My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[Bubbles]

No this is not correct.

To see evidence of a god, you would have to define god.

Can you do that?

I have seen god used as an answer to stuff we do not know. In reality it is not an answer.

If you have evidence for a god, it should stand up to scrutiny. That's we believe that gravity is the best explanation for stuff falling etc.

I could look at stuff falling and say I see this as evidence for pixies pulling things down on invisible strings.

One is science, the other is complete nonsense.

The trick is seeing the difference, something theists sometimes struggle with.

No one has to define God, be rational.

It's just one of many possible answers.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rose,

Who knows, one day we might catch a pixie

Or an invisible stork. As neither "God" nor "invisible stork" have meaningful definitions or coherent rationales for their existence at all, each falls to the category "not even wrong" whereas competing ideas about the origins of the universe are in different categories on the spectrum of conjectures to hypotheses.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rose,

No one has to define God, be rational.

It's just one of many possible answers.

That only works if you think "uh30730y" or "*&£ED£*£@&*" are possible answers too.

[Stranger]

To many Scientists are disputing too much for it to be answered logically yet.
A lot of scientists are struggling as well.

Who knows, one day we might catch a pixie 

Again, you clearly don't understand the process of science. Scientific theories (not to be confused with hypotheses or conjectures) are the best fit explanations for the current evidence.

This already is logical and rational, even if new evidence eventually changes our views.

God is a blind guess based on zero evidence, that could "explain" anything and hence explains nothing.

[Stranger]

No one has to define God, be rational.

It's just one of many possible answers.

If it isn't defined, it isn't an answer (possible or otherwise).

[Bubbles]

If it isn't defined, it isn't an answer (possible or otherwise).

Yes it is.

No one has defined gravity, but it's still an answer.

[Stranger]

No one has defined gravity, but it's still an answer.

Drivel. Newton defined it as a force and gave a mathematical formula for it. Einstein gave a more accurate definition in the form of curved space-time and showed that it matched Newton's theory except in extreme conditions. Probably, in the future, we will have another refinement.

At every stage there has been a defined theory that fits the observed facts.

[Bubbles]

If some people only want to believe in things they can see, touch or feel or measure, that's fine.

Any ideas about the very beginnings of the universe and what was before, is bound to be mostly speculation.

Personally I don't believe we can be too sure, based on what science has found out, so far.

Maybe we will never find out.

It doesn't stop people wondering though and seeing things, in the way things are.

[Udayana]

...
Nonsense. As has been pointed out "dark matter" is a place holder for whatever causes the gravitational effects we observe. It isn't any sort of answer.

Black holes have supporting evidence.

Somewhat veering off-topic, but so does dark matter: We can map out where it seems to be clustered from images showing the effects of gravitational lensing. We just don't know yet what the dark matter itself  is in terms of particles.

http://www.space.com/14768-dark-matter-universe-photos.html
 

[Bubbles]

Drivel. Newton defined it as a force and gave a mathematical formula for it. Einstein gave a more accurate definition in the form of curved space-time and showed that it matched Newton's theory except in extreme conditions. Probably, in the future, we will have another refinement.

At every stage there has been a defined theory that fits the observed facts.

Except it isn't a force, is it? Some chap called Einstein came along 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rose,

It doesn't stop people wondering though.

"Wondering" and making positive assertions of fact are not the same thing. Scientists wonder, but that's the start rather then the end of the process of enquiry. For theologians, it's the other way around.

[torridon]

http://www.moillusions.com/young-lady-or-old-hag/

In the same way some people see an evidence for God, in the universe.

It's just a way of looking at the same things and people see either the young woman or the hag depending on how they look.

Both can use the same evidence, but see different things, like in the picture above.

Forget religion for a minute, which has other things about it, and step back a bit.

Like the picture you can see the evidence  for God or no God in the structure of the universe.

It's in the eye of the beholder, just like in the picture.

You can see God in the order and structure and the evidence is the same.

I can see there are two ways of seeing it, like the illusion 🌹

Nice illusion.  I got the old hag immediately but it took an effort to see the young lady

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

I got the old hag immediately but it took an effort to see the young lady

Story of my life....

[Udayana]

Except it isn't a force, is it?

For practical purposes it is more of a "force" than God is!

[jjohnjil]

Yes it is.

No one has defined gravity, but it's still an answer.

Go for it, Rose, I'm with you here.  If 'X' was substituted for 'God' there would be no problem.  It's the mythical tales and rules that theology and religion make up that concerns me, not the name we call this unknown answer.

Scientists look for answers to everything unknown, as they look for X or anything else we - as yet - have no evidence for.

[torridon]

torri,

Story of my life....

  

[Bubbles]

Go for it, Rose, I'm with you here.  If 'X' was substituted for 'God' there would be no problem.  It's the mythical tales and rules that theology and religion make up that concerns me, not the name we call this unknown answer.

Scientists look for answers to everything unknown, as they look for X or anything else we - as yet - have no evidence for.

Yes, let's change it from God to X.

God has to much baggage for my point really 

Which is only that some people see the evidence in the structure and way things are for X and others don't.

Like the illusion 

I'm not claiming to know btw, but have some sympathies for those that see evidence of X.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rose,

Yes, let's change it from God to X.

Or "stork". Or "uyG8O7687". Or "magic". Or leave it as "God". The problem though is that none of these terms offer any explanatory power whatever.

On balance, I'd say "don't know" does the job better as it doesn't overreach by claiming to be an answer to the problem.

[SusanDoris]

Like black holes? Or dark matter?

There is no real evidence for black holes or dark matter.

The difference between black holes and God/gods is that no-one worships black holes, no-one gives them, instead of us evolved humans,  the credit for all that human evolution enables us to think or do, no-one teaches children that blackholes must be prayed to, will provide them with an after-life, etc etc.

[Hope]

The difference between black holes and God/gods is that no-one worships black holes, no-one gives them, instead of us evolved humans,  the credit for all that human evolution enables us to think or do, no-one teaches children that blackholes must be prayed to, will provide them with an after-life, etc etc.

But what credit can we 'evolved humans' give to ourselves.  After all, we have nothing to do with causing evolution; we are simply the outcome of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

But what credit can we 'evolved humans' give to ourselves.  After all, we have nothing to do with causing evolution; we are simply the outcome of it.

Our species evolved; the individual members of our species can do astonishing things and, when they do, they deserve credit for it.

[Hope]

None of us can know the elusive 'truth' for sure where god and an afterlife is concerned. As there is no evidence to support the existence of the Biblical god and everything claimed for it,  I am of the opinion it doesn't exist. However, I would be a fool to claim that is a definite fact and the TRUTH.

Floo, you have parrotted this post, almost word for word, over numerous posts here, not to mention numerous posts on other boards.  You are entitled to be 'of the opinion (God) doesn't exist', but then there are others who would come to the opposite conclusion using the same evidence.  That evidence - some of which evidence that has been placed on this and other boards over the years - would suggest that there is some form of truth in the world's religions.

Whilst there are huge differences in the various religions, there are also a variety of similarities.  Don Richardson talks about this in his book 'Eternity in Their Hearts'.  In view of the age of most of the world's religions - and the distances separating them in their formative periods limiting any cross-fertilisation - it would seem to suggest that there is something that is external to humanity and the evolved natural world.  Intertestingly, too, one of these similarities is the concept of salvation. It exists across the range of religious thinking, albeit differing in detail. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

You are entitled to be 'of the opinion (God) doesn't exist', but then there are others who would come to the opposite conclusion using the same evidence.

Actually it’s more like, “there’s no reason to think “God” does exist” but yes, anyone is entitled to any opinion they wish to hold. That’s why Harry might think that babies come from women’s tummies and Bill thinks an invisible stork delivers them.

That evidence - some of which evidence that has been placed on this…

Where?

…and other boards over the years - would suggest that there is some form of truth in the world's religions.

It “suggests” no such thing for the same reason that the evidence Bill thinks there to be for storks delivering babies does not suggest that there’s some truth to the Bill’s opinion.

Whilst there are huge differences in the various religions, there are also a variety of similarities.  Don Richardson talks about this in his book 'Eternity in Their Hearts'.  In view of the age of most of the world's religions - and the distances separating them in their formative periods limiting any cross-fertilisation - it would seem to suggest that there is something that is external to humanity and the evolved natural world.

Again, it suggests no such thing. The common feature is that they sought explanations for the otherwise inexplicable, so it’s hardly a surprise that there’s some overlap in their focus and claims.

Intertestingly, too, one of these similarities is the concept of salvation. It exists across the range of religious thinking, albeit differing in detail.

“Interesting” only in the sense that shamans and clerics needed a carrot as well as a stick to persuade the doubtful. That though says nothing whatever to whether “salvation” is indeed an option.

[Shaker]

Floo, you have parrotted this post, almost word for word, over numerous posts here, not to mention numerous posts on other boards.  You are entitled to be 'of the opinion (God) doesn't exist', but then there are others who would come to the opposite conclusion using the same evidence.  That evidence - some of which evidence that has been placed on this and other boards over the years - would suggest that there is some form of truth in the world's religions.

No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with evidence but - as in your case - everything to do with not being able to think without committing some form of logical fallacy or other. With you it's usually the negative proof fallacy, but occasionally as here you make a detour into others.

[Gordon]

That evidence - some of which evidence that has been placed on this and other boards over the years - would suggest that there is some form of truth in the world's religions.

Leaving aside the lack of evidence from such as yourself, this claim of yours covers quite a bit of ground. There may indeed be stuff that is trivially true, such as places (Jerusalem would be an obvious one) but that doesn't imply that other religious claims are also true: especially the supernatural ones, since human artifice accounting for aspects of these claims remains an unresolved risk that you seem reluctant to acknowledge.

You seem to be wearing your rose-tinted theo-glasses again.