What is your justification for believing in a God?

[immortal]

That is not a proven event.

 

How about from our recent times? Or is god only "good" in the bible, if you ignore anything else.

 

There are indirect evidences, Jesus got that knowledge from God, he gave that knowledge to his inner circles for example Paul, Theodus got that knowledge from Paul and he gave that knowledge to Valentinus but unfortunately such knowledge has been suppressed by the orthodox church without themselves being aware of that, so I don't blame the orthodox church either.

 

God has revealed his pleroma in the past and is revealing it to people now and will reveal it in the future and the people around the world have described such similar things in their own psychological terms again and again, so he is good outside the bible too.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2012 by immortal

[mooeypoo]

So there's no current good deeds? Lots of bad ones, or at least ones that remain "untreated"... nothing good?

 

All tht we know of God's "goodness" is *only* in the bible and "new" testament? that's it?

[Moontanman]

There are indirect evidences, Jesus got that knowledge from God, he gave that knowledge to his inner circles for example Paul, Theodus got that knowledge from Paul and he gave that knowledge to Valentinus but unfortunately such knowledge has been suppressed by the orthodox church without themselves being aware of that, so I don't blame the orthodox church either.

 

Care to show some evidence of Jesus before you go claiming he shared knowledge from god with anyone?

 

God has revealed his pleroma in the past and is revealing it to people now and will reveal it in the future and the people around the world have described such similar things in their own psychological terms again and again, so he is good outside the bible too.

 

Where? when? who?

[Mosheh Thezion]

My belief in a God... as creator... that.. which applied the energy in creation... is found here... > http://empiricalchurch.org/theory/

specifically... here --> http://empiricalchurch.org/createvolutionism/

 

There is no evidence... about god... as god would exist outside our universe.... but... that one may exist.. seems very likely based on the evidence of this universe.

 

I would say... science supports the god concept.. generally... as the source of the energy of creation, since Big bang is highly flawed... and the universe is anything but chaotic.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

 

[doG]

There are indirect evidences, Jesus got that knowledge from God, he gave that knowledge to his inner circles for example Paul, Theodus got that knowledge from Paul and he gave that knowledge to Valentinus but unfortunately such knowledge has been suppressed by the orthodox church without themselves being aware of that, so I don't blame the orthodox church either.

Can you cite that evidence that is supposed to support this claim? Hearsay excluded...

[Moontanman]

My belief in a God... as creator... that.. which applied the energy in creation... is found here... > http://empiricalchurch.org/theory/

specifically... here --> http://empiricalchurch.org/createvolutionism/

 

There is no evidence... about god... as god would exist outside our universe.... but... that one may exist.. seems very likely based on the evidence of this universe.

 

I would say... science supports the god concept.. generally... as the source of the energy of creation, since Big bang is highly flawed... and the universe is anything but chaotic.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

 

It can be shown empirically that each type of land animals did not evolve independently from a different fish, in fact fish evolved into amphibians and on to reptiles to dinosaurs and mammals and on up. Each currently living life form did not evolve independently on it's own from fish.

 

While it cannot be shown that god does not use naturalistic ways to guide evolution there is no evidence he does. The idea that the universe has to have have some guiding influence is not supported by evidence.

 

While you are welcome to your beliefs and yours is interesting it can be shown to be false, assuming i understand what you are saying correctly, if i am wrong and you are not proposing that all animals evolved independently from a separate fish please inform me of what i am getting wrong.

 

Because, no missing links have ever been found, between man and ape, or between the bulk of separate species, and it being found that somehow, species seem to just appear in the fossil record, at different times, without having been evolved up from an earlier land animal. And, as it has long been believed that land animals came from fish, which rose up from the seas to live on land, who is to say it ever stopped?? In fact, evidence shows that it’s still happening today, except now the bulk of today’s land life, being always hungry, prevents their rise out onto land. So, there is no reason to believe we evolved from the apes. There are no missing links, and it’s much more likely that we evolved from different forms of fish, which came on land, after each mass extinction. When there was room. As even we humans in the womb at 4 weeks are shaped like and have the gills of a fish, becoming rodent like with a tail at 5 weeks & finally human only after 8 weeks.

 

Not only are missing links not missing intermediate forms from monkey to ape to man have been found, in fact we can trace our ancestry all the way back to Cambrian times at least.

[immortal]

So there's no current good deeds? Lots of bad ones, or at least ones that remain "untreated"... nothing good?

All tht we know of God's "goodness" is *only* in the bible and "new" testament? that's it?

Care to show some evidence of Jesus before you go claiming he shared knowledge from god with anyone?

Where? when? who?

Can you cite that evidence that is supposed to support this claim? Hearsay excluded...

I'll let Dr. Eugenie Scott address this issue and no wonder why even religious people have so much respect for her.

This thread is about your reasons for believing in God and the reason for my belief in God is based on revealed truths and also based on scientific reasons which give indirect evidences to such revealed truths.

God intervenes where it is very much necessary for one to have revealed truths and to attain his perfect knowledge.

There is no reason what so ever to not to believe in him either or to say he is not worthy of worship either. The suffering of young children cannot be the reason for God being immoral without knowing how he wants to give his perfect knowledge through which one can have zero sufferings.

I'm not a proponent of Intelligent Design or a supporter of creation science because religion has got nothing to do with the natural world, the reason for my belief is based on revealed truths, if you want to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest go ahead and prove physicalism with your tools which you have in your magisteria and say that physical things are all the things that exists out there and there is nothing real apart from that otherwise my belief is justified.



The thing is, obtaining revealed truths is as difficult as running one's self awareness in a neural network and to make him know what it is like to be a neural network.

Its not arrogance on my part for not showing evidence for God's revelations of his revealed truths to people around the world. Its intellectually dishonesty on those who claim empirical evidence of God and reject assertions of people who have faith based on revealed truths.

If you don't want to believe that's fine by me.

@mooeypoo

The reason why people of faith haven't burned the bible yet is because they believe that bible has revealed hidden truths in them, so I see no reason as to why God is not preparing us to give his perfect knowledge.

There has been a lot of good things that have happened in the world which compensates for the evil in the world, so God allows both good and evil and he is also trying to give his perfect knowledge to us in the form of revealed truths so that we can evade from all kinds of suffering i.e even from good and evil.

<edit: another video in my previous post> Edited April 10, 2012 by immortal

[Mosheh Thezion]

It can be shown empirically that each type of land animals did not evolve independently from a different fish, in fact fish evolved into amphibians and on to reptiles to dinosaurs and mammals and on up. Each currently living life form did not evolve independently on it's own from fish.

 

While it cannot be shown that god does not use naturalistic ways to guide evolution there is no evidence he does. The idea that the universe has to have have some guiding influence is not supported by evidence.

 

While you are welcome to your beliefs and yours is interesting it can be shown to be false, assuming i understand what you are saying correctly, if i am wrong and you are not proposing that all animals evolved independently from a separate fish please inform me of what i am getting wrong.

 

 

 

Not only are missing links not missing intermediate forms from monkey to ape to man have been found, in fact we can trace our ancestry all the way back to Cambrian times at least.

 

everything you said... maybe true... and my view.. my theory.. maybe completely off.. or slightly off...

that changes nothing.

 

the universe... is anything but chaotic... or random.. in fact there are beautiful patterns which show clearly... chaos... or what is called chaos theory.. actually describes natural patterns.. patterns... which stem from the point of creation... which many call the big bang...

these patterns... are clear... and suggest great order... natural law... law set forth... by the design of the universe..

the result of natural law... then.. leads to life forms.. which follow these patterns... such as right hand twists.....

there is no randomness... no chaos... there is beauty and order... patterns.. which are repeated....

this... does not suggest chaos...

it suggests design...

a design... which lead to creation.

To suggest... scripture... written 3000 years ago... MUST BE EXACTLY RIGHT... OTHERWISE ITS ALL WRONG.. IS FOOLISH.

SURE.. SCRIPTURE.. CAN BE WRONG... FLAWED... SURE.. I CAN BE WRONG.

but.. to suggest that all the order we see in the heavens and in the sciences... is not based on natural design is false.

there is a natural design... natural laws... universal constants...

 

I again... cannot tell you anything about god... as there is no evidence... there is only what we observe in this universe.

I... say.. and see... that the patterns.. suggest a natural pattern of formation... which Atheists.. like to say is just natural random chaos.

But... if it be natural... then it could all be caused... by the application of specific qualitive energy which... caused that formation.

 

Some critisize me for... not providing the equations of creation.. when discussing field theory... but..

The issue... of equations to describe all of creation... would only suggest a god... who wrote the equation... and applied it... by design.

I see no conflict between creation and evolution.

The entire concept of the universe being 6000 years old... is lame.. I do not support it.

I support.. that god.. is so great.. he created all of nature... to develop so that odds are... life will form.. by design.. under evolution standards.. and here we are.

 

The very question of whether there is a creator cannot be avoided.... and the evidence.. suggests.. yeah... could be... much more than it suggest that there is not.

 

Besides if there is not... if life has no purpose or meaning.. or value after we die... then why hold back??? why not rape a kill.. just for fun?

truth is... religion.. has always been mankinds greatest asset... as it give people reason to behave and work together.

Without religion... we have chaos.. of the mind.

 

The question of god.. cannot ever be answered... but we can discuss the evidence.. and nothing has every suggested that the universe is chaos and random formation..

yet... if you can show chaos... if you can show.. randomness... then I will be happy to consider it.

please... show me why I should think that way.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

[mooeypoo]

Let's stick to the topic of God and why we believe or not believe in him/her/it/they/that.

 

Now, Mosheh, look, friend, you're making really bad arguments here, and it's rather hard to figure out where to start.

 

For one, lket me give you an example:

The question of god.. cannot ever be answered... but we can discuss the evidence.. and nothing has every suggested that the universe is chaos and random formation..

 

Great, you want to discuss the evidence for the question of god, but instead you go for evidence of "randomness".

• First, randomness has nothing to do with the existence or lack thereof of god.
• Second, no matter how many rabbis told you this, scientists actually *don't* believe "everything is random"
• Third, there might be more than just the two options of "either god exists" or "it's all random", which makes your switch a fallacy we call "false dichotomy".

It's hard to start debating when the starting grounds are so slanted. We can try and take things step by step, but you need to be more focused. If you want to debate evolution (<sigh> again) fine, there are about a billion threads about it. Go read some. If you want to continue debating about why we should or shouldn't believe in god, then please concentrate on that issue.

 

And please bring evidence. "Proving" someone is wrong does not make you right, so even if you "prove" that there's no randomness in the world, it would still not prove god exists. Start bringing *positive* evidence.

 

We're a science forum, not a theology blog. Don't rant, don't preach, and don't push your personal blog. Please.

 

 

Also, if you don't mind, sentences contain a verb and end with a single dot, most often. It's rather hard to read your semi-broken trails of thought that are full of broken sentences. Make your point eloquently, you showed you can through your other posts. Take a second to edit yourself if you must, but really, it's hard to read you like this.

 

 

Post claims, read the counter claims, debate nicely. It's much more fun and enlightening this way, I promise.

 

~mooey

[Mosheh Thezion]

ok.. evidence... for non- randomness...

 

lets start big.... and work down to the small.

 

1) Superclusters... spirally expanding... (they look just like galaxies... but.. are made of galaxies.)

2) Galaxies... spirally expanding... from small clouds... expanding.. spinning.. outward... as proven by hubble.

3) stars in orbit of galaxies... with their planets... following this same pattern.. of spinning.. orbits (minus the evident expansion)

4) Atoms.. follow this in kind... spin of orbital electrons.

 

Here we have the basis.. for reality... truth... undeniable... symmetry ... beautiful repeating patterns... from the biggest to the smallest.

 

this alone... suggests natural patterns of design.. of nature....

 

Then... We include that stars leave behind core masses.. which are likenned to giant nucleons the size of planets.

This.. then is evidence... that matter.. IS NOT LIMITED TO EXISTENCE AS ONLY small neutrons and protons.... fact.

 

This all in turn suggests... a progressive break down.. from giant mass.. creating the super clusters... and the pieces... exploding to become the galaxies.. and each piece... exploding to become the stars... and solar systems.

 

This being further evidenced by the massive objects at the center of galaxies.

 

This all suggest... the foundation of Atheism which is.. big bang.... is simply wrong.

 

This does not prove god.. of course... but it proves and suggests very loudly.. a natural pattern of repeating design... which gets a little different at each scale.

 

I do not see chaos or random events here... the evidence suggests... a pre-destined pattern of formation.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Edited April 10, 2012 by Mosheh Thezion

[seriously disabled]

There is good evidence that miracles have occurred, and miracles are possible only if he exists.

 

I tend to disagree with this. If there is a God, then why are innocent children in impoverished nations starving to death then? If the good things that happen to people can be attributed to God's doing then the bad things that happen to people can be as well.

Edited April 10, 2012 by seriously disabled

[immortal]

If the good things that happen to people can be attributed to God's doing then the bad things that happen to people can be as well.

 

Agreed.

 

 

If there is a God, then why are innocent children in impoverished nations starving to death then?

 

 

He neither wants to stop the drought nor he wants innocent children to suffer from such droughts ever.

[seriously disabled]

He neither wants to stop the drought nor he wants innocent children to suffer from such droughts ever.

 

That's because he doesn't exist, at least not as theists like to define God.

 

Please read up on theological noncognitivism:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

[Villain]

If you're not of the opinion that man created the universe, then would you look to man to tell you who did?

 

Saying that you don't believe in God because you don't like what He has done doesn't make much sense to me. If you decide that He exists, then follow His word, for you will surely know that he created everything and is all powerful, as Immortal has already pointed out. If you decide that He doesn't exist then why do you refer to scriptures of His existence (to those that have)? There is as much logic in trying to use the scriptures to prove that He exists as there is in using them to prove that He doesn't.

[immortal]

That's because he doesn't exist, at least not as theists like to define God.

 

Please read up on theological noncognitivism:

 

http://en.wikipedia...._noncognitivism

 

If you go by theological noncognitivism then the question Does God exists? is meaningless.

 

Here you have chose to define God in your own terms and have assumed what he has to do and what he doesn't have to do rejecting the theists definition of God. Don't you realize that you're argument is logically flawed based on your own way of theological noncognitivism? Why is your argument any more better than that of the theists?

[seriously disabled]

If you go by theological noncognitivism then the question Does God exists? is meaningless.

 

Here you have chose to define God in your own terms and have assumed what he has to do and what he doesn't have to do rejecting the theists definition of God. Don't you realize that you're argument is logically flawed based on your own way of theological noncognitivism? Why is your argument any more better than that of the theists?

 

So lets say that theological noncogntivism is false because God can be meaningfully defined.

 

But this still raises a few contradictions. I was always taught that god is both omnipotent (he can do anything) and eternal (he can never die.) That leaves me asing the question, "Can God commit suicide?" This is similar to the question "Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift?"

 

Also we have always been told that god is all around us and inside us at the same time so why does it matter for people to go to church, mass, temple, etc? if he is everywhere, why is a church a more special place? why do people gather to worship when they can just do it in their heads while making coffee?

 

Also if God is really everywhere then he must be inside the cells of my body organs as well, including my brain but I can prove it wrong with simple evidence.

[Villain]

So lets say that theological noncogntivism is false because God can be meaningfully defined.

 

But this still raises a few contradictions. I was always taught that god is both omnipotent (he can do anything) and eternal (he can never die.) That leaves me asing the question, "Can God commit suicide?" This is similar to the question "Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift?"

 

Also we have always been told that god is all around us and inside us at the same time so why does it matter for people to go to church, mass, temple, etc? if he is everywhere, why is a church a more special place? why do people gather to worship when they can just do it in their heads while making coffee?

 

Also if God is really everywhere then he must be inside the cells of my body organs as well, including my brain but I can prove it wrong with simple evidence.

 

If God created everything then your cells are from God, what are you trying to prove?

[seriously disabled]

If God created everything then your cells are from God, what are you trying to prove?

 

If my cells are from God then I can use the argument from poor design to prove that this wrong:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

 

Richard Dawkins' in his book "In the blind watchmaker" makes a similar argument for the argument of poor design.

Edited April 10, 2012 by seriously disabled

[Villain]

If my cells are from God then I can use the argument from poor design to prove that this wrong:

 

http://en.wikipedia....rom_poor_design

 

Richard Dawkins' in his book "In the blind watchmaker" makes a similar argument for the argument of poor design.

 

Compared to what?

[immortal]

So lets say that theological noncogntivism is false because God can be meaningfully defined.

 

But this still raises a few contradictions. I was always taught that god is both omnipotent (he can do anything) and eternal (he can never die.) That leaves me asing the question, "Can God commit suicide?"

 

Now this is quite tricky but he can act like he is really dead.

 

This is similar to the question "Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift?"

 

God can chose to create anything and chose to do anything with it. He can create a stone and chose to lift it or not to lift it.

 

Also we have always been told that god is all around us and inside us at the same time so why does it matter for people to go to church, mass, temple, etc? if he is everywhere, why is a church a more special place? why do people gather to worship when they can just do it in their heads while making coffee?

 

Religious superstition, there are people who doesn't visit such places and believe that he exists everywhere.

 

Also if God is really everywhere then he must be inside the cells of my body organs as well, including my brain but I can prove it wrong with simple evidence.

 

Philosophers have been arguing for a while whether they can prove the existence of an external physical world independent of the mind. If cells, brain and other organs existed only in our minds and our minds were made of God's stuff then it would prove that God is everywhere so unless you can prove what kind of external physical world exists out there you cannot disprove his existence based on that argument.

[seriously disabled]

Philosophers have been arguing for a while whether they can prove the existence of an external physical world independent of the mind.

 

What do you mean by "external"? We are never really outside our body, unless you believe in out-of-body experiences which I don't.

 

If cells, brain and other organs existed only in our minds and our minds were made of God's stuff then it would prove that God is everywhere so unless you can prove what kind of external physical world exists out there you cannot disprove his existence based on that argument.

 

But evidence show that the mind needs the brain in order to exist. The mind cannot exist without a working brain.

 

For example see:

 

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_mind_brain/

Edited April 10, 2012 by seriously disabled

[immortal]

What do you mean by "external"? We are never really outside our body, unless you believe in out-of-body experiences which I don't.

 

Does the moon exists out there when we are not observing it? Does an Apple fall in the external physical world or does it fall only in our minds? These are the philosophical implications of quantum physics on which much of the debate between Einstein and Bohr resorted into. There is no need to bring out-of-body experiences into this argument. We cannot really say whether something exists independent of the mind, scientific realism is an assumption.

 

 

But evidence show that the mind needs the brain in order to exist. The mind cannot exist without a working brain.

 

For example see:

 

http://www.strongath...rom_mind_brain/

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-entanglement

 

Not necessarily an external mind could create an reality in such a way that it is brain itself is the cause of such experiences and make us perceive it with in the world picture.

[mooeypoo]

ok.. evidence... for non- randomness...

We don't care about that, because we don't believe it was random.

 

This is called a strawman. It's not only a fallacy, it's counter productive to the argument. You're arguing against something we are *not* claiming.

 

This thread is about the justification for the existence of GOD. If you want to discuss evidence, it needs to be about the existence (or lack thereof) of GOD.

 

 

If you want to discuss the evidence of evolution, open a new thread in the Religion forum. I'm sure there will be buyers.

 

 

~mooey

 

Does the moon exists out there when we are not observing it? Does an Apple fall in the external physical world or does it fall only in our minds? These are the philosophical implications of quantum physics on which much of the debate between Einstein and Bohr resorted into. There is no need to bring out-of-body experiences into this argument. We cannot really say whether something exists independent of the mind, scientific realism is an assumption.

All of these are physical phenomena that were explained by physics, not by the bible. In fact, for thousands of years of belief in God, mankind was OBLIVIOUS to the explanation of why these happen until proper science emerged, incrementally, explaining them.

 

They are not evidence for God. If anything, they're evidence of why science works.

 

 

The fact we "can't really say" means only that we can't really say. It doesn't mean it's true. We can't really say that invisible pink unicorns exists either, but that's not a good reason to believe in them or worship them.

 

 

 

Try again.

 

 

http://www.guardian....um-entanglement

 

Not necessarily an external mind could create an reality in such a way that it is brain itself is the cause of such experiences and make us perceive it with in the world picture.

 

If your definition of "God" is "anything natural" then why should I even worship it? If that's what you use, then we only differ on definition. I call it "nature" and explain it scientifically, and you call it "god" and explain it scientifically (entanglement was not discovered by reading the scriptures, was it)

 

You claim that not only is there a God, but that there's a God that we should worship, a God that answers prayer and has a plan.

You need to bring evidence for that kind of God.

I put up a list of evidence from the scripture about how God is merciless and promotes horrific behavior. You have skipped explaining this issue. That's not just a problem of god "letting us" make mistakes, those are examples of God ordering people to murder and rape. If rape is immoral, and God orders rape, then god is immoral. Unless, of course, you disagree that rape is immoral. Or, of course, you disagree that god is moral. Or you disagree that the scripture is true?

 

Stop dismissing this issue. It's a big one.

 

And please stop beating around the bush. This thread demands a positive evidence for the existence fo God. It's "what is your justification for believing", and you need to bring evidence for God's existence, not of the other claim's "falseness".

 

Even if you prove the other claim false, that doesn't mean the only alternative is "God". You need to bring evidence God exists, or you will not be convincing anyone.

 

Please relate to my claims directly from the scripture. I posted a list, and then a link with quite a large number of orders by God and from God about murdering children, raping women, and other lovely atrocities. From the scripture that's supposedly God's word.

 

~mooey

[seriously disabled]

 

Does the moon exists out there when we are not observing it?

 

What you are describing is the famous Bell's theorem.

 

http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

 

Einstein (sadly) died before Bell's Theorem appeared. He likely would have changed his opinion about local realism (Albert Einstein believed in local realism) had he known about it. Experiments support the ideas of Quantum Mechanics in this area quite solidly.

 

There is no need to bring out-of-body experiences into this argument. We cannot really say whether something exists independent of the mind, scientific realism is an assumption.

 

What you are arguing for is solipsism or subjective idealism which has been disproved. For example here:

 

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/10/subjective-idealism.html

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2011871

 

You say objective realism is an assumption but so is the existence of the mind. A theory makes more than one measurable prediction and this should apply to the theory of mind as well.

Edited April 10, 2012 by seriously disabled

[immortal]

All of these are physical phenomena that were explained by physics, not by the bible. In fact, for thousands of years of belief in God, mankind was OBLIVIOUS to the explanation of why these happen until proper science emerged, incrementally, explaining them.

 

They are not evidence for God. If anything, they're evidence of why science works.

 

 

The fact we "can't really say" means only that we can't really say. It doesn't mean it's true. We can't really say that invisible pink unicorns exists either, but that's not a good reason to believe in them or worship them.

 

Try again.

 

The spirit of science is upheld when it honestly accepts that one of its fundamental assumptions is false and when the Gnostics and the mystics, the people who have faith have concluded about the nature of reality in the same way science as concluded with its own tools then its quite compelling to worship God.

 

If people around the globe had described about unicorns again and again in their revealed truths I would have believed in unicorns.

 

If your definition of "God" is "anything natural" then why should I even worship it? If that's what you use, then we only differ on definition. I call it "nature" and explain it scientifically, and you call it "god" and explain it scientifically (entanglement was not discovered by reading the scriptures, was it)

 

You claim that not only is there a God, but that there's a God that we should worship, a God that answers prayer and has a plan.

You need to bring evidence for that kind of God.

 

No, God cannot be found in the natural world, there cannot be positive evidence of God in the empirical world, I never said that entanglement was direct evidence of God, it was to show that the claim God is everywhere is not disproved simply based on the assumptions of scientific realism.

 

God exists in his own numinous world, science and its method has nothing to do with God.

 

I put up a list of evidence from the scripture about how God is merciless and promotes horrific behavior. You have skipped explaining this issue. That's not just a problem of god "letting us" make mistakes, those are examples of God ordering people to murder and rape. If rape is immoral, and God orders rape, then god is immoral. Unless, of course, you disagree that rape is immoral. Or, of course, you disagree that god is moral. Or you disagree that the scripture is true?

 

Stop dismissing this issue. It's a big one.

 

And please stop beating around the bush. This thread demands a positive evidence for the existence fo God. It's "what is your justification for believing", and you need to bring evidence for God's existence, not of the other claim's "falseness".

 

Even if you prove the other claim false, that doesn't mean the only alternative is "God". You need to bring evidence God exists, or you will not be convincing anyone.

 

Please relate to my claims directly from the scripture. I posted a list, and then a link with quite a large number of orders by God and from God about murdering children, raping women, and other lovely atrocities. From the scripture that's supposedly God's word.

 

~mooey

 

The Holy scriptures are not the only source of religious truths even the oral traditions are and they give us revealed truths, you used the holy scripture to show that God is immoral where as I used the oral traditions to show that he is morally perfect, omnipotent and omniscient. That doesn't mean there are contradictions in the Holy scriptures and the oral traditions its just the latter people interpret the scripture differently. If you're arguing from the Bible then you need to accept the revealed truths of oral traditions or say we don't know about God.

 

That's not the point, if people around the globe had described about unicorns again and again I would have believed in unicorns, its the strong correlations in different disconnected oral traditions around the globe is the reason for my belief, that's convincing enough for me to worship him.

 

Its the job of theologians to bring positive evidence of God and its enough justification for theologians to worship him. It meets the criteria for their magisteria.

 

What you are describing is the famous Bell's theorem.

 

http://www.drchinese...m_Easy_Math.htm

 

Einstein (sadly) died before Bell's Theorem appeared. He likely would have changed his opinion had he known about it. Experiments support the ideas of Quantum Mechanics in this area quite solidly.

 

Yes it supports QM, in fact the ideas of QM itself leans towards subjective idealism and questions the assumption of scientific realism which is assumed to be true and taken for granted.

 

What you are arguing for is solipsism or subjective idealism which has been disproved. For example here:

 

http://skeptico.blog...e-idealism.html

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2011871

 

Care to read your links again, it says subjective idealism is unfalsifiable, a rejection of an hypothesis doesn't mean the idea is false.

 

You say objective realism is an assumption but so is the existence of the mind. A theory makes more than one measurable prediction and this should apply to the theory of mind as well.

 

That's not the point, you tried to say that religious claims contradicted science and you said they can be disproved, not far as I can see. Religious claims stands on its own.