Am i the only one?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Smileyrius wrote:

are you after evidence or proof?

He is after proof.

Evidence often is not proof...and almost always it has to be evaluated. Sometimes it even has to be guessed at.

Watch any trial...and you will see that.

But what Brandon is saying is that "everything" cannot be evidence of a god...because he does not want to see any evidence of a god.

He wants proof.

He isn't gonna get that.

No, I am not asking for proof. I am asking for any evidence at all to suggest that God created the universe and maintains a hand in its operation. My point is that it is illogical to believe things if there is no evidence to suggest that they are true.

When I ask you for evidence, you list phenomena which could easily be attributable to other causes. Evidence would be something which could easily be caused by a God and much less easily attributed to other explanations. That's what evidence means. If I see that a basketball has appeared in my yard, it might have been blown there by wind, but it might also have gotten there other ways. Its presence is not particularly proof that it was blown there by the wind, because it doesn't suggest that explanation more than other explanations. Surely this is elementary. The existence of stars and grapefruits could be attributable to a God, but it is not really evidence of a God because it could also be the work of natural forces.

Then the "natural processes" must have intelligent design being that all things of creation are intricately made. And so designed by an intelligence. This intelligence could be said to be.....?

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, I am not asking for proof. I am asking for any evidence at all to suggest that God created the universe and maintains a hand in its operation. My point is that it is illogical to believe things if there is no evidence to suggest that they are true.

When I ask you for evidence, you list phenomena which could easily be attributable to other causes. Evidence would be something which could easily be caused by a God and much less easily attributed to other explanations. That's what evidence means. If I see that a basketball has appeared in my yard, it might have been blown there by wind, but it might also have gotten there other ways. Its presence is not particularly proof that it was blown there by the wind, because it doesn't suggest that explanation more than other explanations. Surely this is elementary. The existence of stars and grapefruits could be attributable to a God, but it is not really evidence of a God because it could also be the work of natural forces.

But the universe MAY BE evidence of a creator god.

The fact that anything exists...is a mystery beyond comprehension.

Anything is possible.

You seem intent on eliminating one POSSIBLE explanation...that there was one thing...and that the one thing makes the other things possible.

Good luck with that.

I maintain that everything we see MAY BE evidence of a creator god.

It may not be also.

But that is the way it goes with "evidence." It has to be evaluated.

Then the "natural processes" must have intelligent design being that all things of creation are intricately made. And so designed by an intelligence. This intelligence could be said to be.....?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, I am not asking for proof. I am asking for any evidence at all to suggest that God created the universe and maintains a hand in its operation. My point is that it is illogical to believe things if there is no evidence to suggest that they are true.

When I ask you for evidence, you list phenomena which could easily be attributable to other causes. Evidence would be something which could easily be caused by a God and much less easily attributed to other explanations. That's what evidence means. If I see that a basketball has appeared in my yard, it might have been blown there by wind, but it might also have gotten there other ways. Its presence is not particularly proof that it was blown there by the wind, because it doesn't suggest that explanation more than other explanations. Surely this is elementary. The existence of stars and grapefruits could be attributable to a God, but it is not really evidence of a God because it could also be the work of natural forces.

But the universe MAY BE evidence of a creator god.

The fact that anything exists...is a mystery beyond comprehension.

Anything is possible.

You seem intent on eliminating one POSSIBLE explanation...that there was one thing...and that the one thing makes the other things possible.

Good luck with that.

I maintain that everything we see MAY BE evidence of a creator god.

It may not be also.

But that is the way it goes with "evidence." It has to be evaluated.

The universe may be the work of God. It is not evidence that God exists in the sense in which I mean it.

When I talk about evidence to support an assertion, I am referring to facts which suggest that the assertion is true. The existence of the universe does not suggest that God exists, because it could equally well be the result of impersonal natural processes.

Evidence would be something which is easily explained by the existence of a God and is not as easily explained other ways. The mere fact that person A is found murdered is not evidence that person B is the murderer because it could equally well be explained by lots of other people being the murderer. The fingerprints of person B on the murder weapon would be evidence because it could easily be explained by person B being the murderer, but could not easily be explained by anyone else being the murderer. This is elementary and I am dumbfounded that I have to repeat it over and over for you.

a house?

The claim that if there were a god, everything one sees around one would be evidence thereof is naïve; simplistic without being aware of the intrinsic, insane complexity implicit in such a view--and is definitely the product of an ignorant and unthinking reliance upon the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I am dumbfounded that you are being so stone-headed that you are unwilling to acknowledge that if I met the criteria you are trying to establish for this "evidence"...the only way it could be met is with proof.

I cannot give you proof that gods exist.

It IS illogical to assert that gods exist...we agree on that.

What we do not agree on, Brandon, is that it is illogical to guess that gods do exist.

I also cannot give you proof that there are NO gods.

It IS every bit as illogical to assert there are no gods...as to assert gods do exist.

It is not illogical to guess that there are no gods.

This started with you asserting that it is illogical to "believe" that gods exist without evidence that gods exist.

http://able2know.org/topic/253441-2#post-5752555

When it comes to stuff like the existence or non-existence of gods...all one can do is to guess...so you are saying that it is illogical to guess that gods exist. Then you diverted into this "evidence" nonsense.

I called your attention to the FACT that IF a creator god exists (either at least one does or none do)...the existence of everything is evidence of that existence.

Can I prove that "everything" is evidence of the existence of gods?

NO! In order to do that, I would first have to prove that a god exists...which I cannot do.

BUT IF A CREATOR GOD EXISTS...then everything is evidence of that existence.

What you are trying to do...not very skillfully or successfully, Brandon, is to say that theists CANNOT prove there is a god...and you are trying to pretend all you are asking for is evidence that it exists.

Keep trying. I will stick with you to show that the entire thesis is a sham.

And I will continue to acknowledge that you and I are in agreement that theists apparently CANNOT prove the existence of their gods while doing so.

Once again we see the influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition in Frank's "logical assertions." There are many cosmogonies which inferentially assume an existent cosmos within which a creator god or goddess operates. For example, earth mother cosmogonies relate the creation of life to a goddess, who is operating within an existent cosmos. Many other traditions inferentially assume the existence of a cosmos within which "creator gods" (demiurge would be a better term) create some, but not all of what we see around us. A good example of this is the Greek cosmogony (or one should say, partial cosmogony) centered around the Titans. Some theistic traditions don't even bother to produce a cosmogony--the primitive Germanic tradition includes a "king" of the gods (Wotan or Odin, depending the specific tradition) who has not, in fact, created anything.

There are intelligent, contemporary men and women who believe that there is a god, but that this god has only set the cosmos in motion, and that what we see around us is a rational product of the naturalistic laws of physics and chemistry. Their number includes many intelligent and well-educated, practicing scientists. To claim that "if there were a god" everything we see around us is evidence for that god is, then, naïve and simplistic. In fact, the absurdity of the Judeo-Christian concept of god is the assumption that said god is responsible for all of "creation," which inevitably leads down the very steep and very slippery slope leading to the "fall of every sparrow" (See Matthew Chapter 10, verse 29).

The claim that if there were a god, everything one sees around one would be evidence thereof is naïve; simplistic without being aware of the intrinsic, insane complexity implicit in such a view--and is definitely the product of an ignorant and unthinking reliance upon the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Setanta wrote:

The claim that if there were a god, everything one sees around one would be evidence thereof is naïve; simplistic without being aware of the intrinsic, insane complexity implicit in such a view--and is definitely the product of an ignorant and unthinking reliance upon the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Frank wouldn't know the difference even if it slapped him in the head..

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am dumbfounded that you are being so stone-headed that you are unwilling to acknowledge that if I met the criteria you are trying to establish for this "evidence"...the only way it could be met is with proof.

I cannot give you proof that gods exist.

It IS illogical to assert that gods exist...we agree on that.

What we do not agree on, Brandon, is that it is illogical to guess that gods do exist.

I also cannot give you proof that there are NO gods.

It IS every bit as illogical to assert there are no gods...as to assert gods do exist.

It is not illogical to guess that there are no gods.

This started with you asserting that it is illogical to "believe" that gods exist without evidence that gods exist.

http://able2know.org/topic/253441-2#post-5752555

When it comes to stuff like the existence or non-existence of gods...all one can do is to guess...so you are saying that it is illogical to guess that gods exist. Then you diverted into this "evidence" nonsense.

I called your attention to the FACT that IF a creator god exists (either at least one does or none do)...the existence of everything is evidence of that existence.

Can I prove that "everything" is evidence of the existence of gods?

NO! In order to do that, I would first have to prove that a god exists...which I cannot do.

BUT IF A CREATOR GOD EXISTS...then everything is evidence of that existence.

What you are trying to do...not very skillfully or successfully, Brandon, is to say that theists CANNOT prove there is a god...and you are trying to pretend all you are asking for is evidence that it exists.

Keep trying. I will stick with you to show that the entire thesis is a sham.

And I will continue to acknowledge that you and I are in agreement that theists apparently CANNOT prove the existence of their gods while doing so.

At no point have I asked for proof of anything. I have consistently asked only for a particle of evidence that a God exists.

I have not asserted that there are no Gods. I have asserted that there is little or no evidence for the existence of a God who created the universe and intervenes in human affairs, and that, for this reason, it is illogical to believe or guess that a God exists.

It is always illogical to believe or guess that something is true with no evidence to indicate that it is true.

My main point is that an active belief in God is unjustified because of the lack of evidence for it.

I only suspect that no God exists because (a) if a God created the universe and intervenes in human affairs, it seems like there should be some indication of it,

(b) one can see how primitive, pre-scientific Man would come up with the God idea to explain the world, and (c) one can see why people are comforted by believing the idea and believe it because it is comforting.

All of this makes me suspect, not know, that there is no God. The main point, though, is that there is insufficient evidence to justify an active belief that there is a God.

My suspicions are a separate thing.

No, it is not equally valid to guess that there is a God because there is little or no evidence to support the guess.

The fact that the universe exists is not evidence for the existence of God because it can equally well be explained by natural processes.

Of all the things that we didn't used to understand about the universe and now do understand, such as where rain comes from, all were explained by science. None was explained by God or any other aspect of the supernatural.

Frank wants it both ways! LOL Of coarse he's always right, and nobody can tell him different. His guesses are better than yours because.............???????

If any gods do exist, it's funny how it seems comfortable in keeping it a BIG SECRET until he shows up in the sky flying down to earth - without wings.

You keep beating that dead horse, Frank.

You persist in asserting notions you don't have the slightest clue.

Your sclerosed brain cannot conceive otherwise.