Why Must There Be a God?

[_SteelHead]

Right...... you must have a different definition for rational, when belief in the un evidenced in any way, invisible sky daddy is the "rational" conclusion.

[_subgenius]

Right...... you must have a different definition for rational, when belief in the un evidenced in any way, invisible sky daddy is the "rational" conclusion.

no, i have the definition most commonly used and found among literate people.
obviously the definition for "evidence" is one that you hold close to yourself and has a rather limited scope and relies heavily on presupposition......but that certainly suits your purpose, as noted in my response above.

[_SteelHead]

Present said evidence then.

[_SteelHead]

So nothing, Sub?

[_Amore]

Why must there be consciousness?
Why is it that a neurosurgean can only see brain activity but never the exact thoughts and mental experiences?
God is defined as that consciousness aware of consciousness - I AM THAT I AM. "The kingdom of God is within you."
Why must you acknowledge your consciousness?

God is another way of saying intuition and faith.
And we live by faith - we daily hope for things that we don't know for sure - like that we'll make it to work, keep breathing, etc.
Intuition is another aspect we depend on - so often we make decisions without full awareness and somehow it was exactly right.

You can deny there is a god, but it's more illogical and anti-intuitive than claimimg to know a bi-polar grandpa in the sky is God.

[_SteelHead]

Show that consciousness necessitates god and you will have something. That we can not explain a phenomena does not mean it is supernatural, just beyond our current ken. I do not claim there is no god, I claim there is 0 evidence for god.

Illogical is claiming there is a god when there is 0 evidence for such, and 0 evidence of a need for such.

Now produce something.

[_subgenius]

Present said evidence then.

While you will surely not accept it, let us start out simple and slow...

...the Bible is actual evidence. Historic documents are valid forms of evidence, as are many other verbal traditions. Tacitus mentions Christ in a non-Bible document - Additionally, at least in the USA, there is a valid consideration for "self-evident" truths -
So, all of the above are examples of testimony...and testimony is a valid form of evidence.

"Evidence given in the form of testimony is perhaps the most basic type of evidence. Testimonial evidence consists of what a competent witness at the proceeding in question says in court. Generally, witnesses are competent if they meet four broad requirements:

The witnesses must take the oath or a substitute and understand the oath,
The witnesses must have personal knowledge about the subject of their testimony.
The witnesses must recall what was perceived
The witnesses must be able to communicate what they perceived
The courts interpret competency quite liberally, which means that testimony based on the competency of a witness is rarely excluded"
http://evidence.uslegal.com/testimony/

said evidence, as requested, presented.

now, let me sit back, relax, and read how you presuppositions work all this out

[_subgenius]

Show that consciousness necessitates god and you will have something. That we can not explain a phenomena does not mean it is supernatural, just beyond our current ken. I do not claim there is no god, I claim there is 0 evidence for god.

Illogical is claiming there is a god when there is 0 evidence for such, and 0 evidence of a need for such.

Now produce something.

1. Not being able to explain does not exclude the supernatural either...so, you must concede that it is possible.

2. You refusal to accept or acknowledge any evidence presented is not a authentic justification for your claim of "0 evidence".

3. One need has already been provided. The simplest notion for such a "need" is that without objectivity one can not measure anything. This being applied to behavior and morality confirms the "need" for an objective source for what can be considered good or what can be considered bad. This need can be met by the existence of God...so while you may disagree that this is how the need can be met, the need exists nevertheless....ergo, 1 evidence for need

4. The supernatural is confirmed by the ability to choose otherwise. If you believe that our existence is nothing more than the result of a variety of complex chemical reactions then you must affirm that these reactions are incapable of "reacting" in any other way. Neither vinegar nor baking soda can "choose" to not fizz when mixed. So, your every thought and action must be without option and ergo "you" do not really exist outside of a neurological disorder and "you" cannot be held responsible for anything...."you" are constantly in a state of reacting to environmental influence - without control, motive, nor meaning. Even your disagreement on this topic has no value because it is not of your own device or accord.
But
if you believe that you have the ability to choose otherwise - if your believe you can choose not to fizz, then somehow you have transcended the laws of nature and by definition entered the supernatural....and the existence of the supernatural is evidence for the possibility of God...ergo, 1 evidence for God.

if you are not keeping score....it is Need 1, God 1, your claims 0

[_SteelHead]

You have neither presented need nor evidence.

Your argument for need is incoherent, your evidence for god does not follow from your argument.

Incoherent in that all that we experience is through the manifold of our senses. No truly objective view of the universe has ever been demonstrated, nor has the need for such been demonstrated. While you can conjecture about such a truly objective entity, the need for such has not been demonstrated, hence incoherent munging of esoteric concepts does not equal true need.

Human choice of actions does not defy the laws of nature, chemical reactions follow the laws of nature. That the universe has laws does not demonstrate a creator. That I can choose certain actions does not make me supernatural. I can not defy the laws of physics. You have not demonstrated anything/class of things that can only be attributed to supernatural, rather than a lack of human understanding of natural phenomena. Your conclusion does not follow out of your argument.

The Bible is not evidence of god. It is evidence that we can write stories. There is no definitive link between the claims of divine influence into the authorship.

That people testify that god is acting through them does not mean that he is, rather that the believe/ are saying that he does. Independently, and externaly verifiable and repeatable evidence is required.
Try again.

[_Amore]

Show that consciousness necessitates god and you will have something. That we can not explain a phenomena does not mean it is supernatural, just beyond our current ken. I do not claim there is no god, I claim there is 0 evidence for god.

Illogical is claiming there is a god when there is 0 evidence for such, and 0 evidence of a need for such.

Now produce something.

Now define God.
From what you've written, it seems you've clung to the most illogical, dysfunctional idea of God - so it's easier to deny God.
If God is a tyranically grandpa in the sky - then of course, consciousness wouldn't necessitate God - except for maybe the psychological projection someone's consciousness maintains.

There is 0 evidence that there is a tyranical grandpa in the sky.
But there is plenty of evidence of the countless other definitions of God - if you care to open your mind to them.
Otherwise, just stick with the pseudo-skeptic notion that God MUST be defined as the most stupid definition imaginable and then MUST be denied - and that's it.
Then, I'd wager that you'd have your own articles of faith that blinds you from seeing inconvenient truths.