How do you decide if something you personally encounter is or is not evidence for God?

[Drowning Man]

What we see is Merriam accomodating the RE-DEFINED definition given by some atheists!

It's a dictionary conspiracy!

 

[ASHES]

Of course, it is cut and dried. a-theist as opposed to theist.





What we see is Merriam accomodating the RE-DEFINED definition given by some atheists!

Whether it's a strong or weak belief in the existence of God - the acknowledgement of the possibility of God's existence is still there -
therefore, they are agnostics, period.

You do know dictionaries define words by their popular usage, and that usages change over time?

 

[Lisa]

Good question.

Only the Creator would have intimate knowledge of His creation.
The Bible is the evidence that the Abrahamic God is the Creator.


Here - ANOTHER CORROBORATING EVIDENCE TO ADD TO THE OTHERS!


Here, these have been written in the Bible long before science had reaffirmed them.
I'm posting them again and you can check the details.

Post # 2 (the universe has a beginning)


#4 (Inflationary Big Bang)


#14 (Infant Earth; frame of reference)


# 17 (Infant Earth; gases and clouds)


#20 (One ocean, one land - Pangaea)


#23 (elements of Genesis creation story compare to science)


#24 (Non-marine eukaryotes)


#43 (expanding universe – first written Big Bang model))


#85 (human body)


#87 (Genesis Enigma)


#90 (Francis Collins)


#92 (reproduction)


#108 (Pathfinder of the Seas)


#112 (The world is round)


#129 (present tense stretches)


#130 (Cursed Snake)


#149 and 150 and #174 (Jacob and Laban)


#169 (formation of continents)


#170 (counting stars)


#176 (Hydrological Cycle)


#189 (Let land produce -animal body composition)


#197 (no separate realm between science and Abrahamic God)


#198 (Atoms)


#203 (Springs In The Ocean/Fountains of the great deep)


#204 (God's time-table and science)


#206 (Job 38/Hubble Constant Tension)


#207 (Video – Nothing Made Everything – an atheist nightmare)


#208 (James Tour Open Letter to Colleagues)


#209 (Universe seems to be getting younger!)


#216 (Singing Stars)


#220 (Orion and Arcturus)


#229 (Air has weight)

#235 (how rain is formed)


#277 (Physical Laws Are Constant)


#282 (video Scientific proof God in 5 minutes)


$287 (video – theistic evolutionist – what do they mean by “literal?”)


#288 (video – theistic evolutionists – ingredients of life)

[W:94]THE ABRAHAMIC GOD and THEISTIC EVOLUTION

First, let's introduce theistic evolution again. It is a religious creation belief - that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth...

debatepolitics.com

None of that is any evidence of god. The bible was written by man so it is prototypical circular to claim that is is the word of god or proof of god.

Where is the big bang or Pangea mentioned in Genesis?

 

[HonestJoe]

Many do not.

Including yourself it seems. My point remains that it is a relevant question for anyone, not just atheists (by any definition).

I don't need to "explain why" anything, I have asked a question and people may choose to answer it or not, if they need clarification then I'm happy to provide that.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion on the topic you raised, you'd have to explain and expand of the points you raised in your OP. You suggest in your OP that your question is specifically (even exclusively?) relevant to atheists and I'm saying I see no reason for that to be the case. The next logical step in the discussion would be for you to explain why you think that is the case (or correct my misreading of your thread).

Is atheism rational? well for me it's certainly no more rational than theism, at leas as a theist I can articulate how I examine evidence and reach the conclusions I do but very few atheists can say the same.

As I've said, I don't think either word alone is especially meaningful anyway. As conclusions, how logical they are depends entirely on the methods for reaching them, hence the relevance of your question to everyone about everything, not just atheists about the existence of God.

Theists aren't just theist. Nobody says they just believe in some kind of god or gods, they believe in (typically assert the fact of) a very specifically defined god with a whole load of associated consequences, meanings and consequences. Very little of any reasoning they give for their beliefs is going to relate to theism in itself but all the additional elements.

Atheists aren't just atheist but there can be (and often is) much less following on from the fact someone happens not to believe in any god or gods (especially outside forums like this - we're all weird outliers ). Discussions, explanations and justifications for that position will be much more limited to the simple existence or non-existence of gods in general.

Though they're literal opposites by core definition, in practice I think the two concepts are so fundamentally different that they can't really be directly compared and contrasted. The bigger picture of what any given individual knows, thinks and beliefs is what it really relevant, not some generic label assigned to a singular abstract concept.

 

[tosca1]

You do know dictionaries define words by their popular usage, and that usages change over time?

Yes....but that doesn't mean the real meaning of the word - as it's supposed to be - becomes invalid.

Lol. Though it's hardly used these days to describe being happy as being gay (due to its new meaning of being "Gay"),
nevertheless, the real meaning of gay (happy) - as it's supposed to be - remains the same.

Anyway.....

"Popularity," is not really a credible nor valid reason when it comes to philosophical discussions such as this.



Atheists realized that indeed, they're boxed into a corner showing atheism to be an irrational position - especially with Richard Dawkins mouthing it up that atheism is the so-called, "voice of reason," - boy, he backtracked when confronted about the possibility - and he tried to squirm out of it and explained his position, however, he still had to admit he is agnostic!


'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It doesn't matter whether your belief that God could possibly exists, is only 1%. If that is what you think - then, you're no longer an atheist!



When you can't conclusively say that there is no God, then you're no longer sure about it!
You've opened yourself up to the possibility that He could, or may exist!

That's the position of an agnostic!

 

[tosca1]

None of that is any evidence of god. The bible was written by man so it is prototypical circular to claim that is is the word of god or proof of god.

Where is the big bang or Pangea mentioned in Genesis?

You're looking for the exact terms? "Let there be ..............the BIG BANG?"
"Let all the waters gathered to be one big ocean................. and it shall be called, Pangaea?"
You didn't get the significance of the Big Bang? Or, one ocean, one continent?

If you can't grasp the explanation - a very clear explanation at that - perhaps, you're out of your league in this kind of discussion?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Tim the plumber said:
How do you decied it is evidence of God???

I mean, I can show why the way a rock falls and lands on a place not below its' starting point is evidence of the rotation of the earth.

It is the person making the positive claim to show the evidence not those who don't get it.

I never made a claim, I asked a question, predictably you did not answer it - that's the bottom line here, you did not answer the question.

I pointed out that your question is silly, that it does not work as a question.

Then I pointed out that in order to have a reasonable good faith argument it is necessary for those who make the positive claim to support it not the nill position to support the default.

You continue to deliberately misrepresent the situation as always.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't. I just don't believe. There is no obligation of choice when it comes to the many things that can only be believed in. You either do it or not.

You could believe God exists if you chose to believe there was evidence, you believe you've never seen evidence and hence you're an atheist - no matter how you try to misrepresent things you have chosen, you do hold beliefs.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Where is the testable evidence of any religious creator deity existing? I'm still waiting for you to show it to me the first time.

The universe is evidence for God, that's rather a lot of evidence.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If any god existed then there would be testable proof of its existence that didnt rely on faith and belief. Where is your evidence that the Abrahamic god exists?

You seem to believe that science has nothing to do with belief, is that right?

 

[vegas giants]

The universe is evidence for God, that's rather a lot of evidence.

No its not

 

[watsup]

The universe is evidence for God, that's rather a lot of evidence.

The universe is only evidence of the universe. It is not evidence for anything beyond that.

 

[watsup]

You seem to believe that science has nothing to do with belief, is that right?

Science is based in evidence, not belief.

 

[noonereal]

How do you decide if something you personally encounter is or is not evidence for God?

You must first put your antenna up real high. How else?

 

[ASHES]

The universe is evidence for God, that's rather a lot of evidence.

It certainly is evidence for universe creating pixies. With so much evidence for the UCP's, when will you be converting?

 

[ASHES]

Yes....but that doesn't mean the real meaning of the word - as it's supposed to be - becomes invalid.

Lol. Though it's hardly used these days to describe being happy as being gay (due to its new meaning of being "Gay"),
nevertheless, the real meaning of gay (happy) - as it's supposed to be - remains the same.

Anyway.....

"Popularity," is not really a credible nor valid reason when it comes to philosophical discussions such as this.



Atheists realized that indeed, they're boxed into a corner showing atheism to be an irrational position - especially with Richard Dawkins mouthing it up that atheism is the so-called, "voice of reason," - boy, he backtracked when confronted about the possibility - and he tried to squirm out of it and explained his position, however, he still had to admit he is agnostic!


'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It doesn't matter whether your belief that God could possibly exists, is only 1%. If that is what you think - then, you're no longer an atheist!



When you can't conclusively say that there is no God, then you're no longer sure about it!
You've opened yourself up to the possibility that He could, or may exist!

That's the position of an agnostic!

You skipped over the important bit. It's popular usage that matters, not what a word is "supposed" to mean, or what is convenient for you.

 

[Dragonfly]

You must first put your antenna up real high. How else?

How important is the SIZE of your antenna???

You know: length, girth, ....

 

[Quag]

The universe is evidence for God, that's rather a lot of evidence.

Without even attempting to explain why that statement is as meaningful as saying the the universe is evidence there is no God.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

Toss a coin

 

[Yasureoktoo]

How important is the SIZE of your antenna???

You know: length, girth, ....

size matters

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Moving the goal posts will never help you.

I created the thread - please reread the OP if you've forgotten what the "goal posts" were.

Again, this was answered. Only a theist runs around and considers some "encounter" as something to bring God into. You are deciding that an atheist should consider that but offer absolutely no criteria as to why.

You claim I said that an atheist has to accept there's evidence for God, I never said any such thing.

No, because beliefs have nothing to do with atheism. By definition. We've been through this.

This is patently false, of course atheism itself (as you choose to define it) is this (purported) "lack of belief in God" but that does not mean that atheists hold absolutely no beliefs of any kind.

And I am saying... again... that path may be different for those who are atheist. It is up to each one to explain that if they desire to do so.

Very well.

No, that is a guess or prediction.

It is a prediction and it's a prediction based on a belief, the belief is that statistics stemming from past observations are applicable to the future, try as you might we all believe things, to not admit that is folly.

I've studied philosophy for years, especially the areas of Metaphysics and Epistemology, and no where in those areas of study is changing the meanings of words to arrive at new conclusions based on falsehoods.

Seems then that you completely missed the fact that Anthony Flew's book The Presumption of Atheism in 1976, was the impetus for changing the meaning of the term "atheist" from "There is no God" to "Absence of a belief in God".

Philosophy is about asking questions to get to new understandings, applying some rational means to get to those understandings.

Like atheism, there are a multitude of defintions.

You offer no explanation as to atheism being based on belief, you offer no explanation as to why an atheist has to make a decision about a lack of belief within the confines of how a theist believes, and finally you offer no explanation as to how you get to requalify atheism based on the OP question.

Had you studied logic in addition to philosophy then I should have no need to "offer an explanation" but in the interest of honestly furthering our discussion I will:

All propositions are either deductions from preceding propositions or deductions from stated axioms - an axiom is the same as a belief, something one chooses to regard as true without proof that it is.

We all therefore believe things, we all regard certain unprovable statements as true statements despite the fact we cannot prove them true or deduce then from other things that we have proven true.

For example to react to the proposition "God exists" you either remain silent, agree or disagree, which of these choices you make depends upon what you believe about reality. Even if you hold no belief in God (i.e. there is not (yet) belief in your mind that God exists) you must still go through some reasoning process in order to reach a conclusion of agree or disagree, and all reasoning hinges in beliefs at some stage.

That is not philosophy, it is your clear fallacy of what atheism is by a mixture of word meaning bastardization mixed with standards you cannot even explain.

This is another ad-hominem it seems.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

A Parallel universe, ie. spirits, jinn, or whatever your culture creates, is not evidence of a God.
And interactions cannot be conclusive God stuff.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No its not

How did you reach that conclusion? can you share your premises and reasoning steps please?

 

[vegas giants]

How did you reach that conclusion? can you share your premises and reasoning steps please?

The universe has always existed. There is no evidence of a creator

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The universe has always existed. There is no evidence of a creator

Based on what premises?