Please list your evidence for God

sbell

Active member
If you can find a way to use faith or philosophy to tell us how dark matter works I am all ears :)
And if you can use empirical evidence to prove the existence of truth, the laws of logic, the reliability of our senses, the existence of numbers, and a whole host of other assumptions a scientist must make before they can even start doing science I'm all ears.

This isn't to be hostile against empiricism. I love empiricism, and find it to be absolutely essential to understanding the world and creating new awesome stuff. I just think it's limited to what it's limited to, and reason, logic, numbers, the reliability of our senses, etc. by their very nature can't be empirically proven, but are necessary for empiricism to properly work.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
And if you can use empirical evidence to prove the existence of truth, the laws of logic, the reliability of our senses, the existence of numbers, and a whole host of other assumptions a scientist must make before they can even start doing science I'm all ears.

This isn't to be hostile against empiricism. I love empiricism, and find it to be absolutely essential to understanding the world and creating new awesome stuff. I just think it's limited to what it's limited to, and reason, logic, numbers, the reliability of our senses, etc. by their very nature can't be empirically proven, but are necessary for empiricism to properly work.
I may be too rooted in reality to get where you are. I like academic and thought exercises - i think cogito ergo sum is fun to chat about.

But it is so obvious to me that empiricism is what we use when it is time to actually prove what we know is right that I find it hard to get where you are. But I can see where you are coming from.

Great talk though :)
 

Furion

Well-known member
I am disproving you - not any god. But believe what you like.

Christians claim to speak for a god. I ask them to prove it. They fail to do so. But I think it is fascinating to watch them try.

Try to understand. Quoting the scriptures to you is God speaking to you, it is not the man claiming he speaks for God. No middleman necessary.
PS: jackwagon is a great insult - I need to use that one more - not here of course because it is a failure of logic - maybe I'll call my teenager a jackwagon if she forgets to to do the dishes again :)
Use it all you desire. But remember, only use it on people who purposely disrespect you.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Why not; neither exist, right?
I am no longer sure there is any benefit to debating the existence of God with people who do not use logic, reason, evidence, or even the dictionary. It used to entertain but I am starting to think this is folly. And I no longer see a big downside to some Americans believing in God or Allah or Mother Earth or Scientology.

We'd be better off debating the existence of Santa :)
 

Tercon

Well-known member
This is just pointless. I am not going to debate Santa Claus as compared to God or whatever you are going for here.

Take care.

Actually you have been doing just that for years; arguing with strangers over something you don't even believe to exist is "pointless" to say the least, but you still done just that for years.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Actually you have been doing just that for years; arguing with strangers over something you don't even believe to exist is "pointless" to say the least, but you still done just that for years.
You may be right. I actually do not care if people believe on gods or ghosts or the supernatural as long as it does not make it into laws and text books. I thought I was arguing for that.

Now I am not so sure. I think you may be right.

I am beginning to think I am arguing for not so great reasons - and I think it needs to stop :)
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I guess what I'm failing to see, is in purely naturalistic world in which the laws of nature govern the reaction of everything, and the law of cause and effect governs everything, how is it possible for the conscious to somehow rise above those laws?
In a universe created by a God, is there not cause and effect?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position, but what I think you're saying is the conscious isn't subject to those laws because the laws of nature are deterministic in their ability to produce planets and stars, and perhaps life and consciousness, but not deterministic in what that consciousness does once it's produced, the consciousness somehow becomes a free agent. I'm confused as to how the law of cause and effect somehow becomes ineffectual once consciousness enters the scene. It's almost as if you applying to consciousness some sort of supranatural attributes.
What do you think the law of cause and effect implies?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
What in the world is an uncaused event? That one is escaping me, but maybe you have an example.
It is an event that is not causally determined. This is what libertarian free will requires. Compatibilism argues that this kind of contra-causal 'freedom' separates a choice from an agent's actual reasons and character.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I agree, science works, but science relies on an underlying belief in truth, logic, and reason, but I don't know how to use science to prove those beliefs.
I'm puzzled. Why does truth, logic and reason need proving?
 
Last edited:

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Rather, how much effort would you place on someone who believes Santa Claus exists?
None, of course. But people don't claim that Santa Claus speaks to them and tells them what to do; Santa Claus doesn't inspire people to try to take away other people's rights; nobody's trying to get rid of science and substitute "Santa said so"...and so forth.
 
Top