Responding to my friend

[clem456]

God could appear to me. Just for starters. Or he could speak to me - that’s another thought. I could write a 17 digit integer on a piece of paper, and God could tell you what it was, and you could tell me. I’d have a very difficult time explaining away that.

Since you do not believe in God I will not try to provide evidence of him.

Let me ask you, where were you, before you were born? If you did not always exist, how did you come to exist? Where did you come from and where will you be when you die? Why are you here?
How were you created? (you might say you were created by your parents, but, consider that you parents may have had relations many times, so how is it that you came to be, uniquely you, at the time you did? Your parents really did not really have control over your conception)

Some of these questions do not have adequate answers. I’m just wondering how you relate to these mysteries.

 

[AyJSimon]

Since you do not believe in God I will not try to provide evidence of him.

The reason I don’t believe in God is because I’ve never seen compelling evidence for him, so you’re getting things backwards. I’m quite confident that if you had compelling evidence that God existed, you’d offer it.

Let me ask you, where were you, before you were born? If you did not always exist, how did you come to exist? Where did you come from and where will you be when you die? Why are you here?
How were you created? (you might say you were created by your parents, but, consider that you parents may have had relations many times, so how is it that you came to be, uniquely you, at the time you did? Your parents really did not really have control over your conception)

Some of these questions do not have adequate answers. I’m just wondering how you relate to these mysteries.

I am quite comfortable with not knowing the answers to these mysteries - ultimately, this is a fundamental difference between believers and non-believers. What I don’t do is fill those knowledge gaps with a God for whom no compelling evidence exists.

 

[clem456]

The reason I don’t believe in God is because I’ve never seen compelling evidence for him, so you’re getting things backwards. I’m quite confident that if you had compelling evidence that God existed, you’d offer it.

I know you don’t believe. That’s why I won’t try to convince you with evidence cause there really isn’t any evidence, in that way. There is logical deduction (see Mere Christianity as reference before)

I am quite comfortable with not knowing the answers to these mysteries - ultimately, this is a fundamental difference between believers and non-believers. What I don’t do is fill those knowledge gaps with a God for whom no compelling evidence exists.

Maybe that mystery is God.
You say there is no compelling evidence, yet you admit there are things outside yourself you have no knowledge of. So you have evidence of “otherness”. You have an experience of “other”. Seems to me if there are “others” then you’d like to have a relationship there?

You can begin to look at the world around you and see evidence of “otherness”.
Everything human is relational. Everything about us is ordered to others, starting with your own birth. You cannot feed yourself as an infant, cannot educate yourself, you cannot attain a happy and fulfilling life without others. Etc…

So, this is not evidence of a specific god, but is evidence of our call to reach out to whatever that unknown is.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am quite comfortable with not knowing the answers to these mysteries - ultimately, this is a fundamental difference between believers and non-believers. What I don’t do is fill those knowledge gaps with a God for whom no compelling evidence exists.

There is no compelling evidence because God does bot want to compel us to believe in him.

But if there were compelling evidence, I suspect you would not find it compelling.

 

[AyJSimon]

Maybe that mystery is God.
You say there is no compelling evidence, yet you admit there are things outside yourself you have no knowledge of. So you have evidence of “otherness”. You have an experience of “other”. Seems to me if there are “others” then you’d like to have a relationship there?

You can begin to look at the world around you and see evidence of “otherness”.
Everything human is relational. Everything about us is ordered to others, starting with your own birth. You cannot feed yourself as an infant, cannot educate yourself, you cannot attain a happy and fulfilling life without others. Etc…

So, this is not evidence of a specific god, but is evidence of our call to reach out to whatever that unknown is.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence - not evidence of “otherness.” If you want to assert this “otherness,” you’ll need to evidence it beyond pointing to the gaps in our knowledge.

 

[tonyrey]

God could appear to me. Just for starters. Or he could speak to me - that’s another thought. I could write a 17 digit integer on a piece of paper, and God could tell you what it was, and you could tell me. I’d have a very difficult time explaining away that.

In other words you only believe that which you can see, hear, touch, smell or taste? If so, you don’t believe in good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust, true or false, innocent or guilty, responsible or irresponsible, valuable or valueless, purposeful or purposeless and meaningful or meaningless…

 

[AyJSimon]

If so, you don’t believe in good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust, true or false, innocent or guilty, responsible or irresponsible, valuable or valueless, purposeful or purposeless and meaningful or meaningless…

Wrong on every count. All of those things depend on the existence of conscious minds - we know those exist.

 

[clem456]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence
…

Think about that for a minute.

Are you sure you want to stand by that?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence …]
clem456;12851319:

Think about that for a minute.

Are you sure you want to stand by that?

There’s two ways I see to interpret it that I see.

1. non-existent objects don’t leave behind evidence. A condition that is consistent with an object not existing is that no evidence for it will be found.
2. If no evidence is found for something than that means that it doesn’t exists.

@AySimon, would you mind clarifying if one, both, or none of these interpretations matches your intentions?

 

[clem456]

There’s two ways I see to interpret it that I see.

1. non-existent objects don’t leave behind evidence. A condition that is consistent with an object not existing is that no evidence for it will be found.
2. If no evidence is found for something than that means that it doesn’t exists.

1. if you first assume it doesn’t exist

doesn’t work

 

[AyJSimon]

Think about that for a minute.

Are you sure you want to stand by that?

Given that I’m recognizing a clear distinction between proof and evidence, then of course. God propositions are the hippo in the field, not the flea.

 

[AyJSimon]

There’s two ways I see to interpret it that I see.

1. non-existent objects don’t leave behind evidence. A condition that is consistent with an object not existing is that no evidence for it will be found.
2. If no evidence is found for something than that means that it doesn’t exists.

@AySimon, would you mind clarifying if one, both, or none of these interpretations matches your intentions?

1. seems closer to my intent, though not precisely it. I’m drawing a distinction between proof and evidence, for starters. That there is an absence of evidence for God’s existence doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist - it simply stands as evidence for God’s absence.

That doesn’t mean that God might not still exist, and we just lack the tools to see the evidence for him. Just that, as it stands right now, the absence of evidence stands as evidence of absence - and therefore, it is reasonable to believe that God doesn’t exist (without knowing for sure).

 

[clem456]

1. seems closer to my intent, though not precisely it. I’m drawing a distinction between proof and evidence, for starters. That there is an absence of evidence for God’s existence doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist - it simply stands as evidence for God’s absence.

That doesn’t mean that God might not still exist, and we just lack the tools to see the evidence for him. Just that, as it stands right now, the absence of evidence stands as evidence of absence - and therefore, it is reasonable to believe that God doesn’t exist (without knowing for sure).

Ok I can buy that reasoning. Don’t agree with the conclusions but it makes sense.
I think we can both agree that questions remain and we deal with them in different ways.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

1. seems closer to my intent, though not precisely it. I’m drawing a distinction between proof and evidence, for starters. That there is an absence of evidence for God’s existence doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist - it simply stands as evidence for God’s absence.

It’s not even evidence for God’s absence.

If you and I are wake up in a pitch black room, and you are absent evidence that I am in there with you, that is not evidence that I am absent. That only says that you have not found me.

Keep searching for God in the darkness of your night.

 

[Nixbits]

Imagine if you wake up in a pitch black room and suspect that there may be another person there. That other person is reputed to want to be found, but they don’t speak up to confirm their presence. Then it’s reasonable to conclude that either the other person is not there, or that they are there but don’t want to be found.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Imagine if you wake up in a pitch black room and suspect that there may be another person there. That other person is reputed to want to be found, but they don’t speak up to confirm their presence. Then it’s reasonable to conclude that either the other person is not there, or that they are there but don’t want to be found.

Imagine that other Person is searching for you, but won’t find you because you don’t want to be found and you keep using the darkness to elude Him.

 

[DrTaffy]

Imagine that other Person is searching for you, but won’t find you because you don’t want to be found and you keep using the darkness to elude Him.

He is supposed to be omniscient. I am not. I am just open to the evidence I can see.

Should I just assume that every hypothetical possible person in that room exists but is keeping quiet? Just how many Gods do you believe in?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

He is supposed to be omniscient. I am not. I am just open to the evidence I can see.

Should I just assume that every hypothetical possible person in that room exists but is keeping quiet? Just how many Gods do you believe in?

One God only. He created me to discover Him by searching for Him. I am not supposed to wait for Him to clobber me over the head with proof of his existence.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I know you don’t believe. That’s why I won’t try to convince you with evidence cause there really isn’t any evidence, in that way. There is logical deduction (see Mere Christianity as reference before)

I keep hearing about this book. so I am checking it out. 80% done. However I part ways with him at some premises he laid down in the first section. Reading it has been insightful. There have been times when some one has tried to get me to formulate an answer a specific way. (Which usually didn’t match my disposition). Having read most of the book I get the impression it was to use one of the replies from this book.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I keep hearing about this book. so I am checking it out. 80% done. However I part ways with him at some premises he laid down in the first section. Reading it has been insightful. There have been times when some one has tried to get me to formulate an answer a specific way. (Which usually didn’t match my disposition). Having read most of the book I get the impression it was to use one of the replies from this book.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

I’ve always thought of Lewis as a wannabe Chesterton.

Very good but not quite so great.