Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Emmisal

The God Debate - Is it really about evidence?

1,043 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Emmisal

I've seen intelligent atheists who became theists and I've also seen intelligent theists who turned atheists. I've come to the conclusion that the whole fuss in the debate of God's existence is not so much about evidence or lack of it as we make it look. I believe that the side on which many stand has more to do with how the hearts have been shaped by life's circumstances rather than evidence for or against. The evidence or lack of it therefore, is only used as a justification for what has already been concluded in the heart.

Former Chicago Tribune Editor, Lee Strobel said: "My road to atheism was paved by science... But, ironically, so was my journey back to God"

In his case, was it really about science or his heart. I can't judge.

I don't want to generalize it and assert that this is the case with everyone (it's definitely not), but if we are to search our hearts individually and be sincere with ourselves, is the whole debate at it's heart really about evidence or lack of it? This has been my thought for a while now.

What do y'all think?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

For me it's not what people believe, it's what they do in the name of their beliefs. I don't care if a god/s/ess's exist or not. To me those "beings" are just ideas.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

There are no really easy answers to what created us. I some times think we are just a experiment into matter programed to feel and record and what ever happens to us is sure a mystery.the whole world cries out for the end of pain and suffering but yet we still want to live.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn

What do y'all think?

The hateful attitude or hateful tone, coming from either side of the argument, that's how you can tell. Strong emotional reactions give most people away, otherwise they wouldn't even bother or care to debate about it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

For me, religious gods are obviously myths, so no evidence exists for them. Only our consciousness of the universe is evidence of its reality. Whatever our mind thinks about it or our heart feels about it, it exists as it is, independent of us in both these manners.

We add thought and heart to the universe we are a part of, and the universe is oblivious of how we consider it. I think this is the reality of our existence as human beings. Whether there is some more fundamental basis for Existence that we cannot access is a matter of debate and wonder.

What our minds and hearts create are for ourselves. This ability of ours to imagine is a manifestation of the universe itself. Consider that as you will.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

I just don't care.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

Also, it is totally about lack of evidence.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PersonFromPorlock

It's very hard to argue that the world is a mindless machine unless you're willing to say that we - as typical bits of the world - are mindless machines, too. We don't feel that we are, of course, and that sense of ourselves as free actors, unfiltered in a way that no measurement in a lab can be, is the most direct evidence we have of the nature of the world. God is us writ large, and that's a perfectly sensible extrapolation of our own experience of ourselves as efficient wills directing events.

Materialism handles the disjunction between the machine world it describes and our sense of ourselves by saying that since the material world is everything, we have to be in there somewhere. But it tends to say "harrumph!" if you ask where.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

I've seen intelligent atheists who became theists and I've also seen intelligent theists who turned atheists. I've come to the conclusion that the whole fuss in the debate of God's existence is not so much about evidence or lack of it as we make it look. I believe that the side on which many stand has more to do with how the hearts have been shaped by life's circumstances rather than evidence for or against. The evidence or lack of it therefore, is only used as a justification for what has already been concluded in the heart.

Former Chicago Tribune Editor, Lee Strobel said: "My road to atheism was paved by science... But, ironically, so was my journey back to God"

In his case, was it really about science or his heart. I can't judge.

I don't want to generalize it and assert that this is the case with everyone (it's definitely not), but if we are to search our hearts individually and be sincere with ourselves, is the whole debate at it's heart really about evidence or lack of it? This has been my thought for a while now.

What do y'all think?

If God is debated, and the end goal is to prove God, then there would have to be evidence, right? Considering, there hasn't been any objective evidence yet, then it's still in the air that he (or her ;) ) cannot be proved. I guess, it's still a debate.

Science is something that is more on the side of Atheists, and those who see something that is proven and understood in the bare bones of it. Science is something that can used to prove evidence. Of course, there will always be something that hasn't been proven, if it's is there, and it's something down the road to be proven through science. ( I do think, not all things might ever be proven, .... who knows. )

But, if it's put simply, and I feel if it is, yes it is about evidence.

I feel, if a debate is to conclude quickly, there would have to be evidence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
It's very hard to argue that the world is a mindless machine unless you're willing to say that we - as typical bits of the world - are mindless machines, too. We don't feel that we are, of course, and that sense of ourselves as free actors, unfiltered in a way that no measurement in a lab can be, is the most direct evidence we have of the nature of the world. God is us writ large, and that's a perfectly sensible extrapolation of our own experience of ourselves as efficient wills directing events.

Materialism handles the disjunction between the machine world it describes and our sense of ourselves by saying that since the material world is everything, we have to be in there somewhere. But it tends to say "harrumph!" if you ask where.

Interesting reply. I think there is no disjunction between the machine world and us, as we are obviously a product of the machine. The machine is so constructed as to allow for the construction of our consciousness. This is not to infer nor does it follow that there is a conscious constructor of the machine, however.

It is enough for me that the machine exists and that it has manifested me due to its intrinsic structure. When we imply the machine has motive to accomplish some pre-ordained expression for itself, I consider this an imposition on our part. Our autonomous consciousness is a quality the machine does not posses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Is Strobel really an example of an intelligent anything?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Stubbly

Science is something that is more on the side of Atheists, and those who see something that is proven and understood in the bare bones of it. Science is something that can used to prove evidence. Of course, there will always be something that hasn't been proven, if it's is there, and it's something down the road to be proven through science. ( I do think, not all things might ever be proven, .... who knows. )

But, if it's put simply, and I feel if it is, yes it is about evidence.

I feel, if a debate is to conclude quickly, there would have to be evidence.

Science really isn't on either side of the controversy. There are particular supernatural claims science has resolved (it is possible that evolution by natural selection operates by natural laws alone without invisible intelligent intervention), but other claims science hasn't (an invisible intelligent being exists with the capacity to intervene in any natural process).

As to Lee Strobel, we are all entitled to our own spiritual journey. He's found a way to market his. That anybody else buys his baloney is compelling evidence that some god is looking out for Lee.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmisal

For me it's not what people believe, it's what they do in the name of their beliefs. I don't care if a god/s/ess's exist or not. To me those "beings" are just ideas.

I just don't care.

Assuming the evidence for God is right, wouldn't this 'I don't care' disposition make you biased in your judgement? It still dials down to the heart condition I talked about.

Is Strobel really an example of an intelligent anything?

Anybody can ask that question about anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

alibongo: Indeed. I think Fry did say it best. And the radio host, makes sense I think.

Stubbly

Science really isn't on either side of the controversy. There are particular supernatural claims science has resolved (it is possible that evolution by natural selection operates by natural laws alone without invisible intelligent intervention), but other claims science hasn't (an invisible intelligent being exists with the capacity to intervene in any natural process).

As to Lee Strobel, we are all entitled to our own spiritual journey. He's found a way to market his. That anybody else buys his baloney is compelling evidence that some god is looking out for Lee.

I never read him, but to see his books on the shelf. I can't remember if I sold him to anyone, though.

I think you brought up good points, 8bits. Well, I always feel that you always do.

I do find it funny, that (and I'm looking at the phrase, how he manages to market his spiritual journey. ;) ) but if it's personal, why broadcast it?

Assuming the evidence for God is right, wouldn't this 'I don't care' disposition make you biased in your judgement? It still dials down to the heart condition I talked about.

Uuh, does it matter, if it's real or not? In a sense, I think it's a biased judgement at the moment before.

There is still an apathy and such, with currant situations, like political and such.

Anybody can ask that question about anybody.

Yes, but this author was brought up, and apparently someone does not have a favorable outlook of him.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawkins

I've seen intelligent atheists who became theists and I've also seen intelligent theists who turned atheists. I've come to the conclusion that the whole fuss in the debate of God's existence is not so much about evidence or lack of it as we make it look. I believe that the side on which many stand has more to do with how the hearts have been shaped by life's circumstances rather than evidence for or against. The evidence or lack of it therefore, is only used as a justification for what has already been concluded in the heart.

Former Chicago Tribune Editor, Lee Strobel said: "My road to atheism was paved by science... But, ironically, so was my journey back to God"

In his case, was it really about science or his heart. I can't judge.

I don't want to generalize it and assert that this is the case with everyone (it's definitely not), but if we are to search our hearts individually and be sincere with ourselves, is the whole debate at it's heart really about evidence or lack of it? This has been my thought for a while now.

What do y'all think?

Humans today are brainwashed by science and are blinded from reckoning other form of truths. In reality, science is just about a very limited form of truths. The different types of truths are basically as follows,

1) scientific truth

it is about a repeating pattern governed by a set of rules in behind. Humans can confirm such a set of rules by establishing a predictive model. The truth is considered confirmed once a prediction made by the rules will not fail.

The prediction that 2H2O = 2H2 + O2 will never fail in terms of Chemistry. It is thus a chemical/scientific truth. You make a prediction before each and every lab test and your this prediction will never fail, or else you deserve a Nobel Prize.

This kind of truths is verifiable as it repeats itself endlessly.

2) Truths in present time

They are the things/events happening around you or in this world. Such as daily news, the existence of Barrack Obama and so forth.

This kind of truths is verifiable because it happens presently and continues to happen along time.

3) Truths in history

They are the things/events happened in the past. There are limited resources which can make them verifiable, the longer the history the less verifiable it is. For example, what evidence do you have for someone (any human) who died 2000 years ago?

4) Truths which are directly touchable to us

You can touch water to tell that it's wet.

5) Truths which are unreachable to us in our time frame of existence

Humans in stone age can hardly reckon the existence of black holes.

Religious claims belong to 3) and 5).

Edited by Hawkins
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PersonFromPorlock

I think there is no disjunction between the machine world and us, as we are obviously a product of the machine. The machine is so constructed as to allow for the construction of our consciousness.

You're saying "Harrumph!" :)

Since the machine assigns all consequences of a system to the system's parts (we define a system as being 'understood' when we have successfully done this), what consequence has 'the system' as a whole? And if it has no consequence, how can it be said to exist? "Because we perceive it as existing" is no answer; machine processes are intensely fragmented (think quanta), and when we assign wholeness to them we implicitly stand outside the system that we also insist we are a part of. But in a machine world, we have no more wholeness than anything else.

So, yes, disjunction.

And don't overlook the fact that if we are ordinary parts of the world, our experience of ourselves is our best evidence of how the world works; if we work the way the world works, then the world works like us. And if our minds are efficient sources of process, then the parsimonious assumption is that 'mind' is the source of process generally. And since our minds are the source of at least speech about our minds....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

For me, it's about lack of evidence. There is no more reason to believe in a deity(s) than there is reason to believe in rainbow-farting dragons. I don't mind if another person believes in a rainbow-farting dragon or worships a zombie carpenter, but my jimmies get rustled when those people start telling me that their zombie carpenter belief is objectively correct in the face of all logic and reason.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

We are all evolved mutated crazy primates. It's just that some want to feel more special. The primate brain is more than capable of reassuring this want even if it goes against logic and reason.

The Universe does not owe anyone anything, and will continue as such.

jesus-on-the-gospels.jpg?w=600

OMGBartEhrman_zps74baf444.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Stubbly

Science really isn't on either side of the controversy. There are particular supernatural claims science has resolved (it is possible that evolution by natural selection operates by natural laws alone without invisible intelligent intervention), but other claims science hasn't (an invisible intelligent being exists with the capacity to intervene in any natural process).

As to Lee Strobel, we are all entitled to our own spiritual journey. He's found a way to market his. That anybody else buys his baloney is compelling evidence that some god is looking out for Lee.

I am with you Paul,

It is my understanding "the efficient cause argument" is the only argument that hasn't been fully discounted as you say although(Bertrand Russell's criticism on this argument still holds incredible weight to this day) that all other arguments for God have been rebuked, replaced with entirely new ways of perceiving the world( without him). For me, these types of threads are like my Dad refusing to get a smart phone instead he stays with his dinosaur flip phone (tradition). It's about staying with what is comfortable and known, it is hard work and time consuming to to really challenge ones view. I am not buying this book.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Assuming the evidence for God is right, wouldn't this 'I don't care' disposition make you biased in your judgement? It still dials down to the heart condition I talked about.

No.Because if there is a god it will not be like anything found in any supposed holy book.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

No.Because if there is a god it will not be like anything found in any supposed holy book.

You need to use your Heart. Forget your Brain. In fact throw your Brain away. The Heart has far more power to uncover truth.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

So if I let Gay Jesus into my heart I will be saved? Yet how will I keep the hell beast of a guilty conscious from devouring my soul. All that self imposed guilt. Oh why have you forsaken me. I am but a lowly sinner. There is no place in any heaven for me. So I shall stride forth to create my own heaven with blackjack and hookers. :nw:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

Assuming the evidence for God is right, wouldn't this 'I don't care' disposition make you biased in your judgement? It still dials down to the heart condition I talked about.

Anybody can ask that question about anybody.

Your "heart condition " is just an emotional response. I have no emotional response because I don't care. God, no god, doesn't matter. Not a part of my life.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

c8ee8d00d3c7fff310161a0de666ad31.jpeg

After a bit of deep thought, I've concluded that I no longer care. Believe in whatever it is that helps you sleep at night. Just don't be a fanatical prick about it. Religious or not, your human, you screw up, I screw up, we all screw up, and we need to realized that we are in one big dysfunctional family. So quit getting so butthurt over idiocy in all it forms. Not everyone will agree with you and you can accept that. This doesn't make them inferior or better just different. The only things that I can request of you is "Whatever kindness you can perform, do so willingly, and encourage other to do the same."

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.