EVIDENCE

423 posts / 0 new
Last post
calhais's picture
Presumably, nothing. One of

Presumably, nothing. One of the problems here is that any `scientific evidence' for the existence of God would be relatively new, and it wouldn't be publishable because there's a stigma in science about religious claims. I won't comment on whether it's justified, but it's there--at least, it's there anecdotally. For that reason, among others, there exists no acceptable scientific evidence for the existence of God. I wonder whether you would be satisfied to have converted an atheist solely on scientific grounds, though. Wouldn't you consider that as an insincere reason to believe in . . . who is it with you . . . Allah , since scientific evidence relies on the authority of living persons?

Sheldon's picture
That's a stupid question, as

That's a stupid question, as I have said in this very thread already. However try reading the OP, and note the phrase in asterisks.

"EVIDENCE
Here it is then, this thread is for theists and the religious to demonstrate the ***best objective evidence*** they have for the existence of any deity.

Any logically fallacious arguments will be called, and Hitchens's razor will be applied as and when it is appropriate. Please be concise and don't resort to flimflam or vapid verbiage that leads nowhere. The first person to suggest I need to learn ancient Aramaic will be asked politely to leave. The idea an omniscient deity is also a monoglot is too stupid an idea to waste time on.

Off you go...our eternal souls are at stake...allegedly."

Searching for truth's picture
@calhais,

@calhais,

While everyone is free to believe what they want, who said that science has to be the reason or evidence in order for someone to believe? Scientific concepts, theories and methods change over time. I was even told on these forums that scientific laws can change. So why would science be the measuring stick for god if it constantly changes? Assuming a person believes in a god that does not change

Sheldon's picture
Science is our best method

Science is our best method for validating claims and ideas about the reality we experience. However we don't need a measuring stick for god, anymore than we need one for unicorns, until someone evidence a deity. Also it's theists who are the one's obsessing with science in this thread, the OP just asks for the best objective evidence anyone has for a deity, and so far nada.

calhais's picture
Who said that science has to

Who said that science has to be the reason or evidence in order for someone to believe?

As Sheldon demonstrated, the answer is `the guy [edit: who thinks] you're trying to convert [him].'

Searching for truth's picture
@calhais

@calhais

What? I am not trying to convert anyone. Just trying to see what is considered evidence. Before any conversation can be meaning full both parties need to at least agree on what is considered evidence. Which is why I mentioned the measuring stick, you can't have a meaningful conversation if both parties believe everything is subjective. Establish and agree to what acceptable evidence is then, try having a meaningful conversation.
Oh, and science can't be used as evidence to prove god since it's ever changing and god(in most religions) is constant. You can use science to help prove your point but, can't use it as the sole evidence.

calhais's picture
I've revised my comment.

I've revised my comment. Yes, epistemology is one of the the roots of the divide between atheists and theists. No, you probably won't get anywhere with that on this forum. @Greensnake might turn out on another forum topic, but we'll see.

Sheldon's picture
Who cares what anyone thinks

Who cares what anyone thinks is evidence. I gave a very specific request in the OP, and either someone can demonstrate objective evidence or they cannot. So demonstrate your best objective evidence for a deity, if you have any.

God is certainly not constant, the idea and perception of deities changes over time and always has. You may have noticed Zeus and Thor have fallen out of favour. You yourself never tire of telling us that all Muslims are not the same, so quite obviously Muslim's perception of what they perceive as god is changing all the time. It's influenced by all sorts of things. Humans create deities in their own image, not the other way around.

"You can use science to help prove your point but, can't use it as the sole evidence."

I don't think you understand how science works at all, but it doesn't prove anything, it gathers and tests evidence. Enough objective evidence can be validated establish something as a scientific fact beyond any reasonable doubt, but all facts remain tentative, or else science would not be able to correct errors. Just as religions are forced to cling to archaic myths that are demonstrably false, like creationism and denying species evolution, even though the evidence makes the stance absurd. Just because a scientific fact must be tentative, doesn't mean it is ever likely to be reversed. There are objective facts, established beyond any reasonable doubt, but there is no such thing as absolute truth, this is one those erroneous claims religions try to make.

calhais's picture
Who cares what anyone thinks

Who cares what anyone thinks is evidence.

Um, anyone who hopes to respond to the OP. You should find it obvious that you can't intentionally provide evidence without knowing what evidence is.

Sheldon's picture
Which is why I said

Which is why I said specifically the best objective evidence they have, in the OP, and every time since.

It's irrational to ask those who disbelieve a claim that they don't think has been properly evidenced , what the evidence should be. That's not for me to say. What evidence would convince you there was an invisible unicorn following you around that couldn't be detected in any empirical way? Firstly (avoids) searching for truth has to properly define his deity. Abstract unfalsifiable concepts won't do, and subjectiveanevdotal claims are worthless, as are appeals to blind faith.

We all know what evidence is, we all know, or should know, what objective means. So allowing theists to present the best (why would anyone start with anything else?) objective evidence they have for their deity is clear enough I'd have thought.

The question seems to me to be offered as a peremptory wriggle. Just as (avoids) searching for truth is doing by making arbitrary claims about the limits of science. It's easier I suppose for the credulous to attack science and empirical objective evidence, than admit they can't demonstrate any for their beliefs.

Someone actually started his spiel with the declaration that science was meaningless, and there was no such thing as objective evidence.

I can't say what is accept before it's presented. However it's axiomatic that if theists could demonstrate evidence for a deity comparable to the evidence science has validated for (example) species evolution then I'd be inclined to accept it. Assuming of course the method was as demonstrable effective as science has been.

calhais's picture
Which is why I said

Which is why I said specifically the best objective evidence they have, in the OP, and every time since.

Are you trying to say that you think writing the words `best objective' before the word `evidence' makes it clear what passes for evidence? It should also be obvious to you that that doesn't work, with SfT being the first example of why it doesn't work coming to mind.

We all know what evidence is, we all know, or should know, what objective means.

Rotten premise. I'm sure you've seen this disproven plenty of times already. Update, Sheldon, update.

Why would anyone start with anything [but their best objective evidence]?

Dramatic effect. I agree, it's yucky.

Sheldon's picture
"Are you trying to say that

"Are you trying to say that you think writing the words `best objective' before the word `evidence' makes it clear what passes for evidence?"

No, just the type of evidence that might be considered valid. They still spent many pages offering subjective argument, personal experience, and anecdotal claims anyway.

"It should also be obvious to you that that doesn't work, with SfT being the first example of why it doesn't work coming to mind."

I agree, but this is why I was specific in my request as to what I was looking for. No theists or apologist has to post anything if they don't care that they have no objective evidence. I seriously doubt sft is open minded enough to grasp what it means, certainly his contributions suggest not.

"Rotten premise. I'm sure you've seen this disproven plenty of times already. Update, Sheldon, update."

My apologies, I shouldn't have said all. I was clarifying my position, but yes you are correct many theists and apologists demonstrate clearly that they don't know, or don't care, whether what they think is evidence is objective or not.

"Dramatic effect. I agree, it's yucky."

I never thought of that to be honest, yes they seem to think they are building towards something. I always got the sense they think quantity will change subjective claims into objective evidence, as if it's invalid on its own, but if you present enough of it in tandem it becomes compelling. Yucky, good word for it.

calhais's picture
K. Mostly on par. Doubting

K. Mostly on par. Doubting that someone is thoughtful enough to grasp a key condition for responding to the OP is a bad reason to suspend clarification of the OP; I stand by that you should explicitly define empirical or scientific evidence.

arakish's picture
What would count as E–V–I–D–E

What would count as E–V–I–D–E–N–C–E?

Scientific Method is the best method which can be used to derive the true facts and truth of our reality.

Scientific Evidence, also known as Empirical Evidence, Objective Evidence, Objective Empirical Evidence, can only be scientific evidence if it is testable and falsifiable. Sometimes it has even been called Hard Empirical Evidence or Objective Hard Empirical Evidence.

Although I cannot prove it, since I have no video or audio, and it is only hearsay, I was at a speech Lawrence Krauss made at the university I was attending where he actally used the term OHEE (Objective Hard Empirical Evidence). And that is where I stole the term.

First, a Scientific Hypothesis must be formulated. A Scientific Hypothesis (Hypothesis hereafter) is an educated guess about how a certain phenomenon occurs and what may cause it to occur as observed. This Hypothesis MUST be testable and capable of being falsified, else it is NOT a Hypothesis. Else it is nothing but a fantastical presumtion. Additionally, the Hypothesis must also be able to provide "predictions" as to what may occur in an experiment testing that Hypothesis. The Scientific Method does not try to prove a Hypothesis, instead it tries to disprove the Hypothesis. Only when it has gone through many rigorous cylces of testing, each test permutated in an attempt to disprove the Hypothesis, then AND only then may a journal article/paper be written and submitted.

After submission, the journal article/paper, hereafter Paper, is peer-reviewed (evaluation of a scientific, academic, professional, medical work by others of similar competence in the same field as the producers of the Paper) by many individual as the validity of the Paper. Additionally, many others in the same field will reproduce the experiments in the Paper. These experiments are actually reproduced in such a way in the attempt to disprove the Paper. This peer-review process can take many years. For example, my dissertation took five years to be approved (2010-2015) for publication.

Although I cannot think of any, it is hypothetically possible that a Hypothesis could take decades before it is proven to be a Scientific Theory.

A simplified explanation of the difference between a Scientific Theory and a Scientific Law/Principle is that the Theory explains WHY a phenomenon occurs; whereas, a Law/Principle HOW a phenomenon occurs.

Now here is the tricky part. What is the ONLY unanswerable question? Answer later.

Bascially a Scientific Theory can be said to be a proven Scientific Hypothesis.

Now here comes the preposterous part.

There is no religious claim that can be testable AND falsifiable when the Scientific Method is applied. Not one.

And that is the reason why it is justified that no religious Paper can be submitted for publication. There is absolutely no Scientific Evidence, Empirical Evidence, Objective Evidence, Objective Empirical Evidence for any religious claim.

Now to answer that question from earlier:

Q: What is the ONLY unanswerable question?
A: Why? Because no matter what answer you can supply, I could still ask, "Why?"

And that is why Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws/Principles CAN and DO change over time. Other Scientific Hypotheses are formulated, and when they prove that a Scientific Theory and/or Scientific Law/Principle is incorrect, we change it to fit the new proofs. This is something no religion is capable of admitting. At least when us scientists prove ourselves wrong, we admit it. Theists/Religionists cannot. Shall not.

If anyone still does not understand this, then research it for yourself.

rmfr

calhais's picture
The most obvious problem here

The most obvious problem here is that you set out to define scientific evidence but never gave a definition. You gave plenty in the way of errata, but you didn't even come close to fulfilling the purpose of the comment.

Searching for truth's picture
“No, you probably won't get

@calhais

“No, you probably won't get anywhere with that on this forum” Yes, I have noticed that. The problem with most people here is they reply to what they think was implied or wish was said rather, than what was actually said. It’s funny because if you ever watched any Atheists debate religious scholars, most of the time they actually do agree on what the evidence is but, then they disagree either on its meaning or application. The biggest problem here is that Atheists and Theists cannot agree on what evidence is, which is why 99% of the time everyone gets nowhere. Heck, even put the famous Atheists aside, most Atheists (not the famous ones) for the most part, actually have a respectful conversation with theists. While they do not always agree (they often do) they still have a basis for their conversation and can actually learn from each other. Which is the 100% exact opposite of goes on here. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and just assume they are being this senseless simply because everyone is hiding behind a computer, I highly doubt ¼ of the bs that gets said here would even get said in real life. If anyone asking for any form of evidence, first they must establish which god and secondly, an agreed up acceptable evidence must be established otherwise, its just a waste of time.

You can find a bunch of your average theists and atheists videos talking/debating on YouTube

Sheldon's picture
You any closer to

You any closer to demonstrating any objective evidence here? Or is the usual vapid point scoring all you have?

calhais's picture
The biggest problem here is

The biggest problem here is that Atheists and Theists cannot agree on what evidence is, which is why 99% of the time everyone gets nowhere.

No. The biggest problem on this forum is that we dislike discussing epistemology. The idea that something could lessen the divide between atheism and theism would be unpopular here because most of the users seem to think it's fun to play tribal games, even though they ultimately reduce to a `me-good you-bad' mentality. I doubt if you are any different, unless you'd like to discuss epistemology. Not sure you caught what I did there, but it's hard to avoid being tribal.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
I think it is hard for many

I think it is hard for many atheist/critical thinkers to get overly swayed by epistemology.

It is essentially on the label, interesting! I'm sure we are all interesting in discovering the distinction between justified belief and opinion.
However, A lot of theists move the goal posts in most discussions, lack the ability to clearly define what they are talking about and their most famous piers such as William Lane Craig try to make claims linked to concepts, theories or laws under the umbrella of science and the scientific method.

This makes it very difficult to take the discussion seriously.

For example, using the aforementioned Lane Craig. He uses science and epistemology in debate to argue that the universe is necessary and therefore must have a creator.

Yet, he seems to have dim grasp of inflation and other theories and models that fairly dispute this, let alone the other notions such as the arrow of time.

Simply put I think the real issue is atheist and/or sceptical thinkers would just like things clearly defined and explained in order to start a rational debate.

And for the theist to humbly accept that what we tend to discuss is the nature of the universe and its contents, reality and so fourth.
To invoke your deity, we have to step into a sphere that is ill-defined, untestable, unprovable and by definition does not comport to reality.

This is why many theologians despise the multiverse argument, as it is of sorts not something we can grasp nor does it appear to be in our direct reality, and yet claims are made that undermine what you understand to be true.

Sorry for the ramble, I've only had 3 hours sleep lol.

calhais's picture
That `arrow of time' isn't a

That `arrow of time' isn't a great concept as-is, so I find it hard to blame L. Craig for throwing it all over the place.

Simply put I think the real issue is atheist and/or skeptical thinkers would just like things clearly defined and explained in order to start a rational debate.

As soon as empirical evidence becomes the center of debate, theists tend to ask for the same as you claim atheists want. The burden of providing definition lies with those who want to debate, not with those who don't. I would call lack of definition the real issue in the sense that it's the tactical point of failure in a lot of these discussions, but the real issue--the source of disagreement, generally speaking--is epistemology; theists and atheists do not hold the same standards of belief.

To invoke your deity, we have to step into a sphere that is ill-defined, untestable, unprovable and by definition does not comport to reality.

So what? Without an underlying epistemology--how do we know what is testable, what is provable, what is falsifiable, what is righteous--what meaning does that statement have? It's preaching to the choir. Give me a hand: define your terms.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Well that is surprising to

Well that is surprising to hear, So you do not think that in an isolated system that entropy tends to increase with time?
And I do find it easy to blame L.Craig, because he does not have a solid grasp of the field and has been wrong on many occasions regarding it.

However moving on,

It would appear that on the whole that a theistic concept of belief is an emotional construct whereas an atheistic or in my case, a naturalistic concept of belief is in the material.

What do you think?

I mean, Let us take a hypothetical and make the premise as so, 'The universe is proven to have been in a steady state prior to the big bang with nothing required to create it'

Let us accept this premise for a moment, would this sway you away from your religion? or would it be fair to say your emotional bond/belief be that strong, most theists would resist this?

For me, a single shred of strong evidence would persuade me to at the least delve into theology more and perhaps believe..

calhais's picture
So you do not think that in

So you do not think that in an isolated system that entropy tends to increase with time?

Of course I don't! You can repair or remake a shattered teacup without going backward in time. The entropy of a causally isolated system strictly increases with time, but the entropy in such a system can rather decrease as long as the prior rule is observed. Intro. physics; whoever thought the `arrow of time' was a good metaphor should be sent back to grade school for English lessons.

It would appear that on the whole that a theistic concept of belief is an emotional construct whereas an atheistic or in my case, a naturalistic concept of belief is in the material.

I mean, it's really dishonest to make that assertion without giving evidence; if you're only speculating, then don't phrase it as an assertion. It's utterly naive to assume that anything you or I do is devoid of emotional influence, and I have no idea whether atheism or theism is emotionally driven to a greater degree. Good luck with the research that line of speculating entails.

I mean, Let us take a hypothetical and make the premise as so, 'The universe is proven to have been in a steady state prior to the big bang with nothing required to create it'

Let us accept this premise for a moment, would this sway you away from your religion? or would it be fair to say your emotional bond/belief be that strong, most theists would resist this?

For me, a single shred of strong evidence would persuade me to at the least delve into theology more and perhaps believe..

Well, no, it wouldn't sway me, and I can tell because I haven't swayed. I also know that the reason it wouldn't sway me doesn't have a whole lot to do with the presence of emotion; rather it wouldn't sway me since I can consider hypotheticals without believing that they're true. If I did believe that the universe has been proven to have been in a steady state prior to the big bang with nothing required to create it, then literally anything would follow because that simply isn't what I believe. I would argue that any theist who has an internalized definition of `proof' that would lead them to believe that the universe is proven to have been in a steady state prior to the big bang with nothing required to create it wouldn't necessarily have to cease being a theist because there are arbitrarily many internalizable definitions of `proof' that sway past what might, to someone else, be seen as a contradiction. I think that as a matter of fact, however, most people who believe that the universe is proven to have been in a steady state prior to the big bang with nothing required to create it are not theists, and most who do not believe it are, since I suspect that it is more common for all of us to internalize definitions of `proof' that follow a tradition that emphasizes the opposition of theology and science.

I suspect that conversions to atheism tend to result from gradual changes in the internalized definition of `proof' consequent your temperament while deconversions and reconversions to atheism tend to happen for social reasons. Likewise, all, for theism.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
You can repair or remake a

You can repair or remake a shattered teacup without going backward in time

Ah, the demon rears his face.
By introducing yourself / influencing the system, It would therefore become an open system and therefore your act of decreasing the entropy of teacup by mending it would take a huge amount of work/energy.
So you will actually find that the total entropy increases overall.

Furthermore, I stand by my claim which was not that the arrow of time is in any case correct,
but that people like L.Craig do not understand it and misinterpret it every time.

Your other point are with merit, I perhaps went to far with asserting that on the whole theistic belief is emotionally driven.
If that bothers you I do apologise, with that said though it tends to be what I have experienced from my formative years as well as growing up in predominately highly religious family and early education.

Yes I suppose we do have different interpretations for proof, For me my rejection of the religion I was born into was simply that the only merit they had was morality and that was underpinned by the miracles performed.
Yet in my head I know none of them can be physically done or repeated and thus I could dismiss it as being fraudulent in regards to the later, whereas with the former (morals) I think it is far more obvious that it is a societal construct.

But that is simply my opinion and point of view.

calhais's picture
Ah, the demon rears his face.

Ah, the demon rears his face.

You need to work on your metaphors, man.

By introducing yourself / influencing the system, It would therefore become an open system and therefore your act of decreasing the entropy of teacup by mending it would take a huge amount of work/energy.

That's wrong, and it has nothing to do with the arrow of time. There isn't anything to stop me from defining myself as a member of the system, and, since the arrow of time describies the universe rather than subsystems, I am a part of the system already. Yes, total entropy strictly increases; I said that already. If you have an axe to grind then I don't want to hear about it.

Sapporo's picture
It would be helpful if "god"

It would be helpful if "god" was defined.

Randomhero1982's picture
Imaginary

Imaginary

calhais's picture
Wonderful counterexample; it

Wonderful counterexample; it might not be helpful if god were defined.

Searching for truth's picture
@ blindwatchmaker

@ blindwatchmaker

“I think it is hard for many atheist/critical thinkers to get overly swayed by epistemology.” Well, I hope you are not saying that atheists are critical thinkers, at least not all of them. I can tell you that 99% of the ones here are not. They think they are because they are constantly asking questions but, they are asking irrelevant and thoughtless questions. I have noticed when people ask questions here about any religion they tend to already have an answer which in most cases has nothing to even do with the question to begin with. Just muddying the waters which results in nothing more than a waste of time.

“I'm sure we are all interesting in discovering the distinction between justified belief and opinion.” Yes, I would assume we are. However, you can’t justify anything rationally without having something objective to measure it against. Hence, the measuring stick I keep talking about.

“However, A lot of theists move the goal posts in most discussions, lack the ability to clearly define what they are talking about” I have NOT found this to be trust, at least from the threads I have read. The problem or issue I have noticed to be the biggest hurdle is communication. There is a LOT of miscommunication between both parties, atheists and theists this mainly a results of 2 things in my opinion 1) quoting things out of contexts and 2) Many atheists simply do NOT understand the belief of the person they are addressing. The tend to always clutter up “gods” together when talking to 1 person of a particular faith, form experience I know this for sure since it has happened to me many times. I am not trying to throw the blame solely on Atheists here but, that is my opinion based off my personal experience on these forums so far. Even your post that I am replying to seems to do this as well, you are referring to William Lane Craig but, then you say “And for the theist to humbly accept…” by saying Theist or Theists you are suggesting that all theists follow or believe William Craig. William Craig is a Christian, I am a Muslim, therefore, you can’t say “Theist” or Theists, you should say Christians. This is the reason I agree with you saying “This makes it very difficult to take the discussion seriously.” You (and all Atheists) need to be specific to whom you are referring to when you are speaking so the appropriate person (if around) can address what you are saying. Please stop throwing all theists under the same umbrella because it will make it nearly impossible for a meaningful discussion.

“To invoke your deity, we have to step into a sphere that is ill-defined, untestable, unprovable and by definition does not comport to reality.” Not true, if you stop lumping them all together and ask the person you are talking to, to define who they believe in and to define their god, I am sure they will. When it comes to Islam, I can clearly define who and what Allah is (Chapter 112 of the Quran). If anyone would like to start a thread where we can have a meaningful and respectful conversation and exchange Ideas and thoughts, I would gladly participate.

“This is why many theologians despise the multiverse argument” Again, you are lumping all theologians under the same umbrella. Even though we, as Muslims do not believe in the multiverse argument, there is no harm in discussing it since even the multiverse ultimately needs a creator. So 1 universe or many, the result for us is still the same, it was all created.

I agree with what Sapporo said “It would be helpful if "god" was defined.” Yes, if anyone wants to start a thread asking for evidence, they should 1) Define the god 2) Define what constitutes as evidence. Even before defining what constitute as evidence they should actually look up the god of that religion and understand him first because then based off that, build the criteria for evidence. For example, as a Muslim, if someone came to me and said lets use ONLY science to prove or disprove Allah, I would not even entertain that conversation because that proves they do not understand Islam. The Quran says “Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord does witness all things?” Also as Dr. Zakir Naik said ““Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs, ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims, the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.”

So as said before, if someone is looking for ONLY science as evidence to prove or disprove Islam then they are wasting their time. Science can be used as a tool to help prove but, not the main and sole source of “evidence”. In the 3 major religions God is a constant and has not changed, science changes every day so you can’t use something that changes every day to disprove a constant.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Well, I hope you are not

Well, I hope you are not saying that atheists are critical thinkers

Did I say they were? Or did I make a distinction between the two? I will leave that to my fellow primates on here.
Furthermore, to claim that 99% of them are not is a gross over estimation in my humble opinion.

Even your post that I am replying to seems to do this as well, you are referring to William Lane Craig but, then you say “And for the theist to humbly accept…” by saying Theist or Theists you are suggesting that all theists follow or believe William Craig. William Craig is a Christian, I am a Muslim, therefore, you can’t say “Theist” or Theists, you should say Christians,

Well that is quite the strawman there, The point on William L Craig and the 'humbly accept' point, are entirely separate!

And not once did I conflate the two, nor did I say that all theists follow him, and I challenge you to point our where I did so.

Also, Christiaity and Islam are both theologies, they both reside under the umbrella of monotheism and thus their proponents are regarded as theist(s).

To clear up the two point though,

1. I said "A lot of theists move the goal posts in most discussions, lack the ability to clearly define what they are talking about"
I think the above has proven this, but lets delve a little more into what I said after the aforementioned quote,
"their most famous piers such as William Lane Craig try to make claims linked to concepts, theories or laws under the umbrella of science and the scientific method"

The key here is the words 'Such as', This does not imply that he is a pier for all groups, but that he is a pier of A GROUP.

Not true, if you stop lumping them all together and ask the person you are talking to, to define who they believe in and to define their god, I am sure they will.

Ah now this is interesting, So you believe your god comports to reality? Pray tell.

the multiverse ultimately needs a creator. So 1 universe or many, the result for us is still the same, it was all created

Oh dear, It literally is the opposite. But you are entitled to your opinion.
If you follow the multiverse concept as in the consequence of various theories and low energy laws of physics, you literally have no need for a deity nor any creation of any sorts.
As it is, the current model does not require any form of deistic creation and there is no evidence to support such a notion.

1) Define the god 2) Define what constitutes as evidence

I would enjoy to see theists actually do this, Christians and Muslims alike.
Personally it strikes me as strange that theists would come on to a site such as atheist republic where by definition, the people there have a lack of belief in a god and/or find there to be a distinct lack of evidence to support it.
But then expect them to play by their rules, quite odd I think.

So as said before, if someone is looking for ONLY science as evidence to prove or disprove Islam then they are wasting their time

well in closing all I will say is everything within the universe is explained by naturalistic reasoning.
i.e. you were born due to your parents procreating, and that principle follows all the way down to our distant primate ancestors, and continues all the way down to the simplest forms of life, single cells and so fourth.

This infinitely regresses to the big bang and beyond, and at no times is a deity required.

So yes I would agree that perhaps arguing a scientific point of view with a Muslim or any other denomination may be fruitless, But of either side (that being theism and atheism/naturalist) who appears to be able to demonstrate their 'beliefs' more accurately?
what model works best and is the most accurate? I don't think it is even remotely close.

Sheldon's picture
That's like asking you define

That's like asking you define a unicorn when you disbelieve someone else's claim they exist, and ask for evidence.

Especially since no two theists ever have the same definition. Many don't even have the same deity.

It's an open ended request for the best objective evidence so theists have the most latitude and scope I could give.

Your posts have shown clearly you don't know what critical thinking is, and your made up stats are simply risible, even as metaphor.

Define the deity you claim exists, then demonstrate the best objective evidence you have.

If you don't have any objective evidence then either say so, or just ignore the thread as it's not for you. All you're doing is attackingcatheism and atheists because they don't share your beliefs, without bothering to address a single objection any atheist raises.

For instance you have ignored questions that are directly salient to claims you have made.

If your deity is perfectly merciful why is there ubiquitous suffering?

If your prophet wrote a moral template from a perfect deity why does it condone killing murder.

If your prophet understood objective morality from a perfectly moral deity why did that deity not make him understand that the sexual abuse of 9 year old children can never be moral?

How can you claim the Koran is a blueprint for objective morality, then immediately insist it has to be subjectively interpreted?

These are just a sample of the questions you have dodged since you came here. If you want a respectful dialogue start by having the intellectual integrity to at least try and give candid answers to questions. Instead of preaching to atheists, with sententuous sermons.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.