(June 14, 2015 at 11:03 am)comet Wrote:(June 14, 2015 at 9:09 am)Randy Carson Wrote: What type of evidence or proof would you accept? Because of your presuppositions, you can’t examine any evidence or proof that I might show you without bias.
Your presupposition is this: there is no God. Therefore, no matter what I might present, you will and must interpret it in a manner consistent with that presupposition.
• If I showed you a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you’d say it was done with special effects.
• If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying that they saw it, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.
• If I showed you Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the new Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly or simply misinterpreted.
So, I don’t think I can show you any evidence of God’s existence that you will accept because your presuppositions will not allow you to consider that evidence objectively.
This actually says more about you than it does about the evidence itself because many people have examined the evidence for God’s existence, and they have become convinced that He really does exist.
So, until you can show me the type of evidence that you would be willing to accept as convincing proof of God’s existence, I doubt I can provide what you need.
And here we come to the point of THIS thread...if there is no evidence that can falsify atheism, then it is not based on science; it is a faith position.
a lot of times it is not the evidence; It is how we use it. I personally don't have a problem with what people believe many times. The data clearly shows "something" is more valid over "no-nothing". I have do have a problem with how literal religious people push their personal emotional needs on my stone cold logic as more "true". Sure, I could use a little more of the "warm and fuzzy", but don't cover me in the slime.
I will make a note to never do that.