Present Evidence Here II

[Mike Cl]

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.

I used to put stock in the 'absence of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist'  saying.  I don't much any more.  One could use that saying for a myriad of entities.  Thor, Zeus, Allah, Zoroaster, Pecos Bill, Paul Bunion, the Tooth Fairy, Tinker Bell, and on and on.  Put your god there as well.  So, for me the absence of ANY evidence is proof that there is none.  Especially for your god, for he has been around for 2000 years or so.  Still no evidence.  And you can smugly say that you want to cover all your bases so that you are 'right' even after death.  Fear driven stuff.  I' m not fearful of death. 

On a side note, the absence of evidence is proof when considering the existence of Jesus as well.  Not a single 'contemporary' (that is would be contemporary if Jesus were not a fiction) wrote of this fictional character.  Not any, zip, zero.  Jesus is in good company with his fictional father, your god.  Fiction.

[Mike Cl]

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.

"Holy Spirit"--that is fictional as well.  Simpy another way of putting your god.  You and I are not fictions--your god (don't worry, just like every other god as well) is.  Always was and always will be.  And that 'talking point' does apply whether you like it or not.  So, unknot your panties.

[cabinetmaker]

I used to put stock in the 'absence of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist'  saying.  I don't much any more.  One could use that saying for a myriad of entities.  Thor, Zeus, Allah, Zoroaster, Pecos Bill, Paul Bunion, the Tooth Fairy, Tinker Bell, and on and on.  Put your god there as well.  So, for me the absence of ANY evidence is proof that there is none.  Especially for your god, for he has been around for 2000 years or so.  Still no evidence.  And you can smugly say that you want to cover all your bases so that you are 'right' even after death.  Fear driven stuff.  I' m not fearful of death. 

On a side note, the absence of evidence is proof when considering the existence of Jesus as well.  Not a single 'contemporary' (that is would be contemporary if Jesus were not a fiction) wrote of this fictional character.  Not any, zip, zero.  Jesus is in good company with his fictional father, your god.  Fiction.

For a long time there was no evidence for, nor even the concept of, an atom.  And then a scientist hypothesized an atom but really had no way to test that hypothesis.  It has only been very recently that we have actually captured a picture of an atom and molecules.  Does this mean that in all the time that we had no evidence for atoms that they did not exist?  SOme times it takes a great deal of time and patience to find ways to explorer things in a definitive manor.

[Mike Cl]

For a long time there was no evidence for, nor even the concept of, an atom.  And then a scientist hypothesized an atom but really had no way to test that hypothesis.  It has only been very recently that we have actually captured a picture of an atom and molecules.  Does this mean that in all the time that we had no evidence for atoms that they did not exist?  SOme times it takes a great deal of time and patience to find ways to explorer things in a definitive manor.

In the case of the atom, you favorite axiom works--lack of evidence is not evidence for the existence of an atom.  But an atom had much more hypothetical evidence, even prior to the bible, than god does.  Eventually a person constructed a hypothesis that allowed for the testing of that hypothesis.  So far, there is no hypothesis that can be constructed about god much less tested for.   And god(s) have been around since mankind invented them from the beginning of humankind. 

I suppose one could say the bible is a proof of sorts of the existence of your god since it is called The Word of God.  Can it be shown that the bible is anything other than the work of man?  No.  Can it be shown there is really only one bible?  No.  Can it be shown that this Word was supplied everywhere at the same time?  No.  I would think that the bible simply is a set of documents that demonstrate that was cobbled together from many, many works, penned by many, many men and found in one general location of time and space.  It is not found universally all over the planet; not written in any other languages than those spoken in that location.  After reading it and considering what it says, it seems to prove that god and his word are an invention of humans.  Not any god or gods.

[Hakurei Reimu]

For a long time there was no evidence for, nor even the concept of, an atom.  And then a scientist hypothesized an atom but really had no way to test that hypothesis.  It has only been very recently that we have actually captured a picture of an atom and molecules.  Does this mean that in all the time that we had no evidence for atoms that they did not exist?  SOme times it takes a great deal of time and patience to find ways to explorer things in a definitive manor.

You're entire approach is wrong. We cannot dictate what exists and what doesn't. That something might exist does not constitute that there is serious reason to suppose that it does. The time to believe that atoms exist was when evidence turned up to indicate their existence. Similarly with your God: the time to believe that he exists is when evidence is uncovered to indicate his existence. Until then, God is not a serious proposition. It's like having faith that you have the winning lottery ticket before the numbers are announced. Okay, but until you have good reason to believe that your ticket is actually the winner (and no, your faith is not a good reason), you might want to reconsider buying that million-dollar mansion, and stop bugging us about loans that you promise you'll pay back until the money comes in.

[trdsf]

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.

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.

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.

.
.
.

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.

No, what you have been repeatedly saying is, "it doesn't rule out god":

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

If this is true, then could the stimuli that triggers the "religious experience response" be the presence of God in that persons experience?

That's not the same thing as saying you want more research.  That's front-loading your desired result.

What you should be saying is, "Why should being in a religious mindset look similar to an emotion and a drug?"

What you should be saying is, "Does the particular religious belief held by the subject has an effect on this reading, or is it common to all adherents regardless?  Is there a difference between monotheists and polytheists?  Are there differences between different sects of the same religion?"

What you should be saying is, "Is this something that requires religious belief, or can non-believers achieve this mental state as well?"

Ironically, you yourself threw all of this completely out the window when you then asserted:

The proof of God is not in the physical world.

Why bother looking any further into the MRI results?  Right here you've admitted there isn't any evidence and that you can't find any.

Conclusion: further study is of no relevance to you, you've made up your mind.  Don't try to change your tune when you've already left a clear trail.

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

Yes, exactly.  And this is why you cannot prejudice any research with "it doesn't rule out god".

Don't get me wrong, there are very few people that would be happier than me if all of a sudden we started receiving radio signals from there of unquestionably extraterrestrial origin.  But I have zero justification to say the presence of a planet "doesn't rule out aliens".  The presence of the planet says exactly nothing about whether anything living is there.  And more detailed research, absent positive evidence in the form of an unequivocal signal, will continue to say nothing about whether there's aliens there.  Even if we were able to spectrographically analyze its atmosphere and it turned up oxygen, that still says nothing about whether something's actually there, because there are non-living processes that can produce an oxygen atmosphere.

You are very obviously trying to say "let's see if a god is there" when all you're justified in saying is "let's see what's there".

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.

Then quit trying to front-load your conclusion, and we'll be on the same page.

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

You're certainly welcome to be here, but you're not entitled to manipulate the rules of scientific research.

You are welcome to your opinion.

Fair enough.

[Baruch]

"Holy Spirit"--that is fictional as well.  Simpy another way of putting your god.  You and I are not fictions--your god (don't worry, just like every other god as well) is.  Always was and always will be.  And that 'talking point' does apply whether you like it or not.  So, unknot your panties.

It is a metaphor ... for positive personal relationships.  People use it that way ... like Uncle Sam represents patriotism.  But since it is triggering to you ... I guess negative personal relationships are more your style?

Newspeak dictators can ban all the words you want, and ban poetry and fiction (aka fake news).  Good luck with that.  The Left is as rapacious as the Right.  There is Satan in both.

Sorry, I am not a Christian.  The Holy Spirit isn't my god, it is Cabinetmaker's (well one third anyway).  I am my own god, thank you very much.  Please be more careful who your post you are addressing otherwise it will be construed as misrepresentation.  I can understand the Christian Trinity, from my own POV, but it isn't a Christian POV, but Kabbalah.  In Sephirot there are ten parts of the godhead.  But I am not stuck on that particular model.

[Baruch]

Particularly those faithful (trusting) to Thales and Pythagoras ;-)  Materialism and rationalism are ... ideologies.

[Baruch]

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

True positive relationships are bidirectional and voluntary.  Between humans (metaphysical entities need not apply).  Geeks think that absolute knowledge of reality is ... doable, and something they should aim for ... because they are Brights, not Dims.  Theologians are no better than physicists.

[Baruch]

For a long time there was no evidence for, nor even the concept of, an atom.  And then a scientist hypothesized an atom but really had no way to test that hypothesis.  It has only been very recently that we have actually captured a picture of an atom and molecules.  Does this mean that in all the time that we had no evidence for atoms that they did not exist?  SOme times it takes a great deal of time and patience to find ways to explorer things in a definitive manor.

The atoms of Democritus, were shown thru nuclear physics, to not exist.  The atom is cuttable indeed.  So the use of "atom" as something that exits, is a bait-and-switch gambit, reusing an old term, for a new idea.  Tom exists not a-tom.  Aka "tomos" means cuttable in ancient Greek.  Your POV is Platonic ... and Plato was wrong about a lot of things too.  Physics isn't like geometry ... and Einstein showed that reality isn't Euclidean either.

[cabinetmaker]

The atoms of Democritus, were shown thru nuclear physics, to not exist.  The atom is cuttable indeed.  So the use of "atom" as something that exits, is a bait-and-switch gambit, reusing an old term, for a new idea.  Tom exists not a-tom.  Aka "tomos" means cuttable in ancient Greek.  Your POV is Platonic ... and Plato was wrong about a lot of things too.  Physics isn't like geometry ... and Einstein showed that reality isn't Euclidean either.

Look up John Dalton.

[Baruch]

Look up John Dalton.

Ah, Chemistry, 200 years ago.  You have to read newer copies of Popular Science.

[Blackleaf]

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

And why should I believe in your version of Yahweh over all the countless gods that have ever been worshipped? We both disbelieve in thousands of gods. I just disbelieve in one more god than you do. Sorry, but I'm not playing the god lottery. If there is a god who demands worship, he's going to have to give me a reason to think he exists, and then he'll have to specify which exact god he happens to be.

As for free will, there is no such thing. Even the Bible says so, and this is one of the points the Bible never overtly contradicts itself on. Read Romans 9:6-24. Paul says quite clearly here that god predestines people for Heaven or Hell, according to no criteria other than his own random whims. And he even addresses the number one objection to the doctrine of predistination in verse 19.

But even if the Bible did say that humans have free will, it still would not be possible. Free will is fundamentally incompatible with a universe where a omnipotent omniscient god exists. It's like an immovable object being hit by an unstoppable force. Both cannot exist at the same time.

[Unbeliever]

Not only can humans not have

But even if the Bible did say that humans have free will, it still would not be possible. Free will is fundamentally incompatible with a universe where a omnipotent omniscient god exists. It's like an immovable object being hit by an unstoppable force. Both cannot exist at the same time.

Not only can humans not have free will, but an omniscient (all knowing) God cannot have free will either, since it will have known from eternity past everything it would ever do and not do, so it would never be able to make any choices at all, since any choice it might make would already have been known to it from eternity past.

[Blackleaf]

Not only can humans not have free will, but an omniscient (all knowing) God cannot have free will either, since it will have known from eternity past everything it would ever do and not do, so it would never be able to make any choices at all, since any choice it might make would already have been known to it from eternity past.

I guess that means that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible as well. A god who knows everything, even what he's going to do before he does it, is a slave to destiny. I imagine such an existence would be torture. We can at least live with the illusion that our actions are not determined by electro-chemical processes in our brains that we have no control over.