Present Evidence Here II

[cabinetmaker]

A creator God cannot exist, and therefore a creator God does not exist:

Why God is Impossible: A 60 Second Proof



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQm-vMMDe-E

It's always in the way the argument is defined.  I do not accept at least one of the defining arguments, that nothing implies that there was no God.  God is the uncaused first cause.  He has always existed and is, therefore, able to create.

If you ignore God, then the big bang as a similar problem.  It too MUST have an uncaused first cause.  Where did that infinitesimally small "particle" from which the entirety of creation exploded originate?

[cabinetmaker]

What a wonderful catch-22.  Can't have faith in that which can be proven--and faith is delivered by the grace of god.  In order to be saved one needs to simply be blindly obedient to somebody who has been given faith through grace.  Why doesn't this wonderful god just give grace to everybody?

Because you have to be receptive.  If you do not want God to be part of your life, why would He force you to accept Him?  No, God will respect your wishes.  But like ALL choices in life there are consequences.  Sometimes good, sometimes bad, but there are always consequences.

[cabinetmaker]

They also didn't run the test on any divine power.  They ran it on people who believed in a divine power.  That's two completely different things.

That does not rule out the possibility of divine power.  Think about that for a bit.

Wrong.  You need something to test first.  Otherwise you spend the rest of your life trying to rule out unicorns and leprechauns.
Nor does it mean they are.  And if I can reproduce the same effect in a non-religious way, that actually goes a long way towards explaining it as a strictly physical phenomenon.

When you have a hypothesis that you start to test, every now and then your get an unexpected result that needs further research.  In this case, they did have something to test for first - religious experience.

Unless, of course, you want to identify me as a god.

I'd be flattered, of course, but I'd have to decline.

I don't think you have the necessary qualification to be identified as a god let alone God.

I love how all of a sudden because I'm the one who actually follows the evidence, I'm not the one following the evidence.

You have results that have perfectly understandable physical explanations.  You are the one trying to force an unwarranted interpretation on them.  If you really believed what you just typed here, you would say, "Huh, this is a peculiar result, let's do some further research with believers in other religions, and with non-believers, and see if this genuinely is something inexplicable, or is a common feature of human mentality."  No, instead you want to leap straight to "LOOK LOOK IT COULD BE GOD!" and despite having it patiently explained to you why you can't do that, you keep doing it anyway.

This is the stage where you have become a hypocrite.

Not at all.  I have been very consistent in what I believe and why.  And I have stated, a couple of times, that a result was achieved that needs additional research.

No evidence says there is a god.  Therefore I have no reason to think there is one.  Show me the evidence, and I'll be happy to say, "Well, fuck me sideways, I was wrong."

In my opinion, we will never conclusive physical evidence for God.  Proof of God exists in a different realm, a realm that conveniently works in favor of the non-believer.

You are in no way, shape or form following evidence.  You are in pursuit of your pre-existing opinion, and are not afraid to twist any interpretation, misuse any method to get there.  I have twisted nothing.

Nor have I.  I have referenced a study that has three separate results for separate stimuli.  I have said that this is an interesting result that bears further research.  That is where the evidence leads me - more research.  Yes, I have a pre existing opinion.  So did the researchers which, ironically, is why they do the research; to validate an opinion (sometimes called hypothesis).

Frankly sir (or madam, I don't know which), you owe me an apology for that smear.

Sorry, not sorry.

Wrong.  I don't "have faith that no gods exist" (correcting you thereâ€"I promise you, I'm just as atheistic towards Krishna, Thor and Ahura Mazda as I am towards Jehovah).  I have no evidence to accept the proposition that any exist in the first place.  A distinct but important difference.

You also ignore the fact that our understanding of the universe continually explains that which used to be explained by divine intervention.  At no point in our evolving understanding of the universe has the data ever said, "here is where a miracle happened".

There is one very large miricle that took place a very very long time ago: where did the mass the created the big bang come from?

Another couple errors here.  For one thing, even I can do math in 12 dimensions.  I don't have to be able to envision it to do it.  It's a pain in the ass because you have 12 axes of rotation, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing.

And, predictably, you're begging the question again.  What evidence do we have that there is a god of any sort in the N+1th dimension?  You keep jumping to "there's (maybe) a god in there!" without first demonstrating a good reason one even exists in the first place.

I never stated that there is any God in the n+1 dimension, I said that God would exist in n+1 dimensions.  A distinct but import difference.

[cabinetmaker]

Yes. I am well aware of this doctrine. Funny how knowledge has been the enemy of God since the first few chapters of Genesis, when Adam and Eve doomed the whole world by obtaining knowledge from a magic fruit.

Knowledge wasn't God's enemy but it did turn out to be the downfall of mankind.

[cabinetmaker]

Also, what about all of those times God did show himself? Moses, all of the prophets, everyone who witnessed the miracles of Jesus, Saul/Paul, and others all saw proof of God. Yet in the modern age, where cameras are readily available to capture such evidence, God has gone into hiding.

We are not saved by absolute knowledge of God, be seeing God.  He wants you to come to Him of your own free will.

[Mike Cl]

Because you have to be receptive.  If you do not want God to be part of your life, why would He force you to accept Him?  No, God will respect your wishes.  But like ALL choices in life there are consequences.  Sometimes good, sometimes bad, but there are always consequences.

That's the key--"Because you have to be receptive."  Facts and evidence matter not, it only matters if you want to believe.  And if you do, then god exists.  And that works with any and all gods.  It is interesting that you take the stance that I have a choice to accept or deny god; like there is not a question there is a god (not only a god but your god)  and so it is on me and I will suffer (or enjoy) my choice.  I have not ever seen any kind of evidence to suggest there is any god(s) anywhere.  So, I reject your notion that god exists whether or not I like it.  God does not exist.  There is evidence to suggest god was created by mankind not that god created mankind.  There is no evidence of any god. 

Why should I not send away for my "Free Miracle Spring Water"?  I would then be the 'next in line for God's miracle' and most likely get a check in the mail soon, if I accept and believe.  Why not?  Would it cost me anything?  No, just a phone call away!  If I am receptive then I can look forward to the pleasure of being involved in all sorts of scams all brought to me by those who know the 'word of god' and are bringing me to god.  Glory, glory, glory....................................

[Baruch]

It isn't about epistemology, but about relationship.  But "come to G-d" means establishing a positive relationship between two people, that is the Holy Spirit.

[Mike Cl]

It isn't about epistemology, but about relationship. 

And that is like having, or trying to have, a relationship with Bugs Bunny.  A fiction can be read and appreciated, but one would have a very hard time establishing a relationship with a fiction.  Not a real one, anyway.

[trdsf]

That does not rule out the possibility of divine power.  Think about that for a bit.

Wrong end of the telescope again.  You can't say "it doesn't rule it out".  You need to rule it in.  I repeat: it also doesn't rule out aliens, unicorns, Santa or Russian hackers compromising the results.

What did I say?  I said the test was done on people who have religious beliefs.  That's completely different from doing a test on a putative god.  Think about that for a bit.  You're conflating 'belief' with 'existence', and you don't get to do that.

I would lay you any odds that you get the same result from Christians, Hindus, Neopagans, etc.  You do get the 'religious' response from Apple users, after all.  Religious belief also shrinks the hippocampus.

As it turns out, sufferers of PTSD also tend to have a reduced hippocampus.  By using the methodology you yourself have put into play here, I can say that religious belief is the same as traumatic stress.  It's not ruled out, after all -- they both have the same result.

When you have a hypothesis that you start to test, every now and then your get an unexpected result that needs further research.  In this case, they did have something to test for first - religious experience.

Wrong.  They tested those who had religious belief, not religious experiences directly.  I very much doubt anyone in that test happened to have their conversion experience while sitting there.  You're still conflating things that cannot be conflated.

As it happens, I do believe there is not only extraterrestrial life in this galaxy, but there are other sentient species in this galaxy.  I freely admit that it's a belief and not a fact, I accept the hypothesis on the basis of statistics and the Principle of Mediocrity (to wit: we should not assume there is anything unique about our existence, including the fact of our existence, as we are statistically much more likely to be typical of our environment than exceptional), and the observation on our own planet that life manages to evolve solutions to the knottiest environmental problems.

As it also happens, I am a participant at Planet Hunters, and am a co-discoverer of a planet that appears to be in its star's habitable zone.

Using your own standards, I could claim that I've found evidence that there could be life, maybe even intelligent life there.

Obviously, that's claiming too much, and I really hope you see that, because otherwise this is a waste of time.

There isn't the slightest shred of evidence for that; all I have found is a place consistent with being a potential habitatâ€"and equally consistent with being completely uninhabitable.  We have, after all, two observations of planets that are (just) within their star's habitable zone, and are both so far as we know not even host to the simplest bacterium: Venus and Mars.

When you claim this study doesn't rule out a god, it doesn't rule a god in either.  In fact, it says nothing about divine presences.  It speaks only to the brain activity of those who believe in one, and which brain activity was have observational evidence has perfectly rational causes, and for which we need make no appeal to the supernatural.

I don't think you have the necessary qualification to be identified as a god let alone God.

I'd do a damn sight better job of it, although you might have to kiss free will goodbye.  Also, I'd provide some reliable evidence for my existence.

Not at all.  I have been very consistent in what I believe and why.  And I have stated, a couple of times, that a result was achieved that needs additional research.

We have three causes, and three results, and you keep trying to run backwards from 'religious believers have similar experiences to love and drugs' to 'because there's an effect on the brainwaves of religious believers, what they believe might be true'.  The only consistency is in insisting upon this fallacy.

In my opinion, we will never conclusive physical evidence for God.  Proof of God exists in a different realm, a realm that conveniently works in favor of the non-believer.

I happen to agree there will never be conclusive physical evidence.  We at have that as common groundâ€"although of course we have different reasons to not expect to find physical evidence.

Of course, if there is no conclusive physical evidence, then there is no reason to take the god hypothesis even provisionally.  To quote Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."  I have no responsibility to even bother refuting that claim; if you want to assert a divine power, finding the evidence is your job, not mine.

Religion, in my view, is just a Stone Age attempt to explain the universe without science and observation.  The 'god did it' hypothesis of reality is now every bit as irrelevant as the theories of caloric, phlogiston, and luminiferous æther.  Or do you think CERN has a responsibility to check and make sure there's still no æther before applying General Relativity?

Nor have I.  I have referenced a study that has three separate results for separate stimuli.  I have said that this is an interesting result that bears further research.  That is where the evidence leads me - more research.  Yes, I have a pre existing opinion.  So did the researchers which, ironically, is why they do the research; to validate an opinion (sometimes called hypothesis).

Wrong.  What you're doing is conflating 'religious belief' with 'existence of a divine power'.  It's what you've done repeatedly, and it's not a link you can justifiably make.

I suppose I'll have to say it again in the hopes that somehow it penetrates this time: there's no justification to say "it doesn't rule out a god" because it wasn't testing for that in the first place.  It was testing the brain activity of people who believe.  That simply and flatly is a) not the same thing and b) only evidence that people believe, not that what they believe has any validity.

Sorry, not sorry.

Well, then, fine.  I didn't figure you would, but you were given the opportunity to correct yourself.  My conscience is clear; however, my respect for you as a debater is nearly nil.

There is one very large miricle that took place a very very long time ago: where did the mass the created the big bang come from?

That's a matter of current research.  Just because there is no generally agreed upon answer doesn't mean that any answer is equally valid, nor that it was a miracle -- I am not ceding that point in any way, shape or form.

"I don't understand how this happened" is not a justification to call it a miracle.  I don't understand how the liver works.  That doesn't mean its function is miraculous.  I couldn't describe how an automatic transmission works on a bet.  That doesn't mean magic gets power from the engine to the wheels.

I never stated that there is any God in the n+1 dimension, I said that God would exist in n+1 dimensions.  A distinct but import difference.

Okay, do you even read what you type?  You didn't even make it to the period of that first sentence before contradicting yourself.

Also, your own words:

Mathematically we can prove that there are at least 12 dimensions meaning God exists in 13 dimensions.

Seems a pretty straightforward statement that requires no "distinctions" to me.

At least be an honest disputant.

Let me ask you this: you have already ceded the point that there's no physical evidence for any god, and that you don't expect any to turn up.

Then what, exactly, do you have to offer when you come before a forum of rationalists when you admit you completely lack the one thing that is going to be required the most?

My explanation is that you just want to buff up your own ego, you want to be able to say to yourself (and also tell your concept of god), "Well, I faced down those nasty godless heathens and still have my faith, didn't I do good, Daddy?"  It's consistent with the evidence at hand, at least.

[Unbeliever]

The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan

[cabinetmaker]

That's the key--"Because you have to be receptive."  Facts and evidence matter not, it only matters if you want to believe.  And if you do, then god exists.  And that works with any and all gods.  It is interesting that you take the stance that I have a choice to accept or deny god; like there is not a question there is a god (not only a god but your god)  and so it is on me and I will suffer (or enjoy) my choice.  I have not ever seen any kind of evidence to suggest there is any god(s) anywhere.  So, I reject your notion that god exists whether or not I like it.  God does not exist.  There is evidence to suggest god was created by mankind not that god created mankind.  There is no evidence of any god. 

Why should I not send away for my "Free Miracle Spring Water"?  I would then be the 'next in line for God's miracle' and most likely get a check in the mail soon, if I accept and believe.  Why not?  Would it cost me anything?  No, just a phone call away!  If I am receptive then I can look forward to the pleasure of being involved in all sorts of scams all brought to me by those who know the 'word of god' and are bringing me to god.  Glory, glory, glory....................................

You made a choice.  You have your reasons for making your choice.  I made my choice.  I have my reasons for making my choice.  I do not think that we have enough information at this time to conclusively that God does not exist.  Said a bit differently absence of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist.

Sidebar: What is interesting about our relative choices is that if you are right, I will never know it.  If I am right, you will absolutely know it.

[Baruch]

And that is like having, or trying to have, a relationship with Bugs Bunny.  A fiction can be read and appreciated, but one would have a very hard time establishing a relationship with a fiction.  Not a real one, anyway.

Wrong metaphysical direction.  Between thee and me.  G-d is only implicitly involved.  When our relationship is positive, that is the Holy Spirit, even if you don't believe in anything at all.  You and I are not fictions.  Don't be so desperate to repeat old talking points that don't apply.

[Baruch]

You made a choice.  You have your reasons for making your choice.  I made my choice.  I have my reasons for making my choice.  I do not think that we have enough information at this time to conclusively that God does not exist.  Said a bit differently absence of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist.

Sidebar: What is interesting about our relative choices is that if you are right, I will never know it.  If I am right, you will absolutely know it.

It isn't about comparing spiritual dick length.  All humans are wrong.  Only G-d is right.  None of us is G-d ... though all of us are demigods (aka imago dei).

Christianity has no monopoly on Holy Spirit, they are just a very large sect.  I don't think the Holy Spirit is even limited to religious people, let alone Abrahamics.  Everyone had the potential, each in their own way.  One way generically isn't better than another (provided it is positive relationship).

[Unbeliever]

[cabinetmaker]

Wrong end of the telescope again.  You can't say "it doesn't rule it out".  You need to rule it in.  I repeat: it also doesn't rule out aliens, unicorns, Santa or Russian hackers compromising the results.

What did I say?  I said the test was done on people who have religious beliefs.  That's completely different from doing a test on a putative god.  Think about that for a bit.  You're conflating 'belief' with 'existence', and you don't get to do that.

I would lay you any odds that you get the same result from Christians, Hindus, Neopagans, etc.  You do get the 'religious' response from Apple users, after all.  Religious belief also shrinks the hippocampus.

As it turns out, sufferers of PTSD also tend to have a reduced hippocampus.  By using the methodology you yourself have put into play here, I can say that religious belief is the same as traumatic stress.  It's not ruled out, after all -- they both have the same result.

The study does rule in that believers have a measurable response when experiencing a religious event.  It is a measurable response.  The responds to a chemical stimuli which isn't all that surprising given that we know chemicals effect all organs in the body.  People who are thinking about a loved one have a measurable response even when the object of that love is not present with them in the MRI.  Finally, people having a religious experience have the same response as a person thinking about a loved one.  So what triggers the response in the brain?  Thinking about a loved one triggers a response.  A person praying has the same response.  What is it about the human brain that causes it to react when in love or in prayer?  I am not so willing as you to write it off without further research. 

Wrong.  They tested those who had religious belief, not religious experiences directly.  I very much doubt anyone in that test happened to have their conversion experience while sitting there.  You're still conflating things that cannot be conflated.

As it happens, I do believe there is not only extraterrestrial life in this galaxy, but there are other sentient species in this galaxy.  I freely admit that it's a belief and not a fact, I accept the hypothesis on the basis of statistics and the Principle of Mediocrity (to wit: we should not assume there is anything unique about our existence, including the fact of our existence, as we are statistically much more likely to be typical of our environment than exceptional), and the observation on our own planet that life manages to evolve solutions to the knottiest environmental problems.

As it also happens, I am a participant at Planet Hunters, and am a co-discoverer of a planet that appears to be in its star's habitable zone.

Using your own standards, I could claim that I've found evidence that there could be life, maybe even intelligent life there.

That is not my standard.  I see an experiment with three measurable results for three separate stimuli.  You found a planet in the habitual zone of a star.  That in and of it self neither includes nor excludes the possibility of life, even intelligent life.  More research is needed.  Oddly enough, I have been saying the same thing about the MRI scans.

Obviously, that's claiming too much, and I really hope you see that, because otherwise this is a waste of time.

There isn't the slightest shred of evidence for that; all I have found is a place consistent with being a potential habitatâ€"and equally consistent with being completely uninhabitable.  We have, after all, two observations of planets that are (just) within their star's habitable zone, and are both so far as we know not even host to the simplest bacterium: Venus and Mars.

When you claim this study doesn't rule out a god, it doesn't rule a god in either.  In fact, it says nothing about divine presences.  It speaks only to the brain activity of those who believe in one, and which brain activity was have observational evidence has perfectly rational causes, and for which we need make no appeal to the supernatural.

The study speaks to the brains response to a stimuli.  Something caused the brain to react.  In tow of those cases, the stimuli was not purely physical.  Being an engineer, I look at that and say hmmm, I need to study this more.

I'd do a damn sight better job of it, although you might have to kiss free will goodbye.  Also, I'd provide some reliable evidence for my existence.

I doubt that.  I have no doubt that in your opinion that you think you would do a better job.  But I don't think that we, as humans, are able to grasp what God's plans truly are.  You think you would be better because you would announce your existence.  I rather think that God has a reason for NOT announcing His presence, at least for now.

We have three causes, and three results, and you keep trying to run backwards from 'religious believers have similar experiences to love and drugs' to 'because there's an effect on the brainwaves of religious believers, what they believe might be true'.  The only consistency is in insisting upon this fallacy.

Here is where you are constantly misrepresenting what I have said.  I have said, and continue to say, that it is an interesting result deserving of additional research.

I happen to agree there will never be conclusive physical evidence.  We at have that as common groundâ€"although of course we have different reasons to not expect to find physical evidence.

Of course, if there is no conclusive physical evidence, then there is no reason to take the god hypothesis even provisionally.  To quote Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."  I have no responsibility to even bother refuting that claim; if you want to assert a divine power, finding the evidence is your job, not mine.

Absolutely true.

Religion, in my view, is just a Stone Age attempt to explain the universe without science and observation.  The 'god did it' hypothesis of reality is now every bit as irrelevant as the theories of caloric, phlogiston, and luminiferous æther.  Or do you think CERN has a responsibility to check and make sure there's still no æther before applying General Relativity?

Religion and Faith are two entierly different things that occasionally overlap.  People find God in spite of religion, not because of it.

Wrong.  What you're doing is conflating 'religious belief' with 'existence of a divine power'.  It's what you've done repeatedly, and it's not a link you can justifiably make.

I suppose I'll have to say it again in the hopes that somehow it penetrates this time: there's no justification to say "it doesn't rule out a god" because it wasn't testing for that in the first place.  It was testing the brain activity of people who believe.  That simply and flatly is a) not the same thing and b) only evidence that people believe, not that what they believe has any validity.

I never said that it was testing for divine presence.  I did say that the brain has a response when people are have a religious experience.  Love is a real emotion and the brain responds to it. The brain equally responds when people have a religious experience.  Why?  Well there you have it, the single question that has lead to more human understanding than any other question: why?  I guess there is room for more research.  Just like your planet, you wont stop trying to find out more about it simply because you have found something interesting.  You know nothing conclusive other than that is something there.  Same with the brain.

Well, then, fine.  I didn't figure you would, but you were given the opportunity to correct yourself.  My conscience is clear; however, my respect for you as a debater is nearly nil.

My conscience is clear as well.

That's a matter of current research.  Just because there is no generally agreed upon answer doesn't mean that any answer is equally valid, nor that it was a miracle -- I am not ceding that point in any way, shape or form.

"I don't understand how this happened" is not a justification to call it a miracle.  I don't understand how the liver works.  That doesn't mean its function is miraculous.  I couldn't describe how an automatic transmission works on a bet.  That doesn't mean magic gets power from the engine to the wheels.
Okay, do you even read what you type?  You didn't even make it to the period of that first sentence before contradicting yourself.

Ah, more research.  I agree, more research is always needed.  On a wide variety of topics.  And with very open minds from those doing the research.

Also, your own words:Seems a pretty straightforward statement that requires no "distinctions" to me.

At least be an honest disputant.

Let me ask you this: you have already ceded the point that there's no physical evidence for any god, and that you don't expect any to turn up.

This forum, by its own admission, is a community open to all including believers.  Am I not welcome regardless of why I'm here?

Then what, exactly, do you have to offer when you come before a forum of rationalists when you admit you completely lack the one thing that is going to be required the most?

I love discussions with the "rational" minds here.  There is a very rational video here that sets out to prove that God could not exist in 60 seconds.  That very same video proves that the big bank could not have happened either and for the exact same reason.  I find that reason can close a mind as firmly and effectively as faith.

My explanation is that you just want to buff up your own ego, you want to be able to say to yourself (and also tell your concept of god), "Well, I faced down those nasty godless heathens and still have my faith, didn't I do good, Daddy?"  It's consistent with the evidence at hand, at least.

You are welcome to your opinion.