Evidence for God

Q

Normally, when there is no evidence, people don't believe in that thing, so why is God different?
https://www.quora.com/Normally-when-there-is-no-evidence-people-dont-believe-in-that-thing-so-why-is-God-different/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered April 12

Normally, where there is no evidence, people don’t believe in that thing, so what makes you think there is no evidence for God?

Nev Anderson

May 10

The complete lack of evidence for god is what makes people recognise that there is no evidence for god.

What christians assert is “evidence” for god, is either
- passages in the book specifically contrived to force belief in its god, a book that has more lies, errors, contradictions and fallacies, than it has printed pages
- evidence of things that exist, that christians label “god did this”, despite there being no indicative link to any god activity, and there being simple, natural explanations, supported by abundant evidence.
- I have a feeling, which is merely peer pressure taking effect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

May 10

As for “I have a feeling” I would never use that as an argument in discussion with a stranger.

Even with a familiar person, I am not sure I would consider it as evidence for God. After all, Ulysses seems to have had a feeling of being with Athena, and while I think it could be supernatural of one kind or another, I would neither call a guardian angel nor a demon Pallas Athena.

The two other ones are more interesting. Bible first.

First, nearly all Bible books were written when most people were believing in God or in gods anyway. Even NT books were written when Epicurean deniers of gods were a luxurious minority, as were their Hebrew near homologues, the Sadducees.

Second, if you consider it a book packed with lies, I would ask you how you determine any ancient book is, as far as historical facts are concerned, a book packed with truth.

Nature second.

I suppose you dismiss the geocentric evidence for God and angels by pretending geocentrism is an optic illusion in a heliocentric solar system in an acentric universe (or one where the centre cannot be ascertained). Is a bit “cart before the horse” since you cannot actually “prove” heliocentrism is “necessarily true” except by assuming neither God nor angels exist.

A bit more interesting would be, how do you deal with …

• we have language, we are supposed to have developed from animals who had no such thing;
• we have minds, we are supposed to be made up of only matter and energy in contrived combinations, without anything like a spiritual substance accounting for our thoughts, what about these?

Nev Anderson

Sun May 23

So many do use “I have a feeling” or a direct equivalent, that you do not is then, not relevant.
It is not ever evidence of god,
it is merely evidence of an indoctrination into a belief in god,
as those who do not believe, do not have such feelings.

The bible was indeed written/compiled in a time when god belief was ubiquitous. But then there was a time when everyone believed the sun orbited the Earth. Majority does not guarantee correctness.

Geocentricism relates to gravitational attraction between masses,
that the ignorant misattribute all causality to some imaginary, magical phantasm, does not make it true.

Animals have forms of vocal communication,
as Homo sapiens, we evolved to have a greater dependence upon sophisticated interaction and communication.
That our vocal chord structure allowed this, is what allowed us to be what we are, attain the position we hold.

Animals also have minds.
They are the result of incremental evolution,
where every increase in sensory perception and cognitive response was advantageous with regard to survival.
Natural Selection rewards advantage with survival.
Survivors breed and pass on those advantages via DNA,
whilst the dead pass nothing on to nonexistent offspring.

Attempts to attribute causality to a god, never proves a god.
Merely proves the dishonesty that is a necessary requirement for any religion in perpetrating its superstitions, lies and fallacies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun May 23

"But then there was a time when everyone believed the sun orbited the Earth."

As our senses show.

"Geocentricism relates to gravitational attraction between masses, that the ignorant misattribute all causality to some imaginary, magical phantasm, does not make it true."

That a self appointed élite misattribute God's movement of Heaven or angels moving celestial bodies to some imagined scenario of just gravitation does not make it true.

"Animals have forms of vocal communication, as Homo sapiens, we evolved to have a greater dependence upon sophisticated interaction and communication."

Where do I start ...

a chimp has a one vowel or one consonant or repeat pattern sound for things like "hi" or "let's get out of here" or "let's eat";

a man has a system where each message may be subdivided into many words, as "let's get out of here";

subdivides into morphemes "let" "us" "get" "out" "of" "here" and where each morpheme is likelier than not to consist of many phonemes ("us" being reduced to "'s" is only exception in example) in a specific order;

these systems are very far from anything like a continuity with each other, they are on the contrary at at least two radical breaks;

and they correspond to two very different setups of brain, of hyoid bone, of ear bones, for which no continuum has been found in supposed intermediates.

"Animals also have minds. They are the result of incremental evolution, where every increase in sensory perception and cognitive response was advantageous with regard to survival."

Matter doesn't have a mind, whether animals have one or not.

Minds that can categorise for curiosity are not incrementally evolved from such that can only estimate for practical purposes, and minds are not incrementally evolved from "biologic computers" if any animal brain ever was such.

"Natural Selection rewards advantage with survival."

You'd need to get to an advantage first, before it can do that.

Attempts to restrict causality to factors studied by natural sciences does not prove that, but simply the dishonesty needed to perpetuate the falsehoods of evolutionism, materialism and a few more.

Nev Anderson

Tue May 25

As I stated, animals have forms of vocal communication, that they do not speak human languages, or have the nuance that we developed is irrelevant, they have vocal communication.

That chimpanzees had no requirement to develop sophisticated vocal communication, is a product of the environment they lived in, and their level of success within it.

Our ancestors were forced to leave that environment,
as increased volcanic activity caused widespread deforestation.
Faced with a completely difference environment, the Savannah, we needed to communicate with nuance in order to survive.

That chimpanzees are not Homo sapiens, does not prove your god.
In fact the DNA similarities go a long way to disproving your god assertions. A god for which there has never been a shred of evidence to indicate its existence.

The misattribution of causality to a magical phantasm is how ALL primitive cultures came to invent their gods.
You are hanging on to the exact same thinking.

Matter doesn’t have a mind. That is one thing you have managed to get correct.

Introducing "biologic computers" in order to refute it,
indicates the level of your honesty in discussion.

At the end of the day,
there is no evidence for any aspect of your religion,
your god, or any of the asinine claims made for it.

Whereas Evolution has such a wealth of evidence that merely to read through that which exists today, would take over 10,000 Years (Ten Thousand Years).
By which time it would have grown exponentially,
as more evidence is added every day.

10,000 years of reading about incremental advantages arising from reproduction with genetic variation, subjected to survival selection via Natural Selection.

Your religious need to deny reality, does not make reality go away.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue May 25

On your first account: claiming that an evolution happened because it would have been useful if starting doesn't show it could get started.

Second one:

"The misattribution of causality to a magical phantasm is how ALL primitive cultures came to invent their gods."

So?

Why is it a misattribution?

Third:

"Whereas Evolution has such a wealth of evidence that merely to read through that which exists today, would take over 10,000 Years (Ten Thousand Years). By which time it would have grown exponentially, as more evidence is added every day."

You are pretending all new evidence supports evolution because it so happens, new evidence is usually first presented by evolutionists, as they have more resources than creation scientists, and also, you ignore the presentations of creation science and of scholastic philosophy that do exist.

Nev Anderson

Thu May 27

Except that is NOT what I said.

I replied to a specific nonsensical assertion that our vocalisation ability is due to your phantasm.
What I did NOT do was offer a treatise on Evolution, for it was not a requirement.

Evolution is an unavoidable consequence of reproduction with variation, in an environment of Natural Selection predicated upon genetic advantage.
Evolution is simply the reality of biodiversity on Earth.
This is why a massive majority of christian denominations accept it as a fact.

The mindless attribution of causality to an imaginary entity, which is not only Not at all evident,
not only All claims made for it are also Not evident,
but
every element of evidence uncovered
acts to indicate its Non Existence,
and show that the religious assertions around it,
are completely fallacious.

Once Everything was attributed to your phantasm.
Now we know that nothing is attributable to it.
That your religion continues to lie about this does not ever alter reality.

There is no pretence in science,
that is why it works.
Near everything around you is shaped, influenced or a direct product of scientific discovery and advancement.

Were all scientific advancements to vanish overnight,
the entire developed world would collapse,
its populations dead in months.

There would be no

Power,
Water,
Sanitation,
Refrigeration,
Medicine,
Medical Services,
Fuel,
Transport,
Food,
Food Production,
Communication,
Infrastructure.

Panic would give way to anarchy
and few would survive.

However, should your god vanish,

Nobody would notice:

The begging with clasped hands would continue,
the clergy would continue to take your money,
The sick would still turn to science,
technology would still support their lives/ incomes.
Nothing would change

Further it is utterly dishonest to attribute what YOU wanted me to say as if it was what I said.

There was no mention of ALL evidence, as not ALL evidence relates to Evolution. However ALL evidence relating to biological diversity does in fact add to the accumulation of evidence for Evolution.
None of it serves to evidence creationism without being distorted, edited and/or subjected to paltering by creationists.

Creationism is predicated upon a literal interpretation of a bronze age superstition, one that is relegated to a metaphor by the vast majority of christians.
There is no evidence for it at all.

“Evolutionist” is a childish term effected by creationists, in an attempt to fool themselves into believing that Evolution is a religion. It isn’t.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu, May 27

I asserted nothing about the “our vocalisation ability is due to your phantasm.” Learn to read. However, that too is due to God, but not what I was directly arguing from by itself alone. Pick up the thread where I left it with specifics, or leave it off.

Human language is way beyond just vocalising sounds.

“Evolution is an unavoidable consequence of reproduction with variation, in an environment of Natural Selection predicated upon genetic advantage.”

No, microbes to man evolution is not that. If it had happened, it would have been a very paradoxical, rather miraculous consequence, not an unavoidable one.

The unavoidable consequence, given a microbe, would be that microbe remaining a microbe and becoming a slightly better one. For as long as the mutations don’t make it so much of a worse one it dies out. A microbe even becoming pluricellular, or a monkey like communicator becoming human like is not happening by incremental changes.

"Evolution is simply the reality of biodiversity on Earth."

No, it is one explanation of this biodiversity. Not the biodiversity itself.

"This is why a massive majority of christian denominations accept it as a fact."

The real reason is the massive majority of believers in the countries under your radar have been submitted forcefully to compulsory school entailing praise of scientists and their evolution and denigration of creation story. Just as you and I have, with the difference, since I became a Christian, I have (mostly) resisted that.

"The mindless attribution ... not only Not at all evident, ... every element of evidence uncovered acts to indicate its Non Existence,"

You have so far not cited one single element uncovered acting to indicate God's supposed non-existence. Big words, little argument.

"Once Everything was attributed to your phantasm. Now we know that nothing is attributable to it."

Give me exactly ONE item previously (back in your somewhat ahistorical "once") attributed to God of which we now are supposed to KNOW He is not the cause?

"There is no pretence in science, that is why it works. Near everything around you is shaped, influenced or a direct product of scientific discovery and advancement."

I am well aware of them, including those very useful ones that were made back in theistic days. Have you pumped water from a well and then attached the bucket to a hook attached to the wall with a screw before turning the bucket around with a string to take a shower? Well, exactly everything in that picture would have been present in 1400 AD or the following decades. You prefer a shower of modern type? Well, it can have its uses, but it happens that it involves your dependance on a water company and an electricity company, which the shower just described doesn't. But of course, in 1400, you would arguably rather have taken a few buckets of water and filled a cauldron and having heated that over the fire taken a bath.

Have you ever eaten bread that was baked, from flour that was ground, from wheat that was grown by sowing in tilled earth? Do you suggest this was unknown when Darwin and Engels started outlining your view of man's place in nature? Have you ever eaten ham from porcs that were fed on acorns dropping from oaks where they roamed? What does that owe to Newton? Do you think your tomato salad was more full of pesticides before Francis Bacon of Verulam, or Bertrand Russell, outlined anti-scholastic philosophies of science?

"Were all scientific advancements to vanish overnight, the entire developed world would collapse, its populations dead in months."

Let me see your little outline. Of supposed necessities.

"Power," - Electrical, I suppose you mean? Bc one lived very well before that one.

"Water," - Oh, you think the company bottling your sparkling water synthesised the H₂O?

"Sanitation," - Depends on your standards, but a rough and ready sanitation is easily available in not too populated areas.

"Refrigeration," - Food can be fresh, dry, salted, dried - refrigerated in cellars.

"Medicine," - Come on. St. Luke was a physician well before the advances you speak of.

"Medical Services," - Considering some of the things they do, that may be an advantage.

"Fuel," - As in, no one knew naphtha (petroleum) before the advances you speak of? As in dried wood has ceased to work? And in India where they use dried dung, this has suddenly ceased to burn?

"Transport," - Local independence is a good thing, for one thing it protects some old people against Covid.

"Food," - Tell me all about how Lawrence Krauss discovered that one. We were all starving to death before he invented that, right?

"Food Production," - Not sure what part of the production you mean?

"Communication," - I'll admit internet was developed by some people most of whom would have been Heliocentric and Evolutionist. Normal snail mail was developed in near modern conditions (a single big corporation serving particulars and not just the state, and this for a small contribution) in the Holy Roman Empire surrounding the persons Emperor Rudolf II and Leonhard I. von Taxis. The latter died in 1612, when everyone in Europe was a Theist (few and unknown exceptions).

"Infrastructure." - Not sure which part of it you mean. Roads were around since Romans and Babylonians were Polytheists, for instance. Do you feel a need to bow down to Venus cloaca every time you flush the toilet into the sewers?

"Panic would give way to anarchy and few would survive."

You pretend. As for "should your god vanish" - either He is there and cannot vanish, or He wasn't in the first place. Your hypothesis is an impossibility on both views.

"However ALL evidence relating to biological diversity does in fact add to the accumulation of evidence for Evolution."

That was the precise position I did attribute to you. And again, you are not giving examples, you are using big words with little evidence for them.

"None of it serves to evidence creationism without being distorted, edited and/or subjected to paltering by creationists."

I can as easily say, with more reason, none of it serves to evidence microbes to man evolution without being distorted or subjected to paltering by evolutionists. Editing by itself won't turn a piece of evidence against its normal argument.

"Creationism is predicated upon a literal interpretation of a bronze age superstition, one that is relegated to a metaphor by the vast majority of christians."

Bronze age history. And that vast majority (in the countries you know best) are since more than a century under pressure from basically atheist monopoly or preeminince in education, most countries.

"“Evolutionist” is a childish term effected by creationists, in an attempt to fool themselves into believing that Evolution is a religion. It isn’t."

It is a useful term to describe those who have the evolutionist position. If you call it a religion or a philosophy doesn't really matter. Microbes to man evolution is, either way, certainly NOT evidenced by immediate empirical data or by theories really absolutely needed for any technology we have, whatever its use or uselessness.

Epilogue

after posting, I gave a comment and this happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu May 27

Evidence for God [by the way, I post this in response to the exact comment where you swayed away from specifics on supposed language evolution, if you want to argue it, the specifics are on my previous to that one.]

Nev Anderson

Fri May 28

You distorted what I stated.
That is dishonest.
The end.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat May 29

I distorted nothing. Every word is as you wrote it and as it still is in the comments, unless you changed some after it.

Nev Anderson

Sun, May 30

Patently not so.
You made assertions that distorted what I actually wrote, applying in its place, whatever best suited your agenda.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun, May 30

Oh, you mean like reminding you that “everything you see around you” includes tons of useful things invented by geocentric young earth creationists or even idolaters?

Just because you had not counted on that doesn’t mean that it isn’t grammatically included in “everything you see around you”!

Nev Anderson

Mon, May 31

I do not see much that was the result of creationist efforts.
All that may have been has been overridden by contemporary discoveries.
The efforts of creationists are at best a tiny fraction of what you see around you. If that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue, June 1st

The oldest things are the most common ones. Modern farming owes sth to modern science, but that doesn’t override the principles discovered - very arguably - by creationists.

Nev Anderson

Wed, June 3

When creationists discovered facts it was because they had murdered everyone who did not believe in their god.

There was NOBODY but creationists alive in the West.

That barbarous mindset is not something to brag about.

a)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed, June 3

W o u l d you really very much m i n d … to give the historical details of this supposed mass murder?

Nev Anderson

Sat, June 5

Check the church documentation of its history.
I am tired of theists who are so extremely dishonest that they deny their own history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat, June 5

I am tired of atheists who have a superficial and incorrect grasp on histories of Church and of Christian States AND who take any attempt of correcting it as dishonesty.

Nev Anderson

Sun, June 6

Most Atheists were once theists, most of them christians.

That christians now reside in religious echo chambers, where past history can be ignored, does not validate their opinions. It does however make very loud statements about the value that their religion places upon honesty and integrity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun, June 6

You just argued Atheism a religious thing, since it has a religious echo chamber about history.

Many Atheists who once were Christians were back then Protestant ones, meaning they already had a distorted view of history.

Credits to an honest and well informed Atheist called Tim O’Neill:

About History for Atheists
https://historyforatheists.com/about-history-for-atheists/

Nev Anderson

Mon, June 7

Telling transparent lies about what I stated is the height of dishonesty.
Which is very much in line with religious adherence.

This discussion serves no purpose, it bores me.
I will leave you to your god delusion and all the distortions of reality required to maintain your belief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon, June 7

Thanks, you started boring me too, it’s days since I asked you to back up your accusation with details, none came, just blank reproaches about myself censoring reality.

I am NOT censoring out the reality of your deflecting from answering my question.

Nev Anderson

Wed, 9 June

They were provided, you ignored them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed, 9 June

Read the post again.

Nev Anderson

Thur, 10 of June

I will let you do that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thur, 10 of June

I’ll let our readers do it.

b)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed, June 3

Plus, when evolution believers discovered internet, it’s after evolution believers had infiltrated schools and helped enforce the barbarous school compulsion laws in many countries plus de fact school compulsion in many more countries.

That barbarous mindset which you started bragging about, is nothing to brag about!

Nev Anderson

Sat, June 5

Atheists are the ones who constructed the internet.

Making nonsensical, fallacious assertions does the opposite to validating your belief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat, June 5

Whether the Evolutionists were as you say Atheists or they were (in part) syncretists between Christianity and Evolutionism, they were certainly victims of de facto in practise school compulsion along with Atheist / Evolutionist infiltration of public schools.

There is nothing nonsensical or fallacious about this. You are an Atheist and Evolutionist in denial of your own history.

Nev Anderson

Sun, June 6

There is no such thing as an evolutionist.

Teaching of facts, science and reality in school is unrelated to Atheism.

Teaching of facts is what schools were designed to do.
That your religion is desperate to censor the teaching of facts is something YOU should be ashamed of, yet seemingly you aren’t.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun, June 6

Teach facts - facts undisputed among any diversity of parties … ok, Latin declinsion of rosa is “rosa, rosae, rosae, rosam, rosa, rosa” in the singular and two plus two make four.

God is Three Persons versus Allah is just one person is disputed between Catholics and Muslims.

Dinos lived within Biblical timescale vs dinos died out 65 million years ago is disputed between Creationists and Evolutionists.

Schools were not made so a teacher thinks a thing is fact gives him the right to override parents who think otherwise. At least not back when they were any good, which for many of them was quite a while ago.

AND forgetting this is what I call Barbaric.

Nev Anderson

Mon, June 7

Where there is diversity, there will be a lunatic to dispute every fact. There are among us Flat Earthers.

All gods are imaginary entities, which is why the only consistency with them is a complete and utter lack of any evidence for their existence.

Parents very much should be overridden, especially if they are religious fundamentalists.
The only thing religion has been consistent in over thousands of years, is being absolutely wrong with every assertion made.

Creationists are on equal footing with Flat Earthers.
Both live in a world where all fact and evidence contra to their delusion is automatically dismissed.
Were they allowed to shape humanity, we would still be riding horses and burning oil for light.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon, June 7

“Parents very much should be overridden, especially if they are religious fundamentalists.”

Thanks for showing off your Hitlerian and Leninist barbarity. Oh, Jules-Ferryan too.

“Both live in a world where all fact and evidence contra to their delusion is automatically dismissed.”

I’d say that about Evolutionists. Except I prefer not dismissing them so easily and actually dealing with their arguments.

“Were they allowed to shape humanity, we would still be riding horses and burning oil for light.”

Oh, how awful to give no big revenues to Exxon for car drives or to electricity companies for late reading!

Nev Anderson

Wed, 9 June

When any aspect of your religion is found to represent reality, then you may have grounds for objection.

Until then it is merely railing at the sky.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed, 9 June

If that is where you think the stakes are, why don’t you argue about specifics?

Nev Anderson

Thur, 10 of June

It does not behoove me to argue anything.
Rather it behooves religions to provide evidence for the existence of their gods.

However, even with the passing of thousands of years no religion has ever presented any evidence of any god,
anywhere,
at any time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thur, 10 of June

Oh, several times over, including me above in the thread, but you ignored that.