The evidence is unnecessary

And you have physical, tangible PROOF of the origin of intuition? Please provide such PROOF.

 

here we go again.

http://phys.org/news/2011-01-uncover-neural-expert-intuition.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19338511

https://books.google.ca/books?id=bwc5AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=origins+of+intuition&source=bl&ots=bbZ5XMdI3v&sig=RUm-WhZTkj4Nyi_v9keC1z9laeo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8qof93uTKAhWCmh4KHbakDds4ChDoAQg3MAU#v=onepage&q=origins%20of%20intuition&f=false

Rather ironic given the title of this OP, that you would demand evidence.

 

So then am I to take your statement regarding an irony regarding my actions relative to the topic of this thread to be an admission on your part that evidence of the existence of God is not necessary?

II also find it ironic that you would use citations from books written by others as an evidence to support your claim about intuition. In like manner then, it is equally appropriate for Theists to support their claims regarding God by using the other book written by other men as a valid source of evidence.

 

This is a long threat. Excuse me for not having read all comments. Your introduction says: The atheist demands to see God before believing in Him. But here's the thing: If God is all-powerful, then he can make man believe in Him regardless of the lack of evidence.

The atheist, however, clings on the unfounded assumption that everything that exists must display tangible data of some sort. He knows that if he drops this assumption, there is a possibility of him believing in God.
For me as an atheist, the answer is given with the question. If your God would be so allmighty to make all people "believe", atheists wouldn't exist. That means either: "There is no God" or "Your God is not so mighty to make all people believe". The right answer can be determined by flipping coins. Both alternatives however have one in common: Your assumption from the introduction is wrong. Why should I believe the rest?

 

Of course evidence of the existence of god is not necessary to those who have faith that god exists. that's the whole point of faith.

However, I don't have that faith, and I require a far higher standard of evidence to support my beliefs, if not my opinions. therefore, until such time that sufficient concrete evidence of supernatural existence and forces is presented, I shall remain an agnostic atheist.

 

What is faith based upon if not some sort of evidence?

 

Once you recognize that Jesus said "I am the Truth" you see that his father in heaven is Reality.

This explains the Trinity concept.
It makes Modern Science a tool that aids our discovery of Reality as Truth becomes evermore clear.

- - - Updated - - -

Faith is that part of science we call Hypothesis.
Evidence that follows establishes good hypothesis as worthy ideas.

 

But that would never hold up in Science, where hypotheses must be tested by experiments to see if they work.

What we have seen is the hypothesis of faith in Truth gradually being verified as descriptive of Reality, which is the almighty.
Prophecies have used the premises of sociological evidence and history to demonstrate that the truth predicted will come true.

- - - Updated - - -

But bad experiences have demonstrated that opposing Reality is insane, hasn't it???
Reality is the almighty.
Only crazy people believe they ignore the Truth, accept lies, and do well.

 

Faith is a weak epistemology since it has zero evidence needed to support it, however its also dangerous because people believe in something without evidence therefore no one should ever use it. I'd rather base my belief structure on evidence that is indeed falsifiable and tested as in Science.

 

?
Science uses Hypothesis all the time.

Edison used he hypothesis that some thing could be made to glow as electricity passed through it such that lights would be emitted.
He tried 3000 different things, as his own employees laughed at him, I might add.
Finally, he discovered that tungsten would work.

His faith is that idea is what all science uses for every discovery.

 

Actually he did not use tungsten that is incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison

 

You have artificially limited the choices to the 2 that suit your needs. In Christianity, God allows people the choice to believe or not believe, life is a test to sort those who believe from those who do not.

 

True.
I was wrong on that.
He had discovered that a carbon filament did the job.

Tungsten as a filament was discovered later:

"On 13 December 1904, Hungarian Sándor Just and Croatian Franjo Hanaman were granted a Hungarian patent (No. 34541) for a tungsten filament lamp that lasted longer and gave brighter light than the carbon filament. Tungsten filament lamps were first marketed by the Hungarian company Tungsram in 1904. This type is often called Tungsram-bulbs in many European countries.[47] Filling a bulb with an inert gas such as argon or nitrogen retards the evaporation of the tungsten filament compared to operating it in a vacuum. This allows for greater temperatures and therefore greater efficacy with less reduction in filament life."

 

"far higher standard"??? By what standard are you using to determine that your required standard is in FACT a "far higher standard"? 'evidence' is one of those attributes of 'proof', which you have objected to ... 'proof = evidence or argument which compels the mind to accept an assertion as true .' Also your claim of supporting your 'beliefs' indicates that you are writing about things that you are objecting to. 'belief' = "3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons." ... 'fact = something believed to be true or real." see www.tfd.com for the source of those definitions.

 

Those two assertions of yours indicates that you have positive knowledge of God and what God wants and does not want. Where did you obtain that positive knowledge?

 

Remember my favorite definition of the term proof. Proof = evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. Also, remember the old adage "proof is in the pudding". If it don't have all the attributes of 'pudding' then it can't be pudding.

 

So, you have set a requirement for the Atheists to believe in God. In other words, unless all Atheists first undergo an amputation of their leg, there will never be any belief by the Atheists that there is a God. How many of the Atheists are you guessing will take your requirement to task and have a leg amputated in order to prove your claim as true?

 

Based on evidence, not bullcrap. And all theories are hypothesis even gravity they are just so tested we are sure some are likely right such as gravity.

And I only use faith in the religious context, please use confidence or hope or truth for non-religious applications of faith.

 

Are you now saying that "confidence" and "hope" are synonymous with 'truth'?

 

Apparently my higher standard of proof to support my "beliefs" (as opposed to opinions) escapes you.
The ABSENCE of any convincing evidence to meet that standard is what I was referring to.

The standards I use revolve around sources, experimentation, repeatability, examination, verification, analysis, falsifiability and the facts that are generated by those processes.
If such processes return positive results then it is incorporated into my "Belief" system.
If such processes return contradictory results, I may continue to hold such as an opinion, but that is not at all the same thing.
If such processes return NO results, and yet one maintains the original hypothesis to be true, then one enters the realm of faith.

Quite a different kettle of fish than mere faith which appears to me to be a case of one's emotions driving intellectual acceptance of something that cannot as yet be proven in any fashion acceptable to those WITHOUT the same faith.

 

The reverse is the claim though.

Believers in "faith healing" claim "God cures things for those who believe and pray for healing"....fine.

Show a case where a Believer who has already had an amputation, has gotten God to re-grow a new leg or even a couple fingers?

 

Edison did have evidence to support his search for the perfect material for the element of his lightbulb. In fact, he had it working hundreds of times, but those materials could not pass the durability and longevity REQUIRED to become a commercially viable invention.

He had HARD EVIDENCE that his SCIENCE was SOUND.

 

Yes precisely my point.

Sorry, but I don't see the "hypotheses of faith" gradually being verified by anyone other than religious apologists. Science sure as hell ain't doing it.

 

My goodness, what a fallacious statement to make. Remember I live by the definition of the term "proof". "evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." However, what you seem to be not realizing is that when the evidence or argument is presented to any individual, it must be compelling to the mind of that individual. So, in that regard, I would never provide to you any evidence or argument and at the same time hold any level of expectation of you to accept it as true. Why on Earth would you even presuppose that I might attempt such an ill fated course of action?

Well good for you. On the other side of that coin, those standards you have specified, are not applicable with regard to God or spirituality, now are they?

Faith, as you demonstrated earlier is a matter of 'confidence' and 'hope'. BTW: Did you ever look up the definition of 'faith'? If not, let me assist you: faith = "2. Confident or unquestioning belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. See Synonyms at belief, trust. " Also here is the one for 'hope'. Hope = "1. (sometimes plural) a feeling of desire for something and confidence in the possibility of its fulfillment:"

You probably should study the synonymous meanings of the terms related to 'faith' . If you have confidence or hope in those standards you have prescribed, then you have 'faith' in them. The Theists (Christians in particular) have methodologies wherewith they can also 'test' the spirituality of a person or event and can equally make determinations as to whether or not to accept that person or event as having its origin from God. Unfortunately for you, you probably are not spiritually equipped to perform such a test. You have to have the right tools to perform any task.

 

You made the claim that Theists do such things, so show me a case where such a thing was claimed by a Christian. (amputation specifically,,, as that was your first example). Such a thing was never even mentioned in the 'Bible'.