Proof of God

[Sherlock Holmes]

How does theism help with understanding science?

Well for example it explains the reason there even is science, something science cannot do.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There is no preaching of atheism, as it is not a belief system.

Of course it is, you believe its appropriate to "withhold belief" unless you encounter sufficient evidence, well isn't this true?.

 

[Demoness]

So rather than an absolute "there is no evidence" all you really meant is you personally haven't encountered anything that you regard as evidence.

Well so what? it is entirely reasonable to refuse to accept a claim if you haven't encountered evidence, what are you getting at here?

I don't think anyone has ever presented legitimate evidence for a god, certainly not enough to prove one. Though that doesn't mean such evidence doesn't exist. What I'm getting at is, until there is empirical evidence that can be replicated & demonstrated to be true, it is not rational to believe in a god. I care about rational thinking & what is true, which is why I care whether people believe things for sound reasons or not.

Ignorance is a very dangerous thing, & the lines of thought (& indoctrination) that lead people to be religious also leads people to other beliefs that are demonstrably harmful. A few examples: White supremacy, homophobia, any kind of discrimination, really, & anti-vaxxers.

 

[Demoness]

Well for example it explains the reason there even is science, something science cannot do.

LOL. Okay, no. The reason we have science is so that we can better understand the universe we find ourselves in. We're naturally inquisitive creatures. Going with "idk god did it" impedes the desire to actually learn & understand. Why would you seek out answers if you firmly believe you already have them? I'm aware not all theists think this way, there are theist scientists. But some people are content to say God did it & leave it at that.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't think anyone has ever presented legitimate evidence for a god, certainly not enough to prove one.

Of course people have, there are several proofs of God and lots of people including myself accept many of the proofs, all you can really say here is that you are not satisfied with the proofs, on what grounds then do you assert that nobody has ever done this?

I'm currently reading Five Proofs of God and there are numerous other books.

Though that doesn't mean such evidence doesn't exist. What I'm getting at is, until there is empirical evidence that can be replicated & demonstrated to be true, it is not rational to believe in a god.

Well I regard the presence of the universe as empirical evidence, though what you mean by "replicated" I don't know and the "demonstrated to be true" is what the various proofs do.

I care about rational thinking & what is true, which is why I care whether people believe things for sound reasons or not.

So we don't differ much then in that respect.

Ignorance is a very dangerous thing, & the lines of thought (& indoctrination) that lead people to be religious also leads people to other beliefs that are demonstrably harmful. A few examples: White supremacy, homophobia, any kind of discrimination, really, & anti-vaxxers.

This is undoubtedly true of some people but has no bearing, this is a little like the genetic fallacy, but in this case you cast doubt on God existing on the basis of how people behave which is not relevant.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

LOL. Okay, no. The reason we have science is so that we can better understand the universe we find ourselves in. We're naturally inquisitive creatures. Going with "idk god did it" impedes the desire to actually learn & understand. Why would you seek out answers if you firmly believe you already have them? I'm aware not all theists think this way, there are theist scientists. But some people are content to say God did it & leave it at that.

Well in a deep sense "God did it" is true because God is the reason the universe exists, no material cause for this can be posited because until the universe (matter, energy, fields, laws) exists there is no possible way material processes can be at work.

So for some, leaving it at "God did it" is like most members of the public who say "The boffins at NASA did it" and so on, they are happy to leave it at that.

The very fact that the universe is comprehensible and subject to scientific, mathematical law is itself inexplicable scientifically, science cannot explain how it is possible for something to exist within which science can be performed.

 

[Demoness]

Of course people have, there are several proofs of God and lots of people including myself accept many of the proofs, all you can really say here is that you are not satisfied with the proofs, on what grounds then do you assert that nobody has ever done this?

I'm currently reading Five Proofs of God and there are numerous other books.

View attachment 67283289

People have tried, but they have all failed. Just because many people happen to be convinced something is true & convinced that proof exists doesn't mean they are correct. These people are being irrational by definition. The same applies to flat-earthers.

Well I regard the presence of the universe as empirical evidence, though what you mean by "replicated" I don't know and the "demonstrated to be true" is what the various proofs do.

See, this is what I mean. Calling something "evidence" or "proof" doesn't make it so. You can believe the universe existing is sufficient evidence in it of itself to support a god not only existing but being the cause, but you are simply wrong. What I said to Angel earlier applies here, word for word.

You have yet to demonstrate how reality existing points more towards a god than universe-creating pixies separate from God, or the cosmos, or literally anything else that you have not ruled out as a possibility. You're drawing a line between these things without demonstrating that such a line actually exists & what that line would entail.

This is undoubtedly true but has no bearing, this is a little like the genetic fallacy, but in this case you cast doubt on God existing on the basis of how people behave which is not relevant.

It does have bearing, I was elaborating on "so what?" & basically explaining why I'm here, lmao. But no, I do not doubt the existence of a god because of how people behave, I doubt because no one has presented evidence strong enough to logically warrant such a belief.

 

[Demoness]

Well in a deep sense "God did it" is true because God is the reason the universe exists, no material cause for this can be posited because until the universe (matter, energy, fields, laws) exists there is no possible way material processes can be at work.

How do you know God created the universe? How did you determine it is impossible for material processes to be the cause of the universe? How do you know there isn't a godless cosmos beyond our universe that is constantly popping out universes, or something else entirely that is not a god?

So for some, leaving it at "God did it" is like most members of the public who say "The boffins at NASA did it" and so on, they are happy to leave it at that.

Except scientists don't inexplicably create things, they investigate reality & share their findings with us.

The very fact that the universe is comprehensible and subject to scientific, mathematical law is itself inexplicable scientifically, science cannot explain how it is possible for something to exist within which science can be performed.

There are many things we will never understand, but that doesn't mean a god exists. & saying "God is why science exists, along with everything else" doesn't help us understand anything.

 

[devildavid]

So rather than an absolute "there is no evidence" all you really meant is you personally haven't encountered anything that you regard as evidence.

Well so what? it is entirely reasonable to refuse to accept a claim if you haven't encountered evidence, what are you getting at here?

There is absolutely no physical evidence of anything that is not physical.

 

[devildavid]

So you have faith in things that are statistically consistent.

No, I know there are statistical probabilities. Does not require faith.

 

[devildavid]

So tell me then, what does "understand" mean to you?

Believing in something is not equivalent to understanding something. To understand requires knowledge.

 

[devildavid]

Which is clearly something you believe.

That is what you believe.

 

[devildavid]

Well for example it explains the reason there even is science, something science cannot do.

No, theism does not explain why there is science. The history of human beings explains why there is science. And it also explains why there is theism.

 

[devildavid]

Of course it is, you believe its appropriate to "withhold belief" unless you encounter sufficient evidence, well isn't this true?.

No, it is not true. I don't know anything until their are sufficient facts and testing to know something.

 

[devildavid]

Of course people have, there are several proofs of God and lots of people including myself accept many of the proofs, all you can really say here is that you are not satisfied with the proofs, on what grounds then do you assert that nobody has ever done this?

I'm currently reading Five Proofs of God and there are numerous other books.

View attachment 67283289



Well I regard the presence of the universe as empirical evidence, though what you mean by "replicated" I don't know and the "demonstrated to be true" is what the various proofs do.



So we don't differ much then in that respect.



This is undoubtedly true of some people but has no bearing, this is a little like the genetic fallacy, but in this case you cast doubt on God existing on the basis of how people behave which is not relevant.

That book is not evidence of gods. It is just about word games played in misnamed proofs.

 

[devildavid]

Well in a deep sense "God did it" is true because God is the reason the universe exists, no material cause for this can be posited because until the universe (matter, energy, fields, laws) exists there is no possible way material processes can be at work.

So for some, leaving it at "God did it" is like most members of the public who say "The boffins at NASA did it" and so on, they are happy to leave it at that.

The very fact that the universe is comprehensible and subject to scientific, mathematical law is itself inexplicable scientifically, science cannot explain how it is possible for something to exist within which science can be performed.

Makes absolutely no sense to claim that something non material is the only thing that possibly could lead to something material.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

People have tried, but they have all failed. Just because many people happen to be convinced something is true & convinced that proof exists doesn't mean they are correct.

In which case just because many people happen to be unconvinced something is true & unconvinced that proof exists doesn't mean they are correct either.

These people are being irrational by definition. The same applies to flat-earthers.

Who is irrational? everyone that find the proofs satisfactory? how do you know you are rational, what is the standard? do you know what "rational" means, have you ever looked at its defintion?

See, this is what I mean. Calling something "evidence" or "proof" doesn't make it so.

Stop and think for a moment. If God did create the universe then wouldn't it be evidence?

You can only say its not evidence for God if you can prove it is evidence for something else, can you do that?

You can believe the universe existing is sufficient evidence in it of itself to support a god not only existing but being the cause, but you are simply wrong.

I am? how do you know? how do you know 100% I am wrong?

It does have bearing, I was elaborating on "so what?" & basically explaining why I'm here, lmao. But no, I do not doubt the existence of a god because of how people behave, I doubt because no one has presented evidence strong enough to logically warrant such a belief.

But that is not true as I already mentioned, untold numbers of people believe God exists and created the universe and that belief in many cases is a rational and evidence based as any belief you have so why do you keep denying this?

You are not convinced, I am, David is not convinced, Angel is, who are you to say who is correct and who is not?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

How do you know God created the universe? How did you determine it is impossible for material processes to be the cause of the universe?

Are you really asking this? The universe is everything material - forces, matter, energy, fields, laws - material processes cannot occur unless these - the universe - exists, the universe cannot have caused itself to exist and without it material processes are simply off the table, therefore it simply must exist because of a non-material, supernatural cause.

How do you know there isn't a godless cosmos beyond our universe that is constantly popping out universes, or something else entirely that is not a god?

You cannot have a material based explanation for why there are material things, a scheme such as the one you suggest requires a medium with the property that other things can "pop out" of it, but that means the medium itself has material properties and it's presence too must now be materially explained.

There is no way to scientifically explain why everything exists without encountering infinite regress which means it is not an explanation at all because science takes a dim view of purported physical infinities, they are universally regarded as the hallmark of a flawed theory.

Except scientists don't inexplicably create things, they investigate reality & share their findings with us.

Scientists create theories.

There are many things we will never understand, but that doesn't mean a god exists. & saying "God is why science exists, along with everything else" doesn't help us understand anything.

Where did I argue that God exists because there are many things we will never understand? I did not and nor has any other advocate here.

Understanding is important, so try to understand the problem then - try to understand a process that caused matter, energy, fields, laws to come into existence before there was any matter, energy, fields, laws - think about this, really ponder it.

If nothing once existed then nothing would ever happen and nothingness, stasis is all there would be. In order to propose a material explanation for anything the material world must already exist by definition else only something non-material, beyond or ken, could have been the cause - God.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There is absolutely no physical evidence of anything that is not physical.

Hod can you prove this to us?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, I know there are statistical probabilities. Does not require faith.

Jolly good, ever so happy for you.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Believing in something is not equivalent to understanding something.

I never said it was.

To understand requires knowledge.

Indeed and the knowledge that God created the universe helps us understand.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, theism does not explain why there is science. The history of human beings explains why there is science. And it also explains why there is theism.

Science is not solely the product of human endeavor, it requires a universe to exist that is comprehensible to humans, to explain why there is science therefore means we must ask why there is such a universe and why there are humans who desire to comprehend it, God can answer these questions.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, it is not true. I don't know anything until their are sufficient facts and testing to know something.

Nonsense, there are a million things you believe to be true yet have never spent the time or intellectual effort to truly understand, this is true for all of us so stop pretending.

If you're seriously telling us that you believe nothing but only know stuff and have proven everything that you know is true then I'll leave you to your fantasy world.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That book is not evidence of gods. It is just about word games played in misnamed proofs.

Since I am confident you've never read this book allow me quote from Proverbs:

He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Makes absolutely no sense to claim that something non material is the only thing that possibly could lead to something material.

That's because you do not and cannot understand what I'm talking about, you are blind and your self assured nature only perpetuates that blindness.