The God Debate - Is it really about evidence?

[Davros of Skaro]

Fry is a man looking to blame anything for the ills and evils of our world.

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if you have ... and the Son of God, who has created and upholds all things by the word of his ..

Anyone who looks at the creation and denies a Creator is just kidding themselves. They also worship a god - but science is an ever changing deity. The great arrogance and misunderstanding of those who do not believe is that they assume they actually UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING about existence. Those who admit that they have no clue and choose not to believe in a God - I respect that. Those who look down the nose at people of faith and consider them fools are a type that is just not very likable. No one really can prove any of it to the satisfaction of those who disbelieve - unless the disbeliever is drawn by the Spirit. The day they stand before the Creator and say - "you didn't provide enough evidence" I suspect they will be shown they were greatly in error.

Nonbelievers are just not into having primative superstition substitute reality. They are not moved by the Holy Dopamine Spirit to reject logic and reason.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Fry is a man looking to blame anything for the ills and evils of our world.

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if you have ... and the Son of God, who has created and upholds all things by the word of his ..

Anyone who looks at the creation and denies a Creator is just kidding themselves. They also worship a god - but science is an ever changing deity. The great arrogance and misunderstanding of those who do not believe is that they assume they actually UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING about existence. Those who admit that they have no clue and choose not to believe in a God - I respect that. Those who look down the nose at people of faith and consider them fools are a type that is just not very likable. No one really can prove any of it to the satisfaction of those who disbelieve - unless the disbeliever is drawn by the Spirit. The day they stand before the Creator and say - "you didn't provide enough evidence" I suspect they will be shown they were greatly in error.

I believe, from what I gather of Fry, is that he isn't blaming, but saying he doesn't want to be a part of it.

I don't believe I'm kidding myself, when I think of how things began and see a more natural beginning. It makes sense in a scientific way. How can what is seen naturally be something that is fooling one's self?

Could it be possible to show proofs, links maybe, that everyone who disbelieves actually assumes they know everything about existence?

From what I gather from the Atheist posters here, is that they know they don't understand everything, but that it could be better explained through science.

And again..... *sigh* ......... how can one choose to believe, when believing is an automatic feeling response to actions and experiences felt on a personal level. I don't think it is possible to 'choose' to believe, when choosing your feelings and your beliefs, will only hide one's true feelings and the true feelings will come out. Atheists don't choose to not believe, they don't believe based on not seeing enough evidence to show them they should believe.

The day they stand before the Creator and say - "you didn't provide enough evidence" I suspect they will be shown they were greatly in error.

You know this for a fact, with backed up proof?

[Sundew]

If Scripture is God's word, then it says that God is a spirit, no physicality as we understand it. Our senses were not (dare I say) designed to see the spiritual realm, nor do I believe it can be directly tested by the scientific method. So that still makes it a matter of faith and some will believe and others will not. Those who believe say we get glimpses of God through His creation and through direct revelation. Others see only a chemical/mechanical world run strictly on physical laws. It's a debate that will likely not be settled in this life.

[EEHC]

Uh, what Atheists have you been communing with?!?

Seriously!

I'm not an Atheist, and I know quite a lot.......................... Hell, I have two children who are!

And not one of them say those things. Frankly, they pretty much have a more scientific and also a comforting philosophical way of looking at it, and it's not the cold hearted way that you think.

I would encourage you to get to know more Atheists.

A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/1451624468

Afterword by Richard Dawkins who compares it to On The Origin Of Species by Charles Darwin.

I gather this book and it's conveyed concepts are very popular in the New Atheism camp.

Edited December 29, 2015 by EEHC

[EEHC]

The idea of there being "nothing" that the universe came from is wrong. I don't know how many times I have to say that.

If there is no Intelligence behind the Universe than what's the alternative? A quantum fluke devoid of any purpose?

Edited December 29, 2015 by EEHC

[Imaginarynumber1]

If there is no Intelligence behind the Universe than what's the alternative? A quantum fluke devoid of any purpose?

You're assuming there should be an intelligence. Again, for the third time this thread, follow the evidence. There is no reason to assume an intelligence other than wishful thinking.

[EEHC]

You're assuming there should be an intelligence. Again, for the third time this thread, follow the evidence. There is no reason to assume an intelligence other than wishful thinking.

I am not assuming but I certainly think it's a valid perspective. One you seem to be dismissing as 'wishful thinking'.

There is more than one way that the current scientific evidence can be interpreted.

http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/1578634369

Edited December 29, 2015 by EEHC

[Imaginarynumber1]

I am not assuming but I think it's a valid perspective. One you seem to be dismissing as 'wishful thinking'.

There is more than one way to intepret the current scientific evidence.

http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/1578634369

Whatever. This is just going in circles. Have fun with whatever the hell you want to believe.

[Davros of Skaro]

I am not assuming but I certainly think it's a valid perspective. One you seem to be dismissing as 'wishful thinking'.

There is more than one way that the current scientific evidence can be interpreted.

http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/1578634369

Here's an excerpt from the Book description you linked to:

"Haisch proposes that science will explain God and God will explain science. Consciousness is not a mere epiphenomenon of the brain; it is our connection to God, the source of all consciousness. Ultimately it is consciousness that creates matter and not vice versa."

I do not see things popping into existence on top of the Kaaba in Mecca which is the focal point of billions of Muslims five times a day.

See anything teleporting on top of that dunce box? Nope, nothing, nadda.

[Davros of Skaro]

A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/1451624468

Afterword by Richard Dawkins who compares it to On The Origin Of Species by Charles Darwin.

I gather this book and it's conveyed concepts are very popular in the New Atheism camp.

Atheists are generally comfortable in saying "I don't know", while exploring further for answers.

Theists get stuck, and try to rehash myth for answers as if it's the truth.

Edited December 29, 2015 by davros of skaro

[Davros of Skaro]

If there is no Intelligence behind the Universe than what's the alternative? A quantum fluke devoid of any purpose?

The Universe does not owe you an explanation, or a purpose.

[Davros of Skaro]

If Scripture is God's word, then it says that God is a spirit, no physicality as we understand it. Our senses were not (dare I say) designed to see the spiritual realm, nor do I believe it can be directly tested by the scientific method. So that still makes it a matter of faith and some will believe and others will not. Those who believe say we get glimpses of God through His creation and through direct revelation. Others see only a chemical/mechanical world run strictly on physical laws. It's a debate that will likely not be settled in this life.

If Theists came to terms as what the Holy Dopamine Spirit actually is? Then everyone can explore the Cosmos together.

[EEHC]

Atheists are generally comfortable in saying "I don't know", while exploring further for answers.

Then they are more agnostic than a-theist.

[Davros of Skaro]

Then they are more agnostic than a-theist.

That does not wash.

I'm Atheist in that all the Gods worshipped through history are myths, and do not see any evidence for their existence.

I'm Agnostic in that even though I see no evidence for a God, I except there could be one. Untill evidence proves it, I do not believe in any God, or Gods.

[Jungleboogie]

I'm not sure why the religious types try so desperately to 'prove' the existence of G_d based on the ludicrously tiny knowledge of science mankind has knowledge of today.

If the deity created the universe then it may not be bound by the known and unknown physical laws of this universe. How does one even begin to quantify such a thing? Impossible at our current insignificant level of scientific knowledge. So really the question is moot.

So whether we are myrmidon, useless eaters existing only to feed the queen and find more efficient ways to do so; or perhaps flesh robots milling about in a consumer zombie state; or if we are intelligently created creatures with some purpose defined by a creator it really is just a matter of belief.

Perhaps we are already passing the apex of human civilization and AI will only require us to eat, sleep, and consume western culture.

[Rlyeh]

I'm not sure why the religious types try so desperately to 'prove' the existence of G_d based on the ludicrously tiny knowledge of science mankind has knowledge of today.

The tiny science we have already contradicts the creation myth.

[Jungleboogie]

The tiny science we have already contradicts the creation myth.

Which creation myth? I'm guessing the Hebrew Genesis one? And do you mean the literal interpretation (young Earth interpretation) or some other interpretation?

Or do you mean all interpretations, or do you mean all creationist theories in general?

[Rlyeh]

Which creation myth? I'm guessing the Hebrew Genesis one? And do you mean the literal interpretation (young Earth interpretation) or some other interpretation?

Or do you mean all interpretations, or do you mean all creationist theories in general?

I mean the one that is written in the Bible. You are speaking of G_d/God/YHWH etc., the Abrahamic deity correct? Edited December 29, 2015 by Rlyeh

[EEHC]

That does not wash.

I'm Atheist in that all the Gods worshipped through history are myths, and do not see any evidence for their existence.

I'm Agnostic in that even though I see no evidence for a God, I except there could be one. Untill evidence proves it, I do not believe in any God, or Gods.

There is this assumption that all people who believe in a supreme intelligence wouldn't change their mind, given sufficient evidence that it cannot be. Wrong. I choose to believe in a purpose-guided Universe because it makes sense. I am aware that there are other theories attempting to explain the origin of the Universe but might also remain unprovable. And they explain absolutely nothing about why there should be a Multiverse or quantum laws in the first place.

Edited December 29, 2015 by EEHC

[Rlyeh]

There is this assumption that all people who believe in a supreme intelligence wouldn't change their mind, given sufficient evidence that it cannot be. Wrong. I choose to believe in a purpose-guided Universe because it makes sense. I am aware that there are other theories attempting to explain the origin of the Universe but might also remain unprovable. And they explain absolutely nothing about why there should be a Multiverse or quantum laws in the first place.

The only thing this anthropomorphic explanation shows is some humans still think they're the centre of the universe.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

You know, I had a whole bunch of responses from some of the posters here, including from robin, in which ( thank you for what you said, it's the drugs! )

and so much, but I goofed up and got rid of it, so I can copy and paste the book and author that EEHC posted in his post to me.

I'm face palming myself. It's my goof.

But, EEHC, I meant Atheists you personally know. Then again, we all do get certain aspects from authors too.

But as a bookseller, I tend to get a bit apathetic about it, because there are so many, in many aspects that publish books, and wonder who is right and who isn't.

[Davros of Skaro]

There is this assumption that all people who believe in a supreme intelligence wouldn't change their mind, given sufficient evidence that it cannot be. Wrong. I choose to believe in a purpose-guided Universe because it makes sense. I am aware that there are other theories attempting to explain the origin of the Universe but might also remain unprovable. And they explain absolutely nothing about why there should be a Multiverse or quantum laws in the first place.

Of course. You are guided by the Holy Dopamine Spirit. You go by what feels good instead of reality. Not that reality is free of it's own awe.

[EEHC]

The only thing this anthropomorphic explanation shows is some humans still think they're the centre of the universe.

I don't believe in an antropomorphic God so I think you got me all wrong.

Of course. You are guided by the Holy Dopamine Spirit. You go by what feels good instead of reality. Not that reality is free of it's own awe.

I am actually areligious so guided by my own observation of nature, reality and experience in life.

Edited December 29, 2015 by EEHC

[JackTheManiac]

I like the Apatheistic kitten meme thing.

http://whynogod.wordpress.com

See, what you can gather from the above link:

1: There is no way for humans to discern whether it's randomness or God (the prayer experiments, #9 on whynogod.wordpress.com)

So 2: If there is no way to discern whether it's God or randomness, the question is not important, because God's impact can no more be measured than randomness.

[Mr Walker]

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?

The mind constructs beliefs and disbeliefs The operation of the human mind involves two factors. New sensory inputs (experiences) AND internal processing of those experiences creating a new internal experience (sensory receptions determined by the mind) (such as fear or happiness ) The latter act in the same way as a physical external experience to reshape our thoughts So yes, of course EVERYTHING humans think and believe is shaped by our experiences, but also by some internal factors which seem to determine how we process the same experience in different ways What scares one person may give happiness to another, for example.

To compound matters, some humans have external experiences with god, while many more have internal experiences with god. Then some humans seem to lack ANY personal experiences with god. They are what i call god blind. So you get quite a wide diversity of belief (and knowledge) based on individual experiences.