Evidence that god exists

[MadeFromDust]

except you do NOT HAVE free will to genuinely believe in something for which there is no evidence. genuine belief is not a matter of choice. it is ONLY compelled by evidence. anything else (faith) is convincing yourself through wishful thinking or self-brainwashing.

the free will is in accepting god or not IF i think there's evidence he exists, but i don't have that choice at all if i have no reason to think he exists.

Well that's your opinion, I personally believe there are mountains and mountains of overwhelming evidence for a Creator/Designer behind the universe, and there are a lot of scientists/philosophers now and throughout history that agree with me. I personally have yet to hear an atheistic argument behind origins that's in any way convincing, much less more powerful than theistic arguments.

 

[crowTrobot]

But couldn't any evidence that contradicted pre-established natural laws be identified as something else for which we simply don't yet understand the natural explanation?

we can look at established patterns of explanation by natural law for what is reasonable and unreasonable. for example given what we know about the bootstrap nature of evolution, it would be pretty hard to support the claim that abiogenesis is impossible by natural means.

on the other hand if somebody prayed to god for their severed leg to appear back, and it did, we would tend to think something is up.

For instance, isn't that essentially the default position for the explanation of creation of matter out of nothingness?

the default position among cosmologists is that what exists has always existed in some sense. few if any would say the big bang came from "nothing". sometimes they say it could have been the result of a quantum fluxuation in empty space, but even empty space is not nothing.

 

[MadeFromDust]

The God of the gaps theory isn't enough evidence to discredit what we don't know. If that's the case; then all historical accounts of people, kings, crusaders, etc. Would all be discounted. That's why I cannot accept that theory. It would toss out everything that modern science, archeology and historical data recorded or tried to explain.

"God of the gaps" has always been a laughably weak argument, it assumes way too much to validate any claims. I.E. established scientific facts that are only explained by the atheistic worldview.

 

[crowTrobot]

Well that's your opinion, I personally believe there are mountains and mountains of overwhelming evidence for a Creator/Designer behind the universe, and there are a lot of scientists/philosophers now and throughout history that agree with me.

cool, but you don't need to rely on faith much then, do you. kinda my point.

 

[magnifier661]

"God of the gaps" has always been a laughably weak argument, it assumes way too much to validate any claims. I.E. established scientific facts that are only explained by the atheistic worldview.

Yeah because it can be made easily as a "rebuttal" in this regard. We can call it "Science of the Gaps".

 

[crowTrobot]

Yeah because it can be made easily as a "rebuttal" in this regard. We can call it "Science of the Gaps".

god of the gaps in itself isn't an argument for naturalism. it's just a statement that lack of explanation is not evidence for theism.

what you two are disputing is something else - scientists assuming naturalism based on past patterns of successful explanation, or whatever.

 

[MadeFromDust]

cool, but you don't need to rely on faith much then, do you. kinda my point.

I rely on faith in the sense that I can't see God, or hear God, but I know He's there and He hears me and that I can depend Him.

 

[MadeFromDust]

god of the gaps in itself isn't an argument for naturalism. it's just a statement that lack of explanation is not evidence for theism.

what you two are disputing is something else - scientists assuming naturalism based on past patterns of successful explanation, or whatever.

And a lack of an explanation is not evidence for atheism either. We can't observe things that happened in the past, but if you are willing to accept that there is a transcendent Being who brought the universe into existence and exists outside of the space/time He created, then miracles are very plausible. And again, "science" =/= atheism/naturalism. It's all based on what your philosophy and presuppositions are. And many prominent scientists, thinkers and philosophers throughout history believe in God and the spiritual realm. I would argue that many naturalists are more biased than theists, because they rule out any possible supernatural explanation from the beginning and work around anything that seems like it could be explained by them. Whereas theists are open to natural AND supernatural explanations, and base their opinions on where the evidence leads.

 

[magnifier661]

god of the gaps in itself isn't an argument for naturalism. it's just a statement that lack of explanation is not evidence for theism.

what you two are disputing is something else - scientists assuming naturalism based on past patterns of successful explanation, or whatever.

Again, this is why I refute it. It would discredit history, archeology and even "evolution itself".

 

[santeesioux]

This is Denny when he sees someone post a religion thread!

 

[magnifier661]

This is Denny when he sees someone post a religion thread!

You should google some topics in this forum. You'd be surprised how many times this forum actually top 10.

 

[crowTrobot]

I rely on faith in the sense that I can't see God, or hear God, but I know He's there and He hears me and that I can depend Him.

that notion came from the bible, which you believe is true based on evidence.

 

[MadeFromDust]

that notion came from the bible, which you believe is true based on evidence.

I base it on evidence and personal experience, I wasn't always a strong believer in God you know. At this point I'm beyond any reasonable doubt that He is there, but I know personal testimonies don't hold much weight in these sort of conversations.

 

[crowTrobot]

Again, this is why I refute it. It would discredit history, archeology and even "evolution itself".

you don't understand the concept. "gap" in god of the gaps does not refer to something just because it is/was not directly observed or observable. it refers to something that has no current natural explanation.

 

[magnifier661]

you don't understand the concept. "gap" in god of the gaps does not refer to something just because it is/was not directly observed or observable. it refers to something that has no current natural explanation.

No I understand the concept. That is why I am saying it discredits historians. You must take what you think happens; from the evidence that is before you. That same principle is used in Science. You have evidence and make a logical explanation for the in between. That is the same process using "creation" too. How can you think that because we don't know; we must rule out God? It can be just as much the factor.

 

[crowTrobot]

I base it on evidence and personal experience, I wasn't always a strong believer in God you know. At this point I'm beyond any reasonable doubt that He is there, but I know personal testimonies don't hold much weight in these sort of conversations.

well yeah, nor should they on either side, but that's not the point. you're saying you are compelled by reasons to believe in god. if you're being honest with yourself, you don't have a choice in the matter. whether in reality your reasons are valid or not, at least you're taking a sensible position.

on the other hand the notion that god is intentionally hiding because he requires faith, or because it would get in the way of free will if he didn't, doesn't even make logical sense. it comes accross as just an excuse for belief, not a reason.

 

[MadeFromDust]

well yeah, nor should they on either side, but that's not the point. you're saying you are compelled by reasons to believe in god. if you're being honest with yourself, you don't have a choice in the matter. whether in reality your reasons are valid or not, at least you're taking a sensible position.

on the other hand the notion that god is intentionally hiding because he requires faith, or because it would get in the way of free will if he didn't, doesn't even make logical sense. it comes accross as just an excuse for belief, not a reason.

Well I believe God has revealed Himself many times throughout history. Heck, He became one of His creations in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. It seems like you're implying that the only way God can exist is if He's visibly present at all times to His creation. If that were the case, there would be no free will and everyone would share the exact same beliefs and we'd essentially be robots.

 

[crowTrobot]

No I understand the concept. That is why I am saying it discredits historians. You must take what you think happens; from the evidence that is before you. That same principle is used in Science. You have evidence and make a logical explanation for the in between. That is the same process using "creation" too. How can you think that because we don't know; we must rule out God? It can be just as much the factor.

god of the gaps doesn't rule out god. it is not in itself a statement advocating naturalism. intrinsically it's neutral. again, what you're disputing is something else.

scientists have no choice but to assume gaps will eventually be filled by god-free explanations, because historically that is the only thing that has ever happened, and there is no evidence that would lead them to expect otherwise. if evidence for intelligent direction in nature were ever found scientists would be all over it. there is no chance of it being surpressed by naturalistic expectations or missed because of naturalistic assumptions. whoever found it would win the nobel prize.

 

[magnifier661]

god of the gaps doesn't rule out god. it is not in itself a statement advocating naturalism. intrinsically it's neutral. again, what you're disputing is something else.

scientists have no choice but to assume gaps will eventually be filled by god-free explanations, because historically that is the only thing that has ever happened, and there is no evidence that would lead them to expect otherwise. if evidence for intelligent direction in nature were ever found scientists would be all over it. there is no chance of it being surpressed by naturalistic expectations or missed because of naturalistic assumptions. whoever found it would win the nobel prize.

Okay well that's good then. Because God hasn't been ruled out; which is why I suppose to take an "Agnostic Approach".

But then that would completely knock this thread title out of the park. If God isn't "ruled out"; then there isn't 100% certainty that God doesn't exist.

 

[crowTrobot]

Well I believe God has revealed Himself many times throughout history. Heck, He became one of His creations in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. It seems like you're implying that the only way God can exist is if He's visibly present at all times to His creation. If that were the case, there would be no free will and everyone would share the exact same beliefs and we'd essentially be robots.

how does "revealing himself many times throughout history" give us free will to believe in him or not that we wouldn't have if he were visibly present? either way belief is or isn't compelled by what you think of the evidence. there is no free will choice involved.

 

[RR7]

Okay well that's good then. Because God hasn't been ruled out; which is why I suppose to take an "Agnostic Approach".

But then that would completely knock this thread title out of the park. If God isn't "ruled out"; then there isn't 100% certainty that God doesn't exist.

Knock it out of the park? A thread titled evidence god exists is knocked out of the park by, well, he hasn't been ruled out yet. That's, again, not evidence.

 

[magnifier661]

So my first evidence submitted is:

Most atheists will not rule out God existing because they don't have evidence to rule out God.

 

[magnifier661]

Knock it out of the park? A thread titled evidence god exists is knocked out of the park by, well, he hasn't been ruled out yet. That's, again, not evidence.

Why not? If an atheist will not rule out God; and most of these atheists are some of the greatest minds in science; then wouldn't we assume that they can't logically rule out God because they actually don't know?

 

[RR7]

So my first evidence submitted is:

Most atheists will not rule out God existing because they don't have evidence to rule out God.

 

[RR7]

Why not? If an atheist will not rule out God; and most of these atheists are some of the greatest minds in science; then wouldn't we assume that they can't logically rule out God because they actually don't know?

someone not knowing is proof?

 

[magnifier661]

Yeah just because the thread title changed doesn't mean my evidence isn't supported. That's why I said that it's redundant.

 

[magnifier661]

someone not knowing is proof?

Not someone; the most important minds in science. Lol

 

[Denny Crane]

So my first evidence submitted is:

Most atheists will not rule out God existing because they don't have evidence to rule out God.

Straw man.

 

[MadeFromDust]

how does "revealing himself many times throughout history" give us free will to believe in him or not that we wouldn't have if he were visibly present? either way belief is or isn't compelled by what you think of the evidence. there is no free will choice involved.

I'm saying God has done enough throughout the course of history for us to have every reason to believe in Him, and that has nothing to do with scientific arguments. Besides God showing up, I'm curious what you would define as indisputable, undeniable evidence that He exists? I thought the complex language and code observed in DNA would be enough, but people have found a way to "rationalize" that too. What would it take for you to believe in God without a doubt that would be based on a discovery?

 

[magnifier661]

Straw man.

Lol you would think so; but we already covered this Denny. You gave me the link and I already explained it on the other thread. Sorry if you actually thought changing the title actually changes the outcome.

If the most important minds in science can't find evidence to disprove God; and if there are still creationist in te fields of science; it should explain that there hasn't been enough evidence to support that god doesn't exist.