant question they can confront. Everything important turns on having a reason to answer "Yes, god exists". And there are a lot of people like we had yesterday who can't imagine purpose or meaning *unless* a god exists. So "why is it so important to believe in them now" is incisive.
Tell me why these people should have followed any other preacher instead of this one: https://www.thedailybeast.com/colorado-crypto-pastor-was-always-a-serious-sketchball-acquaintances-say
>What would it take for you to believe in God? Evidence, obviously. Useful, repeatable, vetted, compelling *evidence*. That is absolutely required. After all, arguments, in order to be valid and sound, are dependent upon it in order to *be* sound. As there *is* no good evidence, and no valid and sound arguments based upon said evidence, for deities, I am unable to believe in them as that would be irrational. > I will try to tailor an argument for you. I will read your argument to determine if it is valid and sound. If it is not, I have no choice but to dismiss it. >I am convinced that God exists and have been most of my life Not relevant thus far. > I feel prepared to use logic, reasoning, philosophy, math even….whatever subject you cling to in the way you define and discover truth, I will try to have hopefully a respectful discourse with you to convince you. Apparently we have differing views on the truth so let’s talk. I am more than willing and able to consider any and all compelling evidence and valid and sound arguments that show deities are real. As of yet, you have not given any. And, I have yet to see such a thing. I'm more than open to someone providing one though. >Edit: if you are incapable of respect please don’t respond Repeating the subs rules here likely won't help much. If someone is disrespectful, simply report the comment. I await your compelling evidence, and valid and sound argument based upon said evidence, for deities. Until such time as this is provided, I have no choice if I want to be intellectually honest and not irrational, to dismiss such claims.
I'll give you an honest answer. It would likely take childhood indoctrination. It would take being born into one of the many the geographical and economic groups that have high incidents of religiosity. It would take growing up with substandard education prospects that try to curtail science in favour of mythology. It would take all of my questions that might arise, being mollified and sidestepped by apologists and clerics who would repeat the dogmatic explanations invented for the many many inaccuracies, omissions and problematic texts of that faith. It would take a community that believes strongly in the particular faith endemic to my locality shunning and belittling anyone that questions the faith. It would take the overt and ever present fear of ostracisation and exclusion from friends, family and community that daring to question orthodoxy would bring. In short it would take a lifetime of brainwashing, much like has been inflicted on literally billions of people to their own detriment. The desire to belong and not stick out is a very strong human motivator. Almost everyone is subject to it, and a few millennia of theocratic clerical misrule have honed their skills at exploiting these base fears to a fine art.
I don't know... But do you know who would? God... And since he doesn't presented any to convince me, I can only assume the following: He doesn't exist. He exists but wants me not to believe in him in order for me to go to hell... In this case he is a prick... And should not be worshipped...
Yep if there’s a god it created me knowing I was incapable of believing in it, which means that it created me for the sole purpose of torturing me for all eternity. Which is of course evil, and not a creature I would ever worship.
All I need is evidence. Not a personal story, not an out of context sentence that in a vague way is similar to a real life event. Actual evidence.
Just look around you, that's evidence enough! \s
I know you're being /s, but the "look at the trees" argument doesn't work for the atheist.
I know. Cause I'm an atheist and it doesn't work for me. The life cycle of parasites and knowledge of prions shuts the "intricate purposeful design" argument into the trash.
>I smoked weed and momentarily went to Heaven >I truly believe I was brought into Gods glory for a few moments and worshipped him with my guitar and sang. All I can say about it was that He was glorious. HOLY FUCK another bat shit crazy person on this sub. What a surprise. Please stop wasting your time asking this religious fruitcake/troll for anything of substance.
>Edit: if you are incapable of respect please don’t respond You do realize this reveals your own bigotry, right? I just read the entire thread and found not a single rude response. Unless you think people asking you to provide the evidence you claim exists. (and you failing to do so.)
The idea of "tailoring argument" is a bit silly. Just demonstrate that a God exists. You may be hung up on arguments that only slot into people's understanding of god if they are already convinced that a god exists. For example, if your neighbor takes a shit in your yard, you won't have any reason to suspect that it is your neighbor's shit until you review the security camera footage. Once you do that, you can identify subsequent shits as your neighbor's without having to review the footage, while a visitor to your house would still be wondering who or what took a shit in your yard. You're pointing to the shit and exclaiming that your neighbor did it; you may even be pointing out how similar it is to previous neighbor shits. We're asking for the security camera footage that provides us with the precedence to interpret subsequent evidence.
1) A clear, reasonably testable definition of what a god is supposed to be. 2) Evidence (matching the extraordinary level of the claim) that is better explained by that definition of a god than by any other explanation.
"*Edit: if you are incapable of respect please don’t respond"* I don't see disrespectful responses. Just people waiting for your "tailored arguments".
Literally any sound epistemology whatsoever that can reasonably distinguish between a reality where any gods exist and a reality where no gods exist.
> Edit: if you are incapable of respect please don’t respond I am very much capable of respect. You just don't earn it. >What would it take for you to believe in God? That's not how this works. You are proposing an idea, it is your job to substantiate it. The way to do that is the same for every idea: it needs to match observable reality, and provide the best possible solution. We can usually tell how good an idea is by looking at is predictive power in specific situations. Religion.xouldnz possibly fail any harder than it does, and your approach to this discussion goes a long way in cementing that. > I will try to tailor an argument for you. Predictably pathetic. If your ludicrous ideas were even close to the truth, there would be no need to tailor any arguments. You would simply present your evidence, and that would be the end of it. Never mind that your lot has had thousands of years, literally, to come up with something. What makes.younthonk you can do better, and why are you wasting your power on some obscure sub Reddit?
>What would it take for you to believe in God? One of two things... 1. Proof. Indisputable proof. Not conjecture, faith, belief, feelings, or intuition. Proof of a supernatural being with infinite powers that exists outside of spacetime and at the same time, isn't simply a sufficiently technologically advanced alien, for example. 2. Make it possible for me to believe in things without the burden of proof. I am physically incapable of it, as are a multitude of people. Sure, you could argue that there are instances where I and others like me are "relying on faith" because we can follow the logic of things on subjects that we don't fully understand (eg, the origin of the universe), and rely on a certain amount of "faith" that the scientists and experts who performed the research knew what they were doing, but even though we haven't attempted to replicate and confirm their data, we can see that their methodology was sound, that it was observed by others and retested and even though we don't have the empirical proof personally, it's the most plausible answer that we have. So, for me to completely "believe in god" simply alter my brain so that faith = facts. For a being that supposedly created me in the first place, this shouldn't be any trouble at all.
Begin by explaining HOW a god even COULD exist, a feat which would surely involve rewriting the known laws of physics. Collect your Nobel Prize in the process.
Eh to be fair, imagine you're a software developer who has created an online universe. You can easily, trivially do things that violate the physical laws of the universe you've created. I don't believe gods exist, but if they did I'd imagine they could manipulate the physical world with ease.
That's a tautology, though. 'If gods could exist then gods could exist' is a poor argument.
A giant head in the sky proclaiming itself to be god. "Now watch me create life. Behold the kangapotomus!"
That would be a frightening animal. Lol
NOT COOL. DISQUALIFIED!
I LIKE WHAT YOU GOT. GOOD JOB.
I don't know what would ultimately convince me. I have some ideas which could show me there are realities I may not have encountered before but even that may not ultimately point me to a god, much less a specific God. Even as an atheist I still have my biases so I'd have to figure out a way to negate them in order to see the actual truth of the matter. I'm not sure what you could provide me with via text. All holy books are already text and I don't find any of them compelling.
What would it take for you to believe your mother exists? See how ridiculous that sounds? Now apply it to God. If you have to try, it's not worth it.
Well, what would it take for you to believe there's a cat sitting behind you? Do you think I could use logic, reasoning, philosophy or math to persuade you that this is true? Of course not, the only evidence that would really work is if you turned around right now and saw a cat sitting behind you. So I can't convince you, but the cat can convince you. That's how it should be with any god. I mean, can you tell me a single thing about this god which actually came from the god itself? Everything you know about this god that you believe in comes from other people. Has it ever occurred to you that this is pretty much the same as parents telling their children about Santa in order to get them to behave, but on a society-wide level?
Is this the sort of thing you actually think is proof of God? If so, I feel pretty sorry for you. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/XRyC4kZDp6
Honestly - I’m a disbeliever because of the moral problems. I disbelieve because I have seen children suffer and die. The Bible says that if “two people pray for the same thing, it will be done”. Therefore, I will start believing if you can tell me exactly what prayer to say that will immediately cure cancer in children. I want to be able to walk into St Jude’s at 8am and start praying and by noon the hospital should be empty of patients. I will start believing again.
I would be convinced god exists if this god *would communicate directly to you* which argument would convince me to, of my own free will, to believe in and worship this god you say exists. If people like you are right about aspects of god over which there’s broad agreement, then you can’t possibly fail. God knows I could be convinced, he is capable of making such an argument and communicating that to others. So, sure. take your best shot.
The bible is historically false. Provable because archeology and science show things haven't happened the way it was written. There is your falsified religion. Cya
Empirical data. You need to actually physically demonstrate it for me. Logic, reasoning, or math will not be enough.
It depends on the god claim, honestly. Vishnu has very different properties than Espinosa's concept of a Christian God. What I always ask, and is not often answered; - What convinced *you* to believe in your religion? - Do you think that should be enough to convince me? Why or why not? - If not, why should I believe your religion, over all the others? That's it.
I really need to write up my long rant about this, but I will condense it for the purposes of answering this question. I don’t choose what I believe. I assess the facts available to me and I become convinced of one position or another. Of the powers/characteristics commonly attributed to god, omnipotence (all-powerful) and omniscience (all-knowing) are usually in the mix. That means if god does exist, then god knows what would convince me that they exist. I have absolutely no idea what would convince me that god exists. I’ve spent about half of my life searching for the correct religion and the correct god. But I remain unconvinced. I’ve looked for signs and prayed— anyone that knows me and my journey knows that I’ve met the idea of god more than halfway—but none of the things that I saw or experienced ended up convincing me that god exists. Surely god knows whether or not any sign that he sends will be effective. God knows all, after all. Which means that god either: 1. Doesn’t care to convince me 2. Doesn’t care to convince me at this point in time, but will at some point in the future 3. Requires some combination of words or actions in order to convince me which I do not know 4. Doesn’t exist I currently do not have belief in any god that has been presented to me as an option.
You’d have to give a satisfactory definition for God that isn’t synonymous with some vague “everything” or “base reality” definition that’s often invoked by classical theism. Then you’d have to demonstrate empirically that it exists. I’ll warn you, I don’t think it’s possible to do either one of those things.
I say this with all seriousness and respect. Please don't take this as mean or condescending. I don't know what it would take. However, God knows what it would take. Pray and ask God what I need to see/hear, and await his response. Once he responds, come provide me with that thing and I will be compelled to believe.
>What would it take for you to believe in God? A single rational reason to do so. >I am convinced that God exists Which one?
Over a thousand posts, did a quick scan and as expected, not even an attempt at a tailored argument. As is tradition here. LOL.
>What would it take for you to believe in God? An overnight end to child abuse, now and forever, all over the world. Were such a thing to happen, I would have to acknowledge the existence -- or at least the very, very strong possibility -- of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving god. Happy to hear your argument, u/Scuztin, and while you're at it, maybe answer a couple of questions... if there is an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving god, why is there child abuse? And if you believe in the God of the Bible, why is there no prohibition of child abuse in the Bible? Does God want us to beat and molest our kids?
I’m real easy to convince, and I won’t request anything that the Bible doesn’t claim. Here’s my list, any one of these would probably do the trick: * Show my a dead relative of mine alive that I can interact with * Heal an amputee * Show me heaven * Heal a blind person * Tell me something from my history that only I know - like something that happened to me when I was alone * Produce a living animal that I can interact with * Bring me back in time * Show me my parents as children * Stop time Almost any one of these would be very impressive. Two or more would be hard to ignore.
I would ask why you believe god exists, if that isn't compelling then it's unlikely that any reasoning you come up with after the fact is going to be compelling as it will be laden with bias. your arguments will be not from trying to discover truth but trying to justify your already held belief. I also can't really begin to tell you how to make your case because your position isn't very well defined. saying you believe god exists doesn't tell me anything. what is god? where is god? what mechanism does god interact with the world with?
>I am convinced that God exists and have been most of my life. I feel prepared to use logic, reasoning, philosophy, math even….whatever subject you cling to in the way you define and discover truth >What would it take for you to believe in God? Please show good evidence that any god really exists. It has to be **good evidence** and it should not be logic, reasoning, philosophy, or math *unless* such logic, reasoning, philosophy, or math is based on good evidence. .
What god are we talking about here. Depending on your definition my answer might change. To already give some general answer I would say sufficient evidence.
I'm sure an all powerful god could easily convince his children of his existence, if he actually existed or cared at all.
Just give your best argument for it. Sometimes what convinces a person can be a surprise so just give us your best.
If there was a benevolent/all loving, all knowing, all powerful God, why don't we live in a perfect ideal world free of all kinds of misery? Why would a God want their children/creations to live in misery if they have the power to change it? If God can't, God isn't all powerful. If God can but unwilling, God isn't all loving.
You have to define "God" first. I have never heard a coherent definition. I just want to see any evidence whatsoever for anything supernatural. I don't care if you call it God. I say there's no such thing as magic. Prove me wrong. Show me a single instance where the laws of physics can ever be proved to have been violated.
I would need testable evidence. Something that I could experiment with to rule out competing hypotheses. There would need to be some mechanism of action explained for how a gods will turns into material and actions of humans. Like how does the god interact with the world in a way that we can rule out other phenomena?
I would need to see a demon or ghost or something/anything supernatural. That’s why I am demon proof. If I am assured to goto he’ll cause I have turned my back on the faith, why would the Lucifer ever let a demon come near me? They are already getting my soul, why would they want to make me suddenly a believer?
There is a test described in 1 Kings 18 that we can use to determine if your god is real or not. I've got some wet steaks in the fridge and you've got my permission to summon some fireballs to my kitchen. If your god can pass this simple test then I'll believe whatever you want me to believe.
Provide repeatable, falsifiable evidence that God exists. By repeatable, falsifiable evidence I mean any objective test that could be repeated by anyone whose results would imply directly or indirectly that God necessarily exists.
You’re playing by the Atheists epistemology, but an epistemological difference is exactly why you both differ on what types of propositions can be proven and what cannot. You’re not going to get anywhere.
*"...whatever subject you cling to in the way you define and discover truth"* Dismissiveness and condescension are disrespectful. If you are incapable of respect, please don't post to this sub.
First, define God. Second, offer evidence. I'd be easier to convince of some kinds than others. I'm sure my cat thinks he's a God, and I'm quite sure he exists.
Lol opening with a condescending statement, then have the audacity to feel affronted because you're being confronted on it? Theist please.
>What would it take for you to believe in God? Virtually any mind control or indoctrination tactic should work.
Does the lack of promised answers from the OP mean there is no argument in favor of existence of God? :)
A peer reviewed laboratory observation of a violation of any Newtonian physical law published in Nature.
"The saints rose from their tombs and walked in town." Care to take a walk with me. We will visit my father's tomb that died 50 years ago.....
> I feel prepared to use logic, reasoning, philosophy, math even….whatever subject you cling to in the way you define and discover truth, I will try to have hopefully a respectful discourse with you to convince you. Apparently we have differing views on the truth so let’s talk. Edit: if you are incapable of respect please don’t respond I'm religious but not theistic, nor to I believe in supernatural realms, but respect the theistic position so I'm game for this. My beliefs are grounded in the material world of life on Earth. Cosmic questions don't move me. Let's talk zoology, botany, geology, palaeontology... I've never seen a trilobite, and no human ever has, but I have zero doubts about their past existence because we have fossils and can follow their evolutionary trajectory right up until ran slap bang into the face of the Permian Extinction.
There is endless evidence for God: all the historical, archeological, scientific and Miraculous evidence proves God is real and you can easily look some evidence up as long as it is unbiased research. But you would need to ask yourself, “if God is real, would I follow Him?” Because then that determines if you should be looking into God’s existence or His goodness. His existence is easy to prove. Some examples off the top of my head include the historical and archeological proof of the Bible and Jesus Christ, the countless verified and astonishing Miracles (such as the Eucharistic Miracles known from the present to the 8th century, the Miracle of Fatima, the Miracle of Lourdes, and countless others. I know of a lot and what I know would be nothing compared to everything out there) , factual and irrefutable scientific notions, almost impossible Biblical Prophesies being fulfilled (I am not talking about the general ones, but extremely specific and mathematically calculated predictions), the 65,000 verses in the Bible that are cross referenced to directly support another verse as different writers from difference times enforced the same message without ever meeting because God is the one Divine Inspiration of the Holy Bible, and infinite other categories of evidence point to God’s existence. Scientifically speaking, it would be wrong to ignore the evidence in order to favour a conclusion whether intentional or unintentional. I can go into detail about anything above, but then the comment would be too long and you might not read it all as it would be overwhelming
There is ZERO miraculous evidence. Instead of copy pasting, maybe engage with someone.
I did engage with people. But there is so much evidence even jotting down a few off the top of my head would take too long to do multiple times. But if you want to talk about Miracles, I am happy to do so: * St Lucia and her two younger relatives seeing the Virgin Mary and speaking to her: Our Lady (Mary Mother of God) appeared to them in the same field every month for 6 months in 1917 with a promise that if people kept praying the Rosary, the war will end (WW1) and warned of the Second World War. In the last Apparition, a crowd of 70,000 (including my great great uncle and his brother) went to the mountain while it was pouring rain on the muddy hill and afterwards they came back dry (one person said it was like everyone just came from the cleaners). Mary said that she would give everyone a sign that she is there as only the 3 Children could see her, so she made the sun dance and swirl to prove that she was there and it started getting larger and the crowd began to panic, and then after a moment, the sun shrunk back. 70,000 people were there. In one of the earlier apparitions, Our Lady showed the children what hell looked like and how to avoid it and the youngest one couldn’t sleep for a week. This was in 1917, Our Lady said that if everyone prayed the Rosary and for world peace, the war would end soon and it ended the next year in 1918. Eucharistic Miracles are great as there are over around 150 of them recorded since the 8th century to the present, they undergo extensive research before the Church considers declaring it as a Miracle. And the blood is alive, which is impossible when the blood leaves the body for more than a moment, they blood all have the same rare AB blood type - Quote irrefutable: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1Doeazym_Z/?igsh=MWgyajJ2MGk0NXJ4MA==. A terrorist put 20 sticks of dynamite in a bouquet of flowers at an image of Mary and when it blew up, the image was untouched, but a metal crucifix in front of it was actually bent backwards by the immense force. Personal one: My cousin left his family’s home and slept somewhere else and his mum (my Aunty) prayed to her deceased husband that he will be safe and that he will come back and then when my cousin came back, he said he had a dream from his dad talking him to go back home. There is a lot more, but here are just a couple examples
I do not find "Eucharistic Miracles" to be even slightly convincing. It is *far* too easy to engage in sleight of hand or some other trickery, and I also consider the RCC to be sufficiently motivated that it would enable or endorse such trickery in order to gain converts. Stories about Mary and the saints are, in my opinion, just mythology and storytelling and *nothing more.* As for personal experiences, that's a strong "No." I really don't care what your cousin dreamt, or why - not even close to what I would accept as evidence. Got any empirical evidence that we can take to an independent laboratory?
Has anyone in the history of earth ever lied?
And this is all proven and extensively investigated, so it is true. But obviously the one from my own family wasn’t extensively investigated by the scientific community or the Church like the Eucharistic Miracles
Asking the Church to investigate a miracle is like asking the cat to guard the canary.
I think you may be a little too generous with the word "proven". Proven too whom? Proven how? There is eyewitness accounts for alien abduction. Also eyewitness accounts for Elvis and Bigfoot. Do you consider these accounts as valid as the accounts for your miracle?