Evidence for God?

[shaad_lko]

[shaad_lko]

here is part 2 of the debate:

[Sadiq_b]

Very interesting debate. Thanks for sharing.

[Resigned]

It's not surprising, but after multiple pages of claims to gods, we're left with only creationist rhetoric. What is important to come to terms with is understanding that reason and rationality operate in a realm separated from supernaturalism. As for establishing whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of supernatural creation depends on whether you believe in meatphysics, creationism or some form of "intelligent design", typically modeled on a benevolent creator. It is possible that all living species and all of life as we know it --even all of the universe--could have been created by a cosmic, supernatural designer/creator who deceived us by giving all of our physical world the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and immense time spans. And of course, that deception could have been performed by any of the gods because as we know, your god(s) is only one conception of god(s). I've found that creationists recoil at this argument because if true, it means their preference for "intelligent designer" would be quite obviously lying about creation and that would not do for their arguments. So, creationists persist in using metaphysics as the core of their argument or they hope to show that the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and the immense time spans we see in nature reveals supernatural design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose, (i.e., pseudoscience).

Creationists state their case -- which is simply reiterating tales and fables within any of the numerous alleged holy books citing a god, multiple gods and these gods at times being accompanied by little creatures who are the gods enforcers. As for evidence of this, there is none. Not a little, not some, not a whisper... but none.

Materialists state the scientific data, which is borne out by evidence such as geological and biological mechanisms seen today, the fossil record, age-dating, stratification, tectonic plate theory, astronomy, physics, paleontology, etc. etc. (by the way, all of these sciences crumble into nonsense if the Genesis -or similar- account is true.)

Creationists say, "No." and then begin a litany of special pleadings to explain why all the evidence for nature and the natural world seen today was actually different only a few thousand ago. But, we're told, none of this is being done to force the evidence to fit into their particular world-view, which apparently they believe breaks apart and dissipates into the void if the fundamental overview of supernaturalism isn't upheld, (you know what, they're right-- if any part of these books alleging supernaturalism is not literally true, then the whole thing is suspect, so they have every right to be concerned). No, we're told, this is being done because "I believe it to be true and you can't disprove it", or, "it's a reasonable interpretation of the data". Well, it's not.

In every instance, creationist supernaturalism is shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, tossing away and dismissing rock-hard (pun intended) evidence, making non-comparable comparisons, until finally when reason pushes them into a corner where their unsupported and unsupportable claims lie in tatters before them, they escape into the "God did it" safety net.

What is the point of this? I've yet to see a creationist actually present a rational perspective with supportive evidence. They do not do it, and the reason is simple: They cannot. They can't answer even the simplest questions without resorting to miracles. Okay, you have a religious belief. No one says you're not entitled to a religious belief. However, trying to force a religious belief into a scientific paradigm while maintaining that your religion and your gods are extant to the exclusion of all the other gods is a bit of an affront to those gods and their believers.

[shaad_lko]

btw, the video above was not arguing a rational case for a Creator..

[hyd]

btw, the video above was not arguing a rational case for a Creator..

I would say it is arguing for a rational case, but not empirical. When a person says which one is more easier to believe when we look at the universe, that is making a rational case. That is kind of empirical too, but drawing from empirical.

[shaad_lko]

good point. Some people will reduce reason to empirical science - in fact Bennabi makes the same case that reason is confused with logical positivism... It is what others term that reason gave birth to science, but today it has become the handmaiden of science instead of the other way round..

[Resigned]

I would say it is arguing for a rational case, but not empirical. When a person says which one is more easier to believe when we look at the universe, that is making a rational case. That is kind of empirical too, but drawing from empirical.

There is no way to derive either empericism or rationality from the supernatural. When you postulate an ability to fundamentally comprehend such metaphysical and totally unverifiable notions such as angels, gods, heavens and hells, a kind of potential schizophrenia is implied.

[shaad_lko]

yup, we can observe schizophrenia..

[Resigned]

yup, we can observe schizophrenia..

And we can even treat the condition to cure it.

Not so with angels, gods, heavens and hells. For those who live in trembling fear of those supernatural entities (or for those who find a need to assist others with imposing those fears and predudices), it all remains fully in the realm of creationist fear-mongering.

[faheem]

and interesting story regarding the similar topic

An Atheist Professor of Philosophy speaks to his Class on the Problem Science has with ALLAH, The ALMIGHTY.
He asks one of his New Muslim Student to stand and . . .

Professor : You are a Muslim, aren't you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor : So you Believe in ALLAH ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is ALLAH Good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor : Is ALLAH ALL - POWERFUL ?
Student : Yes.
Professor : My Brother died of Cancer even though he Prayed to ALLAH to Heal him.
Most of us would attempt to Help Others who are ill.
But ALLAH didn't.
How is this ALLAH Good then ? Hmm ?
( Student is silent )

Professor : You can't answer, can you ?
Let's start again, Young Fella.
Is ALLAH Good ?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Is Satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor : Where does Satan come from ?
Student : From . . . ALLAH . . .
Professor : That's right.
Tell me son, is there evil in this World ?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Evil is everywhere, isn't it ?
And ALLAH did make Everything. Correct ?
Student : Yes.
Professor : So who created evil ?
( Student does not answer )

Professor : Is there Sickness ? Immorality ? Hatred ? Ugliness ?
All these terrible things exist in the World, don't they ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor : So, who Created them ?
( Student has no answer )

Professor : Science says you have 5 Senses you use to Identify and
Observe the World around you.
Tell me, son . . . Have you ever Seen ALLAH ?
Student : No, sir.
Professor : Tell us if you have ever Heard your ALLAH ?
Student : No , sir.
Professor : Have you ever Felt your ALLAH , Tasted your ALLAH , Smelt
your ALLAH ?
: Have you ever had any Sensory Perception of ALLAH for that
matter ?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor : Yet you still Believe in HIM ?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol,
Science says your ALLAH doesn't exist.
What do you say to that, son ?
Student : Nothing. I only have my Faith .
Professor : Yes. Faith . And that is the Problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as Heat ?
Professor : Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as Cold ?
Professor : Yes.
Student : No sir. There isn't.

( The Lecture Theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events )

Student : Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat,
Mega Heat, White Heat,
a Little Heat or No Heat.
But we don't have anything called Cold..
We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat, but we
can't go any further after that.
There is no such thing as Cold.
Cold is only a Word we use to describe the Absence of Heat.
We cannot Measure Cold.
Heat is Energy.
Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it.

( There is Pin - Drop Silence in the Lecture Theatre )

Student : What about Darkness, Professor ? Is there such a thing as Darkness ?
Professor : Yes. What is Night if there isn't Darkness ?
Student : You're wrong again, sir.
Darkness is the Absence of Something.
You can have Low Light, Normal Light , Bright Light, Flashing Light . . .
But if you have No Light Constantly, you have Nothing and it's called Darkness, isn't it ?
In reality, Darkness isn't.
If it is, were you would be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn't you ?
Professor : So what is the point you are making, Young Man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is Flawed.
Professor : Flawed ? Can you explain how ?
Student : Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality.
You argue there is Life and then there is Death, a Good ALLAH and a Bad ALLAH .
You are viewing the Concept of ALLAH as something finite, something we can measure.
Sir, Science can't even explain a Thought.
It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.
To view Death as the Opposite of Life is to be ignorant of the fact that
Death cannot exist as a Substantive Thing.
Death is Not the Opposite of Life : just the Absence of it.
Now tell me, Professor, do you Teach your Students that they Evolved from a Monkey ?
Professor : If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir ?

( The Professor shakes his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument is going )

Student : Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this Process is an On - Going Endeavor,
are you not Teaching your Opinion, sir ?
Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher ?

( The Class is in Uproar )

Student : Is there anyone in the Class who has ever Seen the Professor's Brain ?

( The Class breaks out into Laughter )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever Heard the Professor's Brain, Felt it, Touched or Smelt it ? . . .
No one appears to have done so..
So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that
you have No Brain, sir.
With all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your Lectures, sir ?

( The Room is Silent. The Professor stares at the Student, his face unfathomable )

Professor : I guess you'll have to take them on Faith , son.
Student : That is it sir . . .
the Link between Man & ALLAH is FAITH.
That is all that Keeps Things Moving & Alive......


Thank you.