Here is a crazy idea: Could it be that there is no evidence because it is not real? I think there is a very strong possibility of that.

Question: Is there so called ‘life after death’?
Answer: There are two possibilities:
Either :
1 - Your consciousness or self awareness ceases to exist after bodily death, which indicates you are the sum total of your brain/body.
Or :
2 - Your consciousness or self awareness continues to exist after bodily death, which indicates you are not the sum total of your brain and body, that your existence is independent of your brain and body.
You have two choices:
1 - Decide that the first scenario is true.
2 - Decide that the second scenario is true
If you go for either option but the first option is the truth, then after death you will be none the wiser whatever your beliefs.
But if after deciding the first option is the truth and it turns out, after bodily death, that you were mistaken and that the second option is the truth then you will have missed the opportunity of a ‘lifetime’ to prepare yourself for that.

I wonder if you think there are any conceptions of the divine (God, holy, sacred, numinous) which are both theologically adequate (for worship) and intellectually coherent?

Here is a crazy idea: Could it be that there is no evidence because it is not real? I think there is a very strong possibility of that. — Jeremiah

I told him that, he did not seem to understand the concept.

They would have to see it the way I do and then take the leap of faith, never losing that unshakable doubt while holding belife.

There is faith and then you have a knockoff and the knockoff is actually just sloppy reasoning mistaken for faith. Most people go with the knockoff, since it is the simpler of the two.

True faith is having my level of doubt and still holding faith.

It's really disappointing that so many of my fellow atheists know nothing about even the most basic science that they still cling to the unscientific notion that a scientist has some special authority on the issue of whether a God exists in general. Truly disappointing that our educational system can't get even the simplest ideas regarding science across to adults.

Sir2U: As I stated previously, you know virtually zero about science. I earned a degree in physics, and I'm getting bored of your ludicrous claims regarding science. Name the experiment that any scientist has come up with to disprove the existence of any and all Gods? Name it. Please explain how any scientist has any special knowledge, compared to a lay person, on the issue of a God, in general existing, when science does not use any supernatural claim as an explanation.

You claim that scientists study supernatural claims? Bull. They may study such things as the psychology for why people hold such beliefs, but they most definitely do not study such claims directly. If I tell you that there is at least one angel in your home right now, then we know the answer is either yes there is an angel, or yes, there is more than one angel, or no, there is less than one angel in your home right now. How can any scientist investigate such a claim? They can't. They can state, as any layperson can, that there is no reason to hold such a belief, but that is far different from stating that science can answer the question of whether an angel is in your home right now. Savvy? I doubt it.

Kierkegaard- So is it the leap of faith or the leap to faith which must be renewed and repeated?

Does God act in the world or not? and if so how?

We all believe in "things" that we cannot measure empirically or directly study with science (love, beauty, value, subjective experience, etc). God is just another experience some believe in without scientific evidence. Of course we do not all conceive of God and God's relationship to the world in the same way.

.

I think that I made it very clear that I was not looking for religious instruction

.
You asked me a question about religion. Oh, alright, so you’re saying that you didn’t ask to find out something, but instead were just asking in order to prove that you’re right, as a matter of debate (which you deny later in the posts I’m replying to). Can you understand that not everyone is interested in your debate or inclined to cooperate?
.

What I asked for if you read it carefully is the proof that you have that god is not part of the physical world.

.
Yes, and that’s an example of the astounding naiveté that I referred to. …your persistent, unshakable belief that matters of God or ultimate Reality can be proved, or even meaningfully asserted.
.
Sorry--I (and you too) can’t prove anything about God.
.
But I can say this much: It’s just that I don’t know of any reason to believe that God is part of the physical world. And, last I heard, physicists hadn’t reported about that.
.

You are insisting that you are right and that I am wrong

.
No, I don’t assert on such matters.
.

…even though I have not stated the [that] there is a god that is part of the physical world.

.
…so only you know why you wanted me to prove that there isn’t.
.

It seems as though everyone else has to provide text book evidence but we have to accept your word for it that it is impossible.

.
I don’t assert on such matters. Believe in a physical God if you want to.
.

I have admitted that I do not believe that god is within the physical world

.
…and that’s why you want me to prove it for you—to confirm your belief.
.

or that there is even a god. I also admit that I do not believe there is a god, even though I have no proof of it.

.
That’s nice.
.
1. You don’t believe that there’s God.
.
2. You don’t know of any reason to believe that there’s God (…such as evidence, or justification for faith).
.
3. In fact, of course it isn’t possible for you to even know what each one of all the Theists believes, and you sometimes admit that.
.
All those statements are true.
.
Your nuisance results from your inability to leave it at that.
.
You assert that people who don’t share your beliefs about the character and nature of Reality (in regard to Theism, for example) have an unreasonable belief. You (loudly) believe that you can authoritatively make assertions about that matter, and imply (except when you recant it) that you know enough specific details about every Theist to assert the unreasonable-ness of their belief.
.
You see, that’s where your naïve delusional conceit comes in.
.

You on the other hand are insistent that even thinking about such things being possible is irrational.

.
You mean your issue about God being physical?
.
What seems a bit irrational about that is your great concern about it and demand for a proof about it.
.

So what do you know that can prove that there is no god in the physical universe?

.
I don’t know of any reason to believe in that belief that you keep promoting. Sorry to dash your hopes.
.
And I don’t agree with your belief that matters regarding God or ultimate Reality can be proved.
.
But I’m not even sure what you mean when you propose a physical God. Your notion about that is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far.
.

”But, due to your conceited namecalling bigotry, your thoroughgoing sureness that you’re right, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong—Those attributes of yours make nonsense of any notion of a worthwhile conversation with you. Believe what you want.”
.
What name did I call you and where did I do it?

.
You didn’t call me a name. Your namecalling consisted of calling some unspecified belief of mine “silly nonsense”. Namecalling.
.
People motivated by dogmatic bigotry are always the loudest people. The typical loud, sloppy Internet abuser.
.

”Declare yourself the winner of your debate.You want to search for a God that’s part of this physical universe? Go for it.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
…I have no interest in winning any of your silly competitions.

.
The Theism vs Atheism threads are nearly always started by the loud aggressive Atheists.
.
Aggressive Atheists are the ones who feel a need to evaluate the beliefs of others.
.
No, it’s your issue, not mine.
.
If it weren’t your issue, you wouldn’t complain about my not answering you about it. (…because I don’t regard Theism vs Atheism as a debate-issue)
.

If you really think that science can only study the physical world then explain the following.
.
How can you prove something is of the physical world? Try it with thought if you want or dreams.

.
Science (by which I mean physics, chemistry, biology in all its branches, etc.) doesn’t study thought and dreams. But scientists can study the anatomy and physiology of humans and other animals.
.
…and can try to study the physical, biological, basis of anything about humans or other animals. Some such studies might be a bit too ambitious, but, in principle any such study can be tried by specialized biologists, including anatomists and physiologists, including specialized anatomists and physiologists.
.
The studies that I referred to in the previous two paragraphs are of things of the physical world.
.
As I’ve often said, humans are animals, which are biologically-originated purposefully-responsive devices, part of the physical-world, which can be studied by sscientists.

.
Why are scientists studying the possibility of existence of the souls after death?

.
They aren’t.
.
But, if any are, that means that a very few scientists are trying to apply science to something that there’s no reason to expect science to apply to. As for why, you’d have to ask them. Maybe because people like you demand proof that there isn’t a physical God.

Why are some scientist religious?

.
Because they don’t agree with you that science applies to religious matters, and therefore they don’t regard it as able to contradict religion?
.
If you’re a shoemaker and religious, that doesn’t mean that shoemaking has to apply to religion.
.
Why should that be surprising, given that science and religion have nothing to do with eachother?
.
By the way, several aggressive Atheists have criticized my refusal to answer their questions about Theism. So let me be a bit more explicit about why I refused:
.
There are two reasons why someone might be inclined to answer you:
.
1. Debate Issue:
.
1a) I’m not going to debate Theism vs Atheism with you, because, as I’ve said before, I don’t regard that as an issue for assertion, argument, debate or proof.
.
1b) It’s obvious that you’re so dogmatically-wedded to your beliefs, and so dedicated to promotion of your position, to the complete detriment of honest discussion (and probably not consciously aware of that attribute), that you, and others of your aggressive-Atheist persuasion, don’t listen, and nothing anyone said would have any effect on you.
.
2. Helping you:
.
2a) This might come as a shock, but your manners, behavior and aggressive namecalling attitude aren’t a good way to ask for help.
.
2b) Obviously, thoroughly and dogmatically convinced that you’re right, you’re quite beyond help anyway.
-------------
So I have no reason to answer you on your (yes your) Theism vs Atheism issue. And I have a good reason not to: To discuss it with an aggressive attack-Atheist would amount to nothing other than arguing or debating the matter (Is there some other nature to your discussion?). I’ve clarified that I don’t regard the matter as a matter for debate or argument. No, I’m not going to debate your issue with you. But I’ve been discussing it peripherally in these threads, by questioning your authority to assert about Reality and about the unspecified beliefs of many people whom you haven’t met, talked with, or heard from.
.
Michael Ossipoff

People should also keep in mind that Hawking made statements throughout his career that were irrational and illogical. His claim that the universe created itself? That's illogical. In order for the universe to do anything, it must first exist. But if it exists, then it's too late for the universe to create itself. Or, his statement that philosophy is dead? That is itself a philosophical statement, and so is self-refuting. And it's not just Hawking who made such foolish statements, but the new-atheist movement in general has been promoting such idiocy for decades. Like how many new-atheist leaders, among them scientists, claim that science is the only source of knowledge? That's also a self-refuting statement, because science cannot establish the truth of this statement.


Too bad that so many have turned their backs on philosophy and basic logic to promote whacked out claims about science. Science is great and wonderful and our best way of knowing about the physical world, but it does not address any supernatural claims, it does not tell us what is moral or immoral, it does not provide our only source of knowledge, etc., etc.

Could it be that there is no evidence because it is not real? — Jeremiah

You keep repeating that "no evidence" assertion like a parrot.

Evidence needn't be proof.

Evidence is an individual matter (Someone's reason to believe something based on outward-sign) and needn't be liked by you, and doesn't need your agreement that it's evidence.

Many Theists have evidence, and some have even stated it. ...such as the Scholastics.

Aside from that, Faith isn't about evidence. Many Theists have justifications for faith, and some have stated them, such as the Scholastics.

Another reason why you can't validly make your blanket evaluation of evidence for Theism is that you don't even know what each one of all the Theists believes.

Michael Ossipoff

If we were to admit that the self, one's identity, personality, etc., were not dependent on the existential determinants of the world then we would readily admit that we have absolutely no real knowledge of what constitutes someone's identity or personality. If we were ready to seriously consider something of ourselves, something maintaining ourselves in its extraordinary complexity, existing after death then we would consequently be admitting that a non-material soul contains the character of a person...

This is absurd and we cannot accept these conclusions lest we omit pschology.

Just lay your argument down and supply your evidence. Stop beating around the bush and just give us your proof, as would be the standard in any other setting.

"The death of philosophy" was also spoken about by Hannah Arendt in her book called Thinking.

"And something is true of the end of philosophy and metaphysics: not that the old questions which are coeval with the appearance of men on earth have become "meaningless," but that the way they were framed and answered has lost plausibility."

"What has come to an end is the basic distinction between the sensory and the suprasensory, together with the notion, at least as old as Parminides, that whatever is not given to the senses--God or Being or the First Principles and Causes (archai) or the Ideas--is more real, more truthful, more meaningful than what appears, that it is not just beyond sense perception but 'above' the world of the senses. What is "dead" is not only the localization of such "eternal truths" but also the distinction itself."

With regard to the death of God... God is dead in that the traditional thought of God, the legitimate psychological function, and its sociological function, has deteriorated and lost its motivating power and emphasis.

"If we were to admit that the self, one's identity, personality, etc., were not dependent on the existential determinants of the world then we would readily admit that we have absolutely no real knowledge of what constitutes someone's identity or personality. If we were ready to seriously consider something of ourselves, something maintaining ourselves in its extraordinary complexity, existing after death then we would consequently be admitting that a non-material soul contains the character of a person...

This is absurd and we cannot accept these conclusions lest we omit pschology"

Unless character is a product of brain/body, just as the handling characteristics of a car are the result of the cars inbuilt design. If so then the non-material soul would be our real and eternal identity, psychology would then just concern itself with the material brain and character, as it already does.

Blue Lux: Where did Arendt state that philosophy was dead? She didn't as far as I could tell from that quoted passage. She was merely commenting that how questions are framed has changed, which is why there is progress in philosophy.

As far as your statement God is Dead, while some people no doubt agree with you on the nature of theistic beliefs today, it's also true that many disagree with you, as there are millions of believers in God across the globe, and some take a very literalist view of God based on such things as Christian Scripture. I'm an atheist myself, and did was merely focusing on the scope of science when it comes to addressing supernatural questions. We can say that people who believe in God, as a supernatural being, are irrational in the sense that there is no good scientific reason to hold such a belief, but we cannot say that they are wrong, which is somewhat ironic, but definitely true.

It seems you are just chucked full baseless assumptions.

As I stated previously, you know virtually zero about science. I earned a degree in physics, and I'm getting bored of your ludicrous claims regarding science. Name the experiment that any scientist has come up with to disprove the existence of any and all Gods? — LD Saunders

And yet, despite your claim of an education, you keep demanding proof of this non-existence; showing how little you actually understand the scientific process. It is like those people who demand science prove that vaccines never cause autism. It is an impossible standard and it cannot be done. Science can show that there is no evidence of a link, and it is on the lack of evidence where we draw our conclusion. Science is an evidence based methodology, which often also includes making conclusions on a lack of evidence. So much for your college degree, as in this area it seems to be worthless.

Scientist absolutely have studied supernatural claims, they have just failed to prove any of them. Science is not about studying only that which can be proven, as we don't know if it can be proven until we study it.

At any rate this thread is not about science, it is about a scientist and there is nothing in the world which bars a person, on the sole condition that their profession is science, from calling BS on the God theory.

Jeremiah: I just read through the very first part of your comment because the error was so glaring, there was no point in reading further. You claim I don't know science because I was insisting you prove a God does not exist. The thing you have completely forgotten is that Hawking was the one who claimed no God exists, not me. So, if you agree that science cannot prove the non-existence of a God, then you have conceded my point against Hawking.
QED, Check mate, etc., etc.

You are absolutely demanding proof of the non-existence. I quoted you doing it right in that post, it has been your entire argument this whole thread. My point is that you don't have a clue what that means in respect to science. I don't care if you believe in God or not, or whatever you want to call it, your personal beliefs are not what I have an issue with.

Let me make this clear, I think atheist and theist are both equally full of nonsense.

Science is an evidence based methodology, which often also includes making conclusions on a lack of evidence — Jeremiah

I think the only thing science would claim due to a lack of evidence, is there is a lack of evidence.

Quite literally just about everything you would consider scientific evidence for anything - was not evidence - until it was.

for example:
there was no evidence of cells - until there was
there was no evidence of black holes - until there was
etc etc etc
there was no evidence a wheel would work - until there was

Lack of evidence means only 2 things, i - there is no evidence, or we haven't found it yet.

If the standard for not being an authority on God is not being able to disprove God then no one is an authority on God.

Let me sum up this entire thread: An argument on who gets to say what about an imaginary being.

God damn you really need to learn how to read.

Well let's see, it has be how many thousands of year? And not a single thread of evidence of god(s)? At some point you just have to let go.

At some point you just have to let go. — Jeremiah

I have no issue at all with anyone's choice to " let go " - Would just enjoy the same courtesy to those of us who hold on to something instead.

I don't care what you believe. Feel free to think whatever you want; however, that is not going to stop me from expressing what I think about those beliefs.

They would have to see it the way I do and then take the leap of faith, never losing that unshakable doubt while holding belief.

There is faith and then you have a knockoff and the knockoff is actually just sloppy reasoning mistaken for faith. Most people go with the knockoff, since it is the simpler of the two.

True faith is having my level of doubt and still holding faith. — Jeremiah

Some I am curious.
Most of the discussions about God just assume God as a supernatural being with qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresent. Some assume the Bible as literally true, and the usual supernatural miracles like virgin birth, incarnation and atonement.
Science can tell us that the earth was not created 5,000 years ago.
Science can tell us that humans (like all other life forms) evolved and were not specially and individual created by supernatural interventions.
Science can thus pretty much exclude some forms of God claims from the realm of reason, experience or logic.
The question is can or does, science exclude all versions,notions, and concepts of the divine and holy from being held by rational and informed people.
Philosophy of religion gives us many versions and concepts of God not all of which involve supernatural or miraculous clams.
There are concepts in which God does not work through supernatural means but instead through nature and the processes of nature.
There are concepts in which God is not omnipotent (any actual entity has independent power), not omniscient (the future is open and cannot be known) and is not anthropomorphic or a being.
These concepts virtually never get discussed. So are you saying every single notion of the divine is contrary to science and to reason or just those commonly presented and discussed.