Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

a reply to: Pachomius

6 posts up. Right after you asked for it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"In this context, something that is not strictly a matter of faith. Because faith only results in circularity." -Meaning of evidence from Phage


Okay, Phage, tell me what is faith?

a reply to: Pachomius

Okay, Phage, tell me what is faith?

I think that it is a strong belief in something. An absolute belief. A belief so strong that it requires no evidence. Job had faith.

What do you think faith is?

So faith is the opposite of evidence?

a reply to: Pachomius

Yes.

Answer my question.

What do I think faith is?

You conflate faith with belief, don't you?


I an now into getting us two to concur on what is evidence and what is faith or belief - if you will.

a reply to: Pachomius

So you won't answer my question while I answered yours.

Nothing to discuss.

Goodbye.

From Phage:

So you won't answer my question while I answered yours.

Nothing to discuss.

Goodbye.

edit on 7/8/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Dear readers here and posters of ATS, the way I see it, Phage is not accustomed to the process of working on concurring on the meanings of words: he left too soon.


On his charge that he answered my question and I won't answer his, there is no reason for departing so soon on that account.

We could work out what and how I won't answer his question if that was really the case, and then I will answer his question to his satisfaction.


But the man took to departure too soon.


He says that evidence is the opposite of faith and faith is according to him belief.

I told him immediately prior to his hasty departure that:

"I an now into getting us two to concur on what is evidence and what is faith or belief - if you will."


It was at this point that he took to a very early and quick departure.

a reply to: Pachomius

Why are you “trying” to define how to prove god exists when there is already a method to do so?

Again....

So you think god can exist outside faith?

Good thing there is this old thing called scientific method.


www.sciencebuddies.org...

I think we can skip to step three?

3. Construct a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work. It is an attempt to answer your question with an explanation that can be tested. A good hypothesis allows you to then make a prediction:
"If _____[I do this] _____, then _____[this]_____ will happen."

State both your hypothesis and the resulting prediction you will be testing. Predictions must be easy to measure.

For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
Variables
Variables for Beginners
Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Your experiment tests whether your prediction is accurate and thus your hypothesis is supported or not. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same.

You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren't just an accident.

For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
Experimental Procedure
Materials List
Conducting an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

Once your experiment is complete, you collect your measurements and analyze them to see if they support your hypothesis or not.

Scientists often find that their predictions were not accurate and their hypothesis was not supported, and in such cases they will communicate the results of their experiment and then go back and construct a new hypothesis and prediction based on the information they learned during their experiment. This starts much of the process of the scientific method over again. Even if they find that their hypothesis was supported, they may want to test it again in a new way.

For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
Data Analysis & Graphs
Conclusions
6. Communicate Your Results

www.sciencebuddies.org...

So.....

Please state your hypothesis concerning the existence of god.

What is experiment to prove the existence of god?

How will you record and make your resulting data available for peer review?

a reply to: Pachomius

REALITY
What you are actually is beyond words, but it would be not untrue to say you are nothing whatsoever other than pure, infinite, disembodied consciousness/intelligence; a field of miraculous infinite light; God dreaming itself; an infinite point of pure potential; or the infinite implications of nothing whatsoever.



The immediate presentation of this unspeakable actuality is the field of your experience, which is an instantaneously appearing virtual field of Radiant Presence as apparent qualities. This is the actuality of which every/ and any/ thing that you think exists consists. This is inclusive and complete; nothing whatever other than this field exists. In short, the entirety of Reality is the "bubble" of YOUR experience, the field of Radiant Presence, which alone exists.



This is the totality of Reality. This is not theoretical, but is actually, immediately real; always the case right here right now.

THE OPEN DOORWAY
www.theopendoorway.org...

Dear everyone here, I have added the definition of evidence from Phage to my list.


From TzarChasm
Evidence is a body of facts that support a statement.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

From Pachomius
Evidence is anything at all existing which leads man to know another thing existing.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

From Phage
[Evidence is] something that is not strictly a matter of faith.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



I have checked the links and they are correct.


Please everyone, contribute your meaning to the word evidence, for atheists insist that there should be evidence to God existing, but they are themselves, sad, not taking the honest intelligent and productive care to present their meaning or definition of what is evidence.


So I shall be citing this post again and again, and asking everyone to contribute your information on what is evidence: then we shall work together to reach an agreed on definition of evidence, in re proving God's existence: God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Pachomius

Why are you “trying” to define how to prove god exists when there is already a method to do so?

Again....

So you think god can exist outside faith?

Good thing there is this old thing called scientific method.

www.sciencebuddies.org...

I think we can skip to step three?

3. Construct a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work. It is an attempt to answer your question with an explanation that can be tested. A good hypothesis allows you to then make a prediction:
"If _____[I do this] _____, then _____[this]_____ will happen."

State both your hypothesis and the resulting prediction you will be testing. Predictions must be easy to measure.

For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
Variables
Variables for Beginners
Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Your experiment tests whether your prediction is accurate and thus your hypothesis is supported or not. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same.

You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren't just an accident.

For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
Experimental Procedure
Materials List
Conducting an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

Once your experiment is complete, you collect your measurements and analyze them to see if they support your hypothesis or not.

Scientists often find that their predictions were not accurate and their hypothesis was not supported, and in such cases they will communicate the results of their experiment and then go back and construct a new hypothesis and prediction based on the information they learned during their experiment. This starts much of the process of the scientific method over again. Even if they find that their hypothesis was supported, they may want to test it again in a new way.

For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
Data Analysis & Graphs
Conclusions
6. Communicate Your Results

www.sciencebuddies.org...

So.....

Please state your hypothesis concerning the existence of god.

What is experiment to prove the existence of god?

How will you record and make your resulting data available for peer review?

Pachomius has no intention of using the scientific method.

I know God exists.. Because 'atheists' endlessly engage in mental gymnastics to prove otherwise..

It's almost like the mental gymnastics of the left.

Sorry for triggering you in advance.

Trump 2Q2Q

**edit - Regarding the title.. Personally for me as a christian, IQ isn't required for having faith. That's the trap you want to draw believers into. So no, I don't feel like having mush pushed on me .. just as I wouldn't push anything on you.

Ne quid nimis.
Sapienti pauca.



With honest intelligent productive minds, all we need are to concur on the definition of God and the definition of evidence.

Here is my definition of God:
"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

And here is my definition of evidence:
"Evidence is anything at all existing which leads man to know another thing existing."



Stultorum infinitus est numerus.

originally posted by: LeoStarchild
I know God exists.. Because 'atheists' endlessly engage in mental gymnastics to prove otherwise..

It's almost like the mental gymnastics of the left.

Sorry for triggering you in advance.

Trump 2Q2Q

**edit - Regarding the title.. Personally for me as a christian, IQ isn't required for having faith. That's the trap you want to draw believers into. So no, I don't feel like having mush pushed on me .. just as I wouldn't push anything on you.

"Left" and "right" are toxic extremist terminology that expresses a certain "us vs them" attitude which conflicts with the point of friendly debate. But I digress... The mental gymnastics you speak of are necessary because there's no practical method by which to directly examine this supposed cosmic influence that is called god. That's not something to blame atheists for.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I seem to remember this debate always being us vs them. You point to there being a lack of evidence. The best part of this is atheist's dont have any either.

This conversation is just a way for atheists to appear woke. Trendy name btw.

Im headed back to the adult table now.

originally posted by: LeoStarchild
a reply to: TzarChasm

I seem to remember this debate always being us vs them. You point to there being a lack of evidence. The best part of this is atheist's dont have any either.

This conversation is just a way for atheists to appear woke. Trendy name btw.

Im headed back to the adult table now.

It's supposed to be "this idea vs that idea, which boat sinks faster if you throw rocks at it?" And it turns into a wwe style trash talking merry go round of monotony. Thanks for the chat I guess.

a reply to: Pachomius

Yea....

And there is this thing called scientific method that is established, and provides a method for what you claim you are try to accomplish. It’s been around a while.

So what evidence can list to support your hypothesis.


Now...
You

And here is my definition of evidence:
"Evidence is anything at all existing which leads man to know another thing existing."

That’s not the truth of evidence. You are trying to force your preconceived biased view, with no consideration evidence can also disprove something exists. That is religion. You, yourself had faith before you had evidence of god. You, yourself are guilty of “religion”.

What you are doing is butchering steps 4 and 5 of the scientific method.

4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Your experiment tests whether your prediction is accurate and thus your hypothesis is supported or not. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same.

You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren't just an accident.

For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
Experimental Procedure
Materials List
Conducting an Experiment


5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

Once your experiment is complete, you collect your measurements and analyze them to see if they support your hypothesis or not.

Scientists often find that their predictions were not accurate and their hypothesis was not supported, and in such cases they will communicate the results of their experiment and then go back and construct a new hypothesis and prediction based on the information they learned during their experiment. This starts much of the process of the scientific method over again. Even if they find that their hypothesis was supported, they may want to test it again in a new way.

For detailed help with this step, use these resources:
Data Analysis & Graphs
Conclusions

www.sciencebuddies.org...

———————————————
So, I’ll fix your statement for you again to be more credible. And free it of biased religious dogma.

Evidence is anything at all existing or discovered which leads man to know another thing is either true or false.

a reply to: neutronflux

Evidence is not "anything at all". It has a definition and Pachomius is clearly unaware of it. Or completely ignoring it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

That is a tricky one? Not everything is relevant to a theory, or stated question. Especially if Pachomius claims god is neither good nor evil, and are constructs of only humans? And god does not require worship. And Pachomius‘ god is supposedly a doer, but not a talker? So god is incapable of communicating? Doesn’t bold well in showing evidence that Pachomius‘ god exists? And Pachomius cannot say all things point to god as evidence, because Pachomius has explicitly exclude god from specific items and behaviors. And attribute the creating of good and evil to persons.

Anyway...
Not everything is relevant to a theory, or stated question. And there is no universal law stating evidence relevant to a theory will prove it correct.


So.....

Not everything and anything is evidence to a specific theory. Evidence relevant to a theory may, or may not support the theory.

That is about as certain a statement a person can produce for evidence?

That is very different than, “ Evidence is anything at all existing which leads man to know another thing existing”

So. How would you produce evidence there can be nothing using Pachomius‘ logic. I don’t think you could.