show me some evidence, evidence, and evidence

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So, you want God to prove itself. And how do you know he/she/it hasn't already?

The problem is that you expect scriptures to prove themselves, not God, as we have no definition of what God is beyond what you may have heard Christians, Muslims and Jews go on about.

You'll have to accept that Abrahamic religions have the right view of God, then proceed to seek proof from there.

Any serious attempt at proving God will concentrate on defining it first and having a general idea of what it may be, before seeking evidence.

Youre right I dont know that theres not been any and THATS the issue: We should ALL know by now if 'he' did.

'Cause we wouldn't be having this debate, presumably, if it was a known and convincing, testable, repeatable display: There are too many people who would profit by such evidence. And the Abrahamic god has had plenty of time to show 'himself'... Science has shown us that the dating of the world's alleged creation is way off kilter with how old earth actually seems to be, by all tests..
I'd expect that God to prove 'himself' in convincing and emphatic, unarguable fashion, as an all powerful being would have no trouble doing. This god seems to fear objective discovery.

No I expect nothing from the scriptures, having become convinced of their parable origins, not in the literal record sense some think them to be..but the god turning up and showing us feats of the magnitude reported in the bible, would convince me.

Exactly. But Abrahamic the god was a petty, callous and malicious sod,
who was like "If you love, me kill your son....oh wait nope you know what...? Don't kill him"(Right at the last minute)

'What all powerful being has to':

A) Have 'his' ego gratified in such a fashion?

B) Needed a man in a desert in the middle eastern region of 1 little planet among billions of stars and planets in just our galaxy out of the billions of galaxies just 1,948 years after the big bang, (Quite a lot for 'him' to have to do there, maintaining - all that creation of 'his'😉 to amuse him and essentially asking the man to act psychopathically.
Abraham could be said to be mentally ill.
Hearing voices, thoughts of killing his own son, lucidity stopping him at the last moment...?

Seems very unlikely stuff to me...
Im sure that that could have seemed real to that guy in the desert who didnt know any better about the universe or indeed the world, though.. but not to me sitting here now.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, just testable predictions about what God does

so, (some, etc) Christians think God answers prayers, but studies find prayers aren't answered. Christians think God favors their faith, yet no studies find that Christians live better lives than others.

pretty much all religions offer these type of interpretive frameworks that you can test certain claims they make through, so The-God-Of-The-Bible is actually testable, so long as you can find something that believers think is true about that God.

God, as an abstract concept that might exist in a way entirely seperate from the universe we know? that offers no testable hypotheses, so we can't provide evidence one way or the other. Though I would personally question the relevance of believing in a God that doesn't interact with our universe...

A fair reflection to this would be to ask what their lives would be like without God. Do they not live life differently because there is no God, or do they not live life differently because there is a God? I know it is easy to say that it would not be different at all if they live an average life, but that is the problem with this whole thread. It can not be proven.

To look at the question you asked on what evidence would be acceptable against God: Present a method that allow us to either credibly research the paranormal spectrum or one that is credible in disproving it. It is a silly request, but I do not think it would be possible otherwise 😛 God can not be proven by us. Not right now.

I remember a friend mentioning a long time ago about research being undergoing to see if a divine experience trigger a certain field of the brain. That communication with God activate an emotional part of the brain rather than a linguistic because of how many describe a divine experience as a feeling more than a voice 🙂 I can not remember if the research got anywhere though. I believe the result was void. On that topic, that's also something I'd like to hear about if an atheist has looked into it and I would do so with an open mind 😊 The possibility that God is an hallucination. That would explain how some of us perceive him as reality. Then we would also need it explained how so many experience him, though.

Then comes the problem though in proving the difference between a divine experience and a hallucination, bringing us back to disproving the paranormal spectrum 😕 Never mind.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I would argue that we're back to what the scriptures say.

The concept of God cannot be proven at this time in our history because people are simply unable to grasp the concept without any predispositions.

Impartiality is paramount in attempting to prove something so abstract as God. Such qualities can be found, at present, in neither atheists nor theists.

Also, our inherent inability to accept that we are simply incapable of understanding certain concepts fully is what is arresting our ability to even try to come to a middle ground when it comes to God.

I believe that as humans, we are also incredibly arrogant when it comes to knowledge, and accepting that our capacity to grasp a lot of things is simply insufficient, is ego shattering.

Exactly....that arrogance is even more rife in religion, in its baseless assertions, and reliance on dogma, being expected to be regarded as truth under punishment of hell.
The arrogance to suggest that we'll always be definitely all too dumb to ever be able to recognise proof, that it holds, is an excellent example, I feel.

We've been abstract in our art, music and many other facets of life.
And in the many advances in science that were abstract.
We were so obsessed by the abstract we created the god concept.

It also presumed that god is abstract enough to fall into that same unclassifiable catagory, when we couldnt even classify what an eclipse was. Things have moved on.

I have no problem with their being things I dont currently understand:
Cause I never stop trying to learn. But i dont agree that because we dont understand something that it automatically has to be attributed to a god.

...'Cause doing so would be me making a large and arrogant assumption, wouldn't it? (Especially with no proof to back that hypothesis.)

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
A fair reflection to this would be to ask what their lives would be like without God. Do they not live life differently because there is no God, or do they not live life differently because there is a God? I know it is easy to say that it would not be different at all if they live an average life, but that is the problem with this whole thread. It can not be proven.

To look at the question you asked on what evidence would be acceptable against God: Present a method that allow us to either credibly research the paranormal spectrum or one that is credible in disproving it. It is a silly request, but I do not think it would be possible otherwise 😛 God can not be proven by us. Not right now.

I remember a friend mentioning a long time ago about research being undergoing to see if a divine experience trigger a certain field of the brain. That communication with God activate an emotional part of the brain rather than a linguistic 🙂 I can not remember if the research got anywhere though. I believe the result was void. On that topic, that's also something I'd like to hear about if an atheist has looked into it and I would do so with an open mind 😊 The possibility that God is an hallucination. That would explain how some of us perceive him as reality. Then we would also need it explained how so many experience him, though.

Then comes the problem though in proving the difference between a divine experience and a hallucination, bringing us back to disproving the paranormal spectrum 😕 Never mind.

Well I think we live without god now.

They experience 'him' differently... Subjectively.... Almost always in a way that relates to the idea of god that they were bought up to be aware of. Indicator that its not the same experience of the same entity.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Its both, Inimalist.

inimalist

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Its an example that definitely nods to your point, the placebo effect, and the absolute pointlessness of prayer.

I don't think prayer works through the placebo effect nor do I think it is pointless

the psychological effects prayer have would work through a different mechanism than the "I take a pill i get healthy" placebo effect, largely because it relies on the person have experience with pills being an effective way to treat things (or, rather, the idea of treating things). The same cant really be said for prayer, imho. Its not a "I pray therefore I will get better", I don't think people really understand it as a mechanism that way, and all religious traditions I can think of have specific interpretations against that type of "wish fufillment" prayer. People who think their prayers come true are probably undergoing confirmation bias (or the prayers are actually coming true), or simply the satisfaction we get when we reinforce our own biases. There are cognitive things about the ritual that I'm sure would be important too.

Its also not pointless. If for no other reason, it is something people desire to do, and who are you to judge others simple desires? If it brings them satisfaction, it inherently has a point.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Non theological practices like healing, energy work crystals etc are equally or sometimes more effective, psychosomatic or not..

no they aren't, thats the whole big deal about doing double blind studies. We can show, with incredible certainty, that these things have no discernable effects that would differentiate their practices from chance results alone. They are empirically not "sometimes" more effective. I can't think of a properly run study to date that has found a result where any such "new age" things have shown to work more than chance at all, with several having the relationship in the opposite direction (some new age treatments make you sicker). The only exception might be something like accupuncture or meditation. In the former, it was found to be effective, but not because of the mechanisms of "accupuncute", but because of an actual placebo effect, the latter being beneficial, but not moreso than taking the same amount of time out of your day to listen to music you like.

crystal healing can't be more effective than... how do I term it, medicine?, sure, crystal healing can't be more effective than medicine because there is no evidence crystal healing has any effect different than chance. Some studies might fail to find an effect for medicine as well as crystal healing, but nothing I've heard of to date has found even a measureable effect of new age things, let along a greater effect than medicine.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I would argue that we're back to what the scriptures say.

The concept of God cannot be proven at this time in our history because people are simply unable to grasp the concept without any predispositions.

Impartiality is paramount in attempting to prove something so abstract as God. Such qualities can be found, at present, in neither atheists nor theists.

Also, our inherent inability to accept that we are simply incapable of understanding certain concepts fully is what is arresting our ability to even try to come to a middle ground when it comes to God.

I believe that as humans, we are also incredibly arrogant when it comes to knowledge, and accepting that our capacity to grasp a lot of things is simply insufficient, is ego shattering.

my thoughts are, if the only God that we can't prove doesn't exist is the one whose existance, by definition, can't be proven or disproven, well ok, sure, it could be there, but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it.

It's not surrealistic to assume that an almighty God come to you in the manner you are most recipient for. Do you find a subtle hint more pleasing, a voice or an event. The reason he is experienced differently could be because he has more than one way of communication 🙂

He is said to be almighty after all.

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
It's not surrealistic to assume that an almighty God come to you in the manner you are most recipient for. Do you find a subtle hint more pleasing, a voice or an event. The reason he is experienced differently could be because he has more than one way of communication 🙂

He is said to be almighty after all.

in a world where god communicates to you in a way you are perceptive to, everyone would be a believer

If God manifest himself through empirical evidence, many people who don't believe today would, as that is the manner they are most recipient to.

Originally posted by inimalist
[b]inimalist

I don't think prayer works through the placebo effect nor do I think it is pointless

the psychological effects prayer have would work through a different mechanism than the "I take a pill i get healthy" placebo effect, largely because it relies on the person have experience with pills being an effective way to treat things (or, rather, the idea of treating things). The same cant really be said for prayer, imho. Its not a "I pray therefore I will get better", I don't think people really understand it as a mechanism that way, and all religious traditions I can think of have specific interpretations against that type of "wish fufillment" prayer. People who think their prayers come true are probably undergoing confirmation bias (or the prayers are actually coming true), or simply the satisfaction we get when we reinforce our own biases. There are cognitive things about the ritual that I'm sure would be important too.

Its also not pointless. If for no other reason, it is something people desire to do, and who are you to judge others simple desires? If it brings them satisfaction, it inherently has a point.

no they aren't, thats the whole big deal about doing double blind studies. We can show, with incredible certainty, that these things have no discernable effects that would differentiate their practices from chance results alone. They are empirically not "sometimes" more effective. I can't think of a properly run study to date that has found a result where any such "new age" things have shown to work more than chance at all, with several having the relationship in the opposite direction (some new age treatments make you sicker). The only exception might be something like accupuncture or meditation. In the former, it was found to be effective, but not because of the mechanisms of "accupuncute", but because of an actual placebo effect, the latter being beneficial, but not moreso than taking the same amount of time out of your day to listen to music you like.

crystal healing can't be more effective than... how do I term it, medicine?, sure, crystal healing can't be more effective than medicine because there is no evidence crystal healing has any effect different than chance. Some studies might fail to find an effect for medicine as well as crystal healing, but nothing I've heard of to date has found even a measureable effect of new age things, let along a greater effect than medicine.

my thoughts are, if the only God that we can't prove doesn't exist is the one whose existance, by definition, can't be proven or disproven, well ok, sure, it could be there, but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it. [/B]

Sure. "inimalist" it is.

Fair enough.

But such persona comfort gain doesn't make it worth fighting wars over, oppressing people, judging people.
People are entitled to their comfort.
But Im not gonna condemn you to fear of a hell for you, (and all who you have loved and known...even any kids who had no stance in this, who died) for not believing in the blanket or its power.

Another cited failure example of Prayer:
Mrs.Fritzel and her kids, abused everyday my Joseph Fritzel in his basement all those years, praying to god to make that pedophile stop
raping her kids and herself....all those years. Ignored.

Double blind studies probably show that of prayer too.

I actually (Forgive me if I gave an erroneous impression to you) meant that crystals be compared to Prayer. Not medicine.

Largely though I agree with your position.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Any serious attempt at proving God will concentrate on defining it first and having a general idea of what it may be, before seeking evidence.

For what it's worth: though an absolute definition is impossible, I think most people generally see God as 'Spirit': something immaterial and transcendent. As such, I've always maintained that demanding empirical evidence for a transempirical entity is unfair. This, of course, brings up the whole issue of what is meant by proof, and if empirical proof specifically is identical to, or inseparable from scientific method. I have argued in other threads that it is not: that not only can any direct experience of a phenomenon amenable to scientific method stand as proof, but that radical empiricism is inherently self-contradictory.

On the other hand, the inherent flaw in radical empiricism does not automatically put the holistic-transcendent model on equal footing with the reductive-materialist one. Neither does the ol' standby, Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist. Scientific method -- which is simply applied common sense -- is not obligated to prove a negative.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Exactly....that arrogance is even more rife in religion, in its baseless assertions, and reliance on dogma, being expected to be regarded as truth under punishment of hell.
The arrogance to suggest that we'll always be definitely all too dumb to ever be able to recognise proof, that it holds, is an excellent example, I feel.

We've been abstract in our art, music and many other facets of life.
And in the many advances in science that were abstract.
We were so obsessed by the abstract we created the god concept.

It also presumed that god is abstract enough to fall into that same unclassifiable catagory, when we couldnt even classify what an eclipse was. Things have moved on.

I have no problem with their being things I dont currently understand:
Cause I never stop trying to learn. But i dont agree that because we dont understand something that it automatically has to be attributed to a god.

...'Cause doing so would be me making a large and arrogant assumption, wouldn't it? (Especially with no proof to back that hypothesis.)

I believe you've entirely missed what my reply was saying, concerning ''arrogance''.

The type of arrogance I was asserting was actually directed at the atheists - accepting that there are things we are unable to comprehend.

Taking the example of infinity and nothingness. These concepts we know, but I doubt we're able to fully comprehend it.

Certain things are unable to be shown - they're just known. Infinity, for example.
You know what infinity is, but you're unable to see it, or witness it.
Same with nothingness - absence of time, space and mass is a concept we can try to imagine, but not the one we could ever see.

God, whatever it may be, would fall into this category.

It is one thing to reject religion, it's rules and preaching, but entirely another to reject the existence of something such as God.
Until people learn to differentiate between the two, we will not move a step closer to not only having a dialogue about this metaphysical concept, but also coming to vague findings in regards to the possibilities of God's existence.

accepting that there are things we are unable to comprehend.

Infinity, for example. You know what infinity is, but you're unable to see it

Same with nothingness - absence of time, space and mass is a concept we can try to imagine, but not the one we could ever see.

God, whatever it may be, would fall into this category.[QUOTE] right i agree
[QUOTE] It is one thing to reject religion, it's rules and preaching, but entirely another to reject the existence of something such as God.

That may have been so. Thank you for making it clearer for me.
My apologies, Lil.

I can comprehend the not existing thing, as I'd not been alive forever.

The figure 8 does that for me. Imagine traveling on the 8 shaped road until you see its finishing line...(And of course there is none)
Thats not too bad a model, for me at least, as it seems to allow me to grasp even some of it.

Ive differentiated, I believe.

Im pretty sure about religion, like you say,

Which god, though...?
By the sorts of lack of definitions and parameters implied, My Flying V could be God.

But I suspect its actually just a guitar.

And anyone telling me I definitely cannot say that its not god will be met with first skepticism, then in the face of lack of evidence of such an assertion, derision.

(And isn't Eric Clapton god? 😛 He was alleged to be in the sixties, until god was disproved thanks to the satan that is Phil Collins..) 😛

It takes WAY more to be accepting of spurious claims, disconnected non sequiteur logic, things that fly right in the face of modern world's experience. Thats faith.

My faith has to be reasonable/earned in part.

Why does people find it so hard to believe in God with no evidence?Is this what the world is coming too?

That's pretty much it. People find it hard to believe in God because there is no evidence. Religion is no longer a vital part of society. People do not need to believe in God and therefore they ask for a reason to do so. A logical one and not one of faith 😄

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
1. thats the thing people claim they fully comprehend & understand this god

2. two mirrors facing eachother works well

3. umm i feel the image of nothing in my mind would be what it would look like... nothing seems comprehendable to me

4. not rejection, doubt...

2. Not really. It just seems that way because our eyes have limited resolution. If you really want to get a glimpse of infinity, imagine the many-worlds idea, where everytime, say, a single atom zigs instead of zags, the universe bifurcates. Now imagine this with all atoms, events, etc, and all combinations thereof. Not humanly possible.

3. Again, not really. One can not imagine nothing anymore than one can imagine what it's like to be unconscious or dead. At the very least, you'll still perceive the back of your eyelids, a vague 'grayness' or images too subtle/quick for you to differentiate.

4. Quite healthy and reasonable in this instance.

2. Not really. It just seems that way because our eyes have limited resolution. If you really want to get a glimpse of infinity, imagine the many-worlds idea, where everytime, say, a single atom zigs instead of zags, the universe bifurcates. Now imagine this with all atoms, events, etc, and all combinations thereof. Not humanly possible

Again, not really. One can not imagine nothing anymore than one can imagine what it's like to be unconscious or dead. At the very least, you'll still perceive the back of your eyelids, a vague 'grayness' or images too subtle/quick for you to differentiate.

basically thats like asking me to imagine what its like to BE nothing rather than imagine a place where there is nothing

you'll still perceive the back of your eyelids, a vague 'grayness' or images too subtle/quick for you to differentiate.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
limited resolution causes it to appear infinite right? seems to be what i said...

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
i don't like the comparison of unconscious or dead to imagining nothing... imagining being dead or unconscious i'd have to have to know what its like being unconscious which i wouldn't know not even a person who was unconscious can tell me what its like being unconscious because they weren't conscious...continued

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
ok imagine you're in a sphere without color and is simply empty everywhere you look nothing as far as the eye can see ... is that not imagining nothingness?

What you should have said (if this is what you meant) is, two mirrors facing each appearsto work well.

When was the last time you experienced absolute nothingness, such that you can now, supposedly, imagine it

but i cant however imagine whats its like to be unconscious because i am using my conscious mind to imagine unconsciousness.

I see the sphere.

You are imagining a dark void though. That's not nothing. That's a dark void 😛 You are also floating, which is not nothing either.