There is no evidence for God

Announcements Posted on
TSR looking different to you this week? Find out why here. 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    We certainly have different views on man and his importance to God.
    The mind of man, I believe, is the only reason for the creation. Of all the living things on the planet only man's mind can appreciate it. Of course he did it for his glory, but only man can give him glory.
    With respect, all I'm doing is quoting the bible as much as I can. If you disagree, you're disagreeing with what it says. You were joking about heresy earlier. But what do you expect if you just follow your own ideas because the truths in the bible are tough to swallow? You know, truths like, we're sinners, destined for destruction; wide is the path that leads to destruction, and many pass along it, as Jesus said. God loves us, but not because we deserve it.

    As for why God made the universe, I recognise what you're saying, but I do think that's a very man-centric view of things, when the bible clearly talks about God creating things for himself (Colossians 1:16 and elsewhere). This includes doing it for his own glory, demonstrating his attributes. What you say also sounds very close to God depending on man, whereas it is the other way around. You may want to google this concept called "the aseity of God" - it's about how God relies on nothing outside of himself. He does not need us, he does not need our love, he does not owe anything to anybody.
    On one hand, you're right, God wants people to love him, and to be in his presence. He wants people to recognise who he is, and he's the greatest thing in existence, so that's quite a gift he's offering to mankind. We take pleasure from our relationship with God, yet, he takes pleasure from us taking pleasure (and vice-versa perhaps... such is the nature of relationship).
    On the other hand, he knew about sin, death and suffering before he even made the universe (I recognise the word 'before' doesn't really work when we're talking about a knowledge outside of space-time, but who can fathom that?). God knew that Jesus would have to become a man and suffer the way he did. Therefore it must have all been a part of his plan. He did it ultimately for his own pleasure.

    I certainly don't think i deserve eternal punishment for my sins. I've done nothing here on Earth to deserve anything close to death and I'm sure God is more just than man.
    Well the bible says "the wages of sin is death". It says that before we know Christ, we are dead in our sins. Now, the specific details of death/hell (whether it's eternal conscious torment, or something else) are not clear, but what is clear is that the bible claims that we do deserve it.

    We avoid death, not because of our own good deeds (Romans 3:10 says "nobody is good, no not one, no one seeks after God" ), but because we believe in Jesus. Our sin is imputed to Christ, his righteousness imputed to us. Our salvation is a gift, not something deserved. In heaven, nobody will be able to say to God "thanks for giving your son, but I earned my place here..."
    No you didn't. God provided so that you could be there. Otherwise you would not be in the presence of a truly holy God.

    "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
    "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is an argument where if we can conceive God in our minds, then we can do the same for no God
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=davidguettafan;67010280]Isn't it crazy to believe in someone that doesn't exist though?


    There is no evidence to disprove his existence. The notion of God is not a posteriori right or wrong, but rather a priori right or wrong. That is to say, one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by use of empirical evidence (the evidence which I presume you are referring to). Instead, this must be concluded by rationalist induction and/or deduction. The nature of God is that we, in the human condition, do not have the ability to witness God, thus making any physical evidence to prove his existence impossible to retrieve.Also, to answer your question more directly, there is a reason it is called "faith". The believers have faith that they are right.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will.devries.9)
    There is no evidence to disprove his existence. The notion of God is not a posteriori right or wrong, but rather a priori right or wrong. That is to say, one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by use of empirical evidence (the evidence which I presume you are referring to). Instead, this must be concluded by rationalist induction and/or deduction. The nature of God is that we, in the human condition, do not have the ability to witness God, thus making any physical evidence to prove his existence impossible to retrieve.Also, to answer your question more directly, there is a reason it is called "faith". The believers have faith that they are right.
    The burden of proof rests on the individual making the extraordinary claim, therefore it's the responsibility of those claiming God exists to provide the evidence, not on the sceptics to disprove it. If they are unable to produce proof then there is no reason whatsoever to take their claim seriously.

    And so what if it's called faith? I don't get people who use this line as some sort of justification because there is nothing noble, intelligent or rational about believing in something for which there is no evidence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    The burden of proof rests on the individual making the extraordinary claim, therefore it's the responsibility of those claiming God exists to provide the evidence, not on the sceptics to disprove it. If they are unable to produce proof then there is no reason whatsoever to take their claim seriously.

    And so what if it's called faith? I don't get people who use this line as some sort of justification because there is nothing noble, intelligent or rational about believing in something for which there is no evidence.
    Appeal to ignorance.
    If a person has provided evidence, then would it not be proper for said person to ask a skeptic why they are skeptical?

    In which case the skeptic could explain why they say, "I do not believe your claim."

    Otherwise, can you prove to me that you nor I are experiencing a world that does not exist due to stimulation of the brain?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    The answer is, you don't. A supernatural phenomenon is an oxymoron. As soon as something has been observed (i.e. a phenomenon), it is necessarily a natural event.

    The supernatural does not affect the natural world. If you imagine such a being, then your imagination is an aspect of the natural world, in line with the laws of nature: however, imagining a supernatural being having an effect on the natural world would be a logical impossibility. You would be giving a property (that of being supernatural) to a figment of your imagination that you supposed to be happening in the natural world, which would be absurd.
    1. For someone who does not believe in anything supernatural nor our ability to observe that which may be supernatural, you seem to be an expert on how the supernatural would work if it does exist.

    2. definition of supernatural is an attribute or force that is beyond scientific understanding/explanation. by definition, why would we not be able to observe that which is supernatural?

    3. a natural event is often defined by an event cause by nature - not man. If some thing that is not of Earth's nature or natural world created an event or an event occurred due to non-natural means, would this not by definition disqualify such event as being "natural.?" In which case, may be done by even humans....

    Thus an event observed to be caused by man or another cause may still not be a "natural event."

    4. If imagination is of natural world how would imagination of a being not be of natural world? sounds contradictory to me - may you elaborate your position? I don't understand.

    How is imagination of the natural world for some things but not for some other things?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    The burden of proof rests on the individual making the extraordinary claim, therefore it's the responsibility of those claiming God exists to provide the evidence, not on the sceptics to disprove it. If they are unable to produce proof then there is no reason whatsoever to take their claim seriously.

    And so what if it's called faith? I don't get people who use this line as some sort of justification because there is nothing noble, intelligent or rational about believing in something for which there is no evidence.
    I agree with your key points, but it's interesting to note that historically, pretty much everyone believed in Gods plural, so when monotheist religions like Judaism and then its main offshoots, Christianity and Islam, emerged, the question wasn't about proving God existed but about claiming that *only one* God existed. That's why both of the two main holy scriptures bang on endlessly about only being the One God, etc, etc.

    A lot of religious people are kind of still stuck in that mindset, because they were brought up under the influence of those scriptures, so they imagine that the struggle is still between their One God model and multi-deity (eg, wrong) models. Even within them though, they are confusing, because Satan exists in both main religions - and appears to be Godlike - and both religions also contain minor deities, eg, angels and djinns and the like.

    A zero-deity model is relatively new in human affairs and not many people have been brought up in the context of it. (More in the ex-Communist world than in the non-Communist world.) So it's harder to contextualise because people don't have the mindset.

    In addition, many non-believers also believe in the actions of minor deities, such as sources of divination (astrology for example), cult leaders (Scientology, Mormonism, etc), Godlike political figures (Mao, Hitler, Stalin) and low-level associate spirits such as ghosts or troublesome 'bad luck' spirits, which are widely believed in.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    We all have our reasons to be there

    We all have a thing or two to learn

    We all needed something to cling to

    So we did

    We all had delusions in our heads

    We all had our minds made up for us

    We had to believe in something

    So we did
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    But that is exactly what many people believe in. It is exactly why people pray. Heck there is even the entire Bible Belt in the US that teaches creationism.

    And all those concepts you talk about, energy, formlessness. Those have just been interpreted into scripture by people that have realized claiming anything else would be wholly foolish. Very typical of theists. Always changing the playing field the interpretation in order to adapt to criticism. Every time we discovered more of the world, people read the Bible again and said, oh no, yes yes guys this is exactly what this passage really meant.
    How deluded can you guys get?
    What energy?
    God isn't energy, He is a Spirit. I don't know where you got that information from, just know its wrong.
    Oh yeah by the way, God exists...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    We all have our reasons to be there

    We all have a thing or two to learn

    We all needed something to cling to

    So we did

    We all had delusions in our heads

    We all had our minds made up for us

    We had to believe in something

    So we did
    You had to believe in the big bang theory?
    Oh well that explains a lot...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    With respect, all I'm doing is quoting the bible as much as I can. If you disagree, you're disagreeing with what it says. You were joking about heresy earlier. But what do you expect if you just follow your own ideas because the truths in the bible are tough to swallow? You know, truths like, we're sinners, destined for destruction; wide is the path that leads to destruction, and many pass along it, as Jesus said. God loves us, but not because we deserve it.

    As for why God made the universe, I recognise what you're saying, but I do think that's a very man-centric view of things, when the bible clearly talks about God creating things for himself (Colossians 1:16 and elsewhere). This includes doing it for his own glory, demonstrating his attributes. What you say also sounds very close to God depending on man, whereas it is the other way around. You may want to google this concept called "the aseity of God" - it's about how God relies on nothing outside of himself. He does not need us, he does not need our love, he does not owe anything to anybody.
    On one hand, you're right, God wants people to love him, and to be in his presence. He wants people to recognise who he is, and he's the greatest thing in existence, so that's quite a gift he's offering to mankind. We take pleasure from our relationship with God, yet, he takes pleasure from us taking pleasure (and vice-versa perhaps... such is the nature of relationship).
    On the other hand, he knew about sin, death and suffering before he even made the universe (I recognise the word 'before' doesn't really work when we're talking about a knowledge outside of space-time, but who can fathom that?). God knew that Jesus would have to become a man and suffer the way he did. Therefore it must have all been a part of his plan. He did it ultimately for his own pleasure.



    Well the bible says "the wages of sin is death". It says that before we know Christ, we are dead in our sins. Now, the specific details of death/hell (whether it's eternal conscious torment, or something else) are not clear, but what is clear is that the bible claims that we do deserve it.

    We avoid death, not because of our own good deeds (Romans 3:10 says "nobody is good, no not one, no one seeks after God", but because we believe in Jesus. Our sin is imputed to Christ, his righteousness imputed to us. Our salvation is a gift, not something deserved. In heaven, nobody will be able to say to God "thanks for giving your son, but I earned my place here..."
    No you didn't. God provided so that you could be there. Otherwise you would not be in the presence of a truly holy God.

    "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
    "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."
    God bless you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidoriakhi)
    You had to believe in the big bang theory?
    Oh well that explains a lot...
    You do realize the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a priest, ie a believer, right?

    There's no necessary contradiction between that and God.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    And by your logic it is fine to be racist as long as you don't act out.
    It is fine to be racist if you don't act based on it. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions.

    (Original post by inhuman)
    It is a perfectly legitimate belief according to you.
    There are no "illegitimate" beliefs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    You do realize the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a priest, ie a believer, right?

    There's no necessary contradiction between that and God.
    Well you learn something everyday...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidoriakhi)
    Well you learn something everyday...
    Yes. Hopefully one day you will learn that your personal God probably doesn't exist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Yes. Hopefully one day you will learn that your personal God probably doesn't exist.
    There is no hope required in believing that my personal God dosen't exist, HE DOES, he has always existed and will forever exist.
    What you need is the grace and faith to worship Him and glorify Him for who He is and all the things He has done in your life...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Appeal to ignorance.
    If a person has provided evidence, then would it not be proper for said person to ask a skeptic why they are skeptical?

    In which case the skeptic could explain why they say, "I do not believe your claim."

    Otherwise, can you prove to me that you nor I are experiencing a world that does not exist due to stimulation of the brain?
    It's not an appeal to ignorance, it's the burden of proof. Yes, sceptics do say that because none of the so-called evidence theists provide is convincing in the slightest.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will.devries.9)
    That is to say, one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by use of empirical evidence (the evidence which I presume you are referring to).
    This is not true when it comes to revelatory religions.
    Once definitive and infallible statements have been made about the nature of a particular god and his actions, and the nature of the universe he created, we can demonstrate, by experiment and observation, that the idea of such a god is untenable.

    By this method, the gods of the Bible and Quran have been disproved.
    The only gods that cannot be disproved are ones about which no claims have been made.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidoriakhi)
    Oh yeah by the way, God exists...
    Oh yeah by the way, God doesn't exist...

    See how easy that was?

    Now, as you are the one claiming the existence of something that cannot be detected, nor its physical influence on anything else - it is up to you to provide some evidence.

    If something cannot be detected or percieved in any measurable way, and has no detectable influence on anything - how is that different to "nothing"?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    It's not an appeal to ignorance, it's the burden of proof. Yes, sceptics do say that because none of the so-called evidence theists provide is convincing in the slightest.
    That is your opinion. You have a claim. Any person to have said or to say they are athiest is saying "there is no God." to have come to that decision because a lack of "evidence" it is an appeal to ignorance.

    If this is not true than no one would claim themselves to being an atheist when just being skeptical. you would just be agnostic. To have no claim. to admit you can not say God exists or does not exist.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 8, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.