Thread: God

>Lack of disproof is not proof. If you did a search for this in the
>thread it would come up 4.2 trillion times. Honest. I checked.

are you redefining our definition of evidence then?

"evidence consists of making a prediction based on a theory then testing the prediction and finding the data supports our prediction."

until some data conflicts with our evidence, our evidence is evidence. i.e. something which lacks disproof is evidence.
according to Clyde's definition (unless he wishes to rescind or alter it..),
if we came up with a theory that an invisible kangaroo is standing beside me, and predict that since it's invisible we cannot see it, that's evidence (because you can't disprove the prediction that we cannot see it.. the only way to disprove it would be for us to see it )

I'd also like to mention that if Clyde's definition is how everyone who believes in evolution sees it, I can tend to see why they still believe in evolution.
All we have to do is think of a theory.
then make some random prediction based on the theory.
That prediction will not necessarily have anything to do *with* the theory..
(in the case of the invisible kangaroo (ik), our not being able to see a kangaroo beside me most likely has nothing to do with the ik at all; it just means there's nothing but air beside me; these are two totally unrelated things - in other words, we cannot see anything beside me, regardless of whether our theory is correct or not)
but if we think of just the right prediction, and then we can demonstrate that the effects of this prediction based on the theory actually occur, then that is evidence, and supports our theory (even though, in reality, it has nothing to do with the theory.. it just looks like it does)
I think I even confused myself.. lol.. but I hope you see what i am trying to say.


to CLyde:
<snip>
>Then you can make predictions about the universe that such
>being would make, you would expect a perfect God to make a
>perfect world, for life to be perfectly designed, and yet we see
>that is not the case, that can be interpreted as evidence
>against a biblical God.
define "perfect".

From Websters.com:
"Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.

etc., I think you get the general idea..
What exactly is the type or purpose God intended for the world?
You have to figure that out before you go any further.
As with what you said about human vs amoeba - where "better" must first be defined - the same is the case with a "perfect" world.. do you mean perfect as for what God intended, or perfect as in what you think a perfect world should be?

Interesting how people come to this thread, claim that there is no evidence for theories like evolution and big bang. But when evidence is given they never read it. And Im sure the next time a discussion like this comes up he'll still claim there is no evidence, when in actuality the evidence is there if they care to look and devote some time to understand it.

> I'd also like to mention that if Clyde's definition is how everyone who believes in evolution sees it, I can tend to see why they still believe in evolution.

....

Read Clyde's post before you say something like that. Its really irritating when people try to discredit something that they know absolutely nothing about

> the same is the case with a "perfect" world.. do you mean perfect as for what God intended, or perfect as in what you think a perfect world

so... are you implying that god intended for the world to turn out the way it is? I surely hope not.

"until some data conflicts with our evidence, our evidence is evidence. i.e. something which lacks disproof is evidence.
according to Clyde's definition (unless he wishes to rescind or alter it..), "

Wooah there, the theory must be falsifiable.

For example take my invisible kangaroo, does NOT seeing him constitute evidence for his existance?

No, because whether he exists or not either way he won't be seen.

Thus his "not" being seen, is no more evidence for his existance than for his non-existance.

I should have included that but i was not attempting to define "evidence" in a "set in stone" type way, merely prompt you to think about the issues raised.

"All we have to do is think of a theory.
then make some random prediction based on the theory.
That prediction will not necessarily have anything to do *with* the theory.."

I don't understand what you are saying.

How can you make a prediction BASED on a theory that has nothing to do with the theory?

I rather think you're spinning off on a semantic tangent, surely you know what evidence is, if you disagree with my wording fair enough, show me what you deem a more accurate definition is, and how that definition alters any of the arguments i have presented.

"What exactly is the type or purpose God intended for the world?
You have to figure that out before you go any further.
........
As with what you said about human vs amoeba - where "better" must first be defined - the same is the case with a "perfect" world.. do you mean perfect as for what God intended, or perfect as in what you think a perfect world should be?"

Ok thats a valid point, i did not define a context, but it is easy to do so:

Consider biological functions, they have SET functions, and in many examples its easy to see they could be superior. If God existed, if he designed everything, we would expect that the various designs in nature, (things God designed), would be the best possible designs, and yet they are not. Of course it makes perfect sense in light of evolution, because evolution merely adapts whats its got, and is inherently a blind process.

God is said to be omnibenevolent, given that, we would expect there to be no "bad" in the world, ok we'll skip over the freewill argument (which incidently doesn't really work, but is fairly complex and unnessseary here). So we would predict all the "bad" in the world to come from man and his freewill, and yet nature can be cruelly uncaring, volanoes earthquakes disease, and other natural disasters, not to mention the pain and suffering inflicted in the animal kingdom, thats all God's territory.

But we are straying from my main argument (to you), evolution is not thought true via bizzare definition of evidence, the evidence supporting evolution is no different to the evidence used to support any other scientific theory, you may have a valid bone with my definition, but you have no valid bone with the actual methods used.

i.e. something which lacks disproof is evidence.

Are you a magistrate?

are you redefining our definition of evidence then?

Why the hell not?

ev·i·dence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-dns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

where exactly do you get

until some data conflicts with our evidence, our evidence is evidence

from? Your hypothesis is that yahweh is the creator of all, etc. Your evidence is the bible. Some would claim that this is no more evidence than attempting to pass off fiction as fact; leading to the conclusion that there is no evidence for the existence of yahweh. Therefore there isn't any data to conflict with your evidence because there isn't really any evidence.

>>There is no evidence of the kangaroo. But for god you have untestable evidence from various acounters/miracules.

Bogus. Observe:

Oddly enough, as I was writting this, something fitting perfectly into this discussion happened. A case full of CDs fell off my TV, though nobody was near them at all. I could blame this on the invisible kangaroo. After all; Its invisible, not intagible. So now I've presented the same evidence for the kangaroo that you've presented for god. I've made a supposition.

Of course, this seemingly strange occurance of CDs falling off a TV becomes much more logical when new information is uncovered regarding the situation. My new 6 speaker sound system is playing Chevelle at approximatly 4 billion decibals. Its amazing my TV has any glass left in it at all.

You see my point(s)?

Its easy enough to state something is caused by x from an uneducated standpoint on the subject of x. i.e. Easier a miracle/magic than an actual explainable occurance. For example, peoples who had never before seen guns, and were shot at by conquering armies, drew pictures and told tales of fireball throwing wands. Need I say more? When people dont understand something, they attempt to describe it inside the limits of the understanding they do have.

>For Clyde's kangaroo is the evidence is the other human walls that don't have kangaroos that we have seen

And how would we know there arent invisible kangaroos on other people's walls if we cant see them?

>Now there are first hand accounts from people like Saint Augustus who have seen truely miraculus events.

as lightatdawn stated, people form explanations for things unknown to them thourgh the limited knowledge they may have. If St. Augustus saw someone who had a disease and thought that person had no chance of survival, but he does in fact survive, what conclusion do you think a person who believes god exists and takes an active part in the lives of humans would draw? Of course he would assume it was a miracle of god. That same reasoning could be applied to most if not all of those supposed "miracles"

>where god moves the red sea, god could have created an earthquake...

actually the bible specifically states moses "parted" the red sea. And after the isrealites crossed, the sea unparted and drowned the pursuing egyptians. Furthermore, If god really exists it makes sense that he would want us to know. So why would he resort to using earthquakes to cause the sea parting which could be interpreted as a natural occurance?

Bogus. Observe:

Oddly enough, as I was writting this, something fitting perfectly into this discussion happened. A case full of CDs fell off my TV, though nobody was near them at all. I could blame this on the invisible kangaroo. After all; Its invisible, not intagible. So now I've presented the same evidence for the kangaroo that you've presented for god. I've made a supposition.

Of course, this seemingly strange occurance of CDs falling off a TV becomes much more logical when new information is uncovered regarding the situation. My new 6 speaker sound system is playing Chevelle at approximatly 4 billion decibals. Its amazing my TV has any glass left in it at all.

You see my point(s)?

Its easy enough to state something is caused by x from an uneducated standpoint on the subject of x. i.e. Easier a miracle/ magic than an actual explainable occurance. For example, peoples who had never before seen guns, and were shot at by conquering armies, drew pictures and told tales of fireball throwing wands. Need I say more? When people dont understand something, they attempt to describe it inside the limits of the understanding they do have.

Lightatdawn there are about 64 miracles recored in the old testemet in other words if the miracles were just there because of gulible people there would be more.. Tell me how does manna fall from the sky 6 days a week and only does not fall on the sabath day. Evev if you can explain to me natrualy how this happenen why did nature seem to follow the commands. You can not simply claim that Moses did not write the five books simply because we have none from his time, we don't have any thing writen by plato yet would you dought his writings? Nor can you claim it was added on because people would notice this.

You must also explain the sun staying up, I dunno water comming from rocks, and oh yea 3 peple being brought being brought back to life.

Wait no miricles today? Miriclas were perfomed by Prophets as the son of God has come there are no more prophets and thus no more miricles. Jesus only granted the appolsles the abity to peform miricles.

This is what the Parable if the Tenants in the Vineyard is about.
Mathew 21: 33-39

>I hope you read his treatise, especially how the doctor
responsed.

I cant say that I have.

> I mean, what do you think would be the
response of someone who does not exist and does not
think that god plays an active part? The truth is that
you have to remain unbiased.

Assuming you mean "someone who believes god does not exist...", I would think the person (today) would conclude they dont know the cause of his recovery. There are many things that were inexplainable hundreds of years ago and were attributed to supernatural phenomena, but can be explained today. There is no reason to believe that sometime in the future there wont be an explanation. But just because something is inexplainable doesnt mean someone should assume god had something to do with it.

>Well this is really a mystery, but I think most christians would
say because of original sin.

Okay. So then if god knows that there is no evidence implying his existance than he cant get mad at me for not believing in him (comment not directed at you, more towards those who believe i will burn in hell for hearing the "word" and not believing).

>If you believe in god then you are forced to say that
nature is caused by god

Then god also causes tornadoes, earthquakes, flood, etc that kill millions of innocent people every year... there goes the idea that god is benevolent.

>if the miracles were just there because of gulible people there would be more

How can you assume that?

>Tell me how does manna fall from the sky 6 days a week

First you have to establish that manna did actually fall from the sky. Then you have to establish that it fell six days a week and not on the sabbath, neither of which have been establish as actually occuring. That story could have just been a metaphor for how god provides for his children.

>You can not simply claim that Moses did not write the five books simply because we have none from his time, we don't have any thing writen by plato yet would you dought his writings? Nor can you claim it was added on because people would notice this.

What?

>You must also explain the sun staying up, I dunno water comming from rocks, and oh yea 3 peple being brought being brought back to life.

You seem to be under the assumption that these things actually occured.

>Wait no miricles today? Miriclas were perfomed by Prophets as the son of God has come there are no more prophets and thus no more miricles. Jesus only granted the appolsles the abity to peform miricles.

Thats very convenient