Evidence

[ChildOfReason]

I'm confused. Why would the theist need to realise that there is no evidence? It's the atheist that is usually wanting physical evidence on a silver platter presented to them that proves God. The chance that all these atheists are asking rhetorically is extremely low, as it is obvious that they're implying that such evidence is what they require in order to start believing, hence why they're most likely asking in the first place.

It is true that the atheist is the one who wants evidence. The problem is that rather than admitting the lack of material evidence, the theist will persistently make claims that there is evidence, making the argument linger on that specific subject. Outside of an argument purely about whether there is evidence or not, the theist will try to make the claim that there is. I argue using the point that there is no material evidence to prevent the theist from making their claim that there is evidence later.

[FallentoReason]

The theist vs. atheist debate will finally progress when the atheist realises asking for evidence is ridiculous. What is it that you're expecting from the theist? An experiment with a beaker and a few chemicals that prove God exists? No, such evidence will *never* be available because we're talking about a concept that is "outside" of our universe. How can materialistic things prove to you that there is a consciousness that feels love, anger, jealousy etc. which wants to connect with you personally? They can't.

I guess what I'd like to know is why, if no evidence is to be found out there, how come they presume this "consciousness .. which wants to connect with you personally" is out there.

That's for the theist to answer.

Just as the underpinnings of consciousness are to be found in the brain, so too will this "greater consciousness".

This comparison suggests that the universe is in fact the brain of God. I don't think that's what you meant to say..?

If it isn't supported in our brains then it has no place in this universe at all. Why turn down such a location for gods? Maybe you gods are in here. Consciousness is not unitary. There is plenty of room for your gods right on board that noggin of yours. You know, I and I.

Oh wait, are you saying God should be able to be found in our consciousness??? Consciousness is not unitary??? Are you a schizophrenic by any chance?

---

I'm confused. Why would the theist need to realise that there is no evidence? It's the atheist that is usually wanting physical evidence on a silver platter presented to them that proves God. The chance that all these atheists are asking rhetorically is extremely low, as it is obvious that they're implying that such evidence is what they require in order to start believing, hence why they're most likely asking in the first place.

It is true that the atheist is the one who wants evidence. The problem is that rather than admitting the lack of material evidence, the theist will persistently make claims that there is evidence, making the argument linger on that specific subject. Outside of an argument purely about whether there is evidence or not, the theist will try to make the claim that there is. I argue using the point that there is no material evidence to prevent the theist from making their claim that there is evidence later.

Ah, I see. Yeah, I think the honest answer that both parties should adopt is that there is no empirical evidence for God. Therefore, the logistics of the theist shouldn't involve bluffing about evidence, and the logistics of the atheist shouldn't involve expecting physical evidence on demand.

[Cato]

I argue using the point that there is no material evidence to prevent the theist from making their claim that there is evidence later.

Perhaps it's just me; however, the word incoherence just came to mind.

[ChildOfReason]

I argue using the point that there is no material evidence to prevent the theist from making their claim that there is evidence later.

Perhaps it's just me; however, the word incoherence just came to mind.

I understand, it was not a well thought out sentence. What I was trying to say is the following:
When arguing, I come across the claim that there is evidence for god very often.
I present the argument that there is no evidence to make sure that the theist understands that the statement "there is no evidence towards god" is true. This prevents the theist from making claims that there is evidence farther in the argument.

[Minimalist]

No evidence for your god.

Plenty of evidence for science though.

[ChildOfReason]

I guess what I'd like to know is why, if no evidence is to be found out there, how come they presume this "consciousness .. which wants to connect with you personally" is out there.

That's for the theist to answer.

Just as the underpinnings of consciousness are to be found in the brain, so too will this "greater consciousness".

This comparison suggests that the universe is in fact the brain of God. I don't think that's what you meant to say..?

If it isn't supported in our brains then it has no place in this universe at all. Why turn down such a location for gods? Maybe you gods are in here. Consciousness is not unitary. There is plenty of room for your gods right on board that noggin of yours. You know, I and I.

Oh wait, are you saying God should be able to be found in our consciousness??? Consciousness is not unitary??? Are you a schizophrenic by any chance?

---

Ah, I see. Yeah, I think the honest answer that both parties should adopt is that there is no empirical evidence for God. Therefore, the logistics of the theist shouldn't involve bluffing about evidence, and the logistics of the atheist shouldn't involve expecting physical evidence on demand.

Yes, that is the point I was trying to stress. Once the argument reaches a point where both sides agree to not try to provide any evidence, they can argue purely with logic rather than observation. However, there is the valid argument that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[Whateverist]

I guess what I'd like to know is why, if no evidence is to be found out there, how come they presume this "consciousness .. which wants to connect with you personally" is out there.

That's for the theist to answer.

Just as the underpinnings of consciousness are to be found in the brain, so too will this "greater consciousness".

This comparison suggests that the universe is in fact the brain of God. I don't think that's what you meant to say..?

If it isn't supported in our brains then it has no place in this universe at all. Why turn down such a location for gods? Maybe you gods are in here. Consciousness is not unitary. There is plenty of room for your gods right on board that noggin of yours. You know, I and I.

Oh wait, are you saying God should be able to be found in our consciousness??? Consciousness is not unitary??? Are you a schizophrenic by any chance?

Nope. But why do you assume your consciousness is unitary? Where do your flights of imagination come from or your dreams? Do you consciously take responsibility and credit for everything that goes on in your head? This is such a strong cultural bias and a huge blind spot. Of course consciousness is fragmentary. Conscious you is just a tool of your greater consciousness. Try not to wet yourself over it but you really aren't the whole show; however you are free to be consciously confused about all this ... as you pretty much have to be until you get some perspective.

[FallentoReason]

Nope. But why do you assume your consciousness is unitary?

Because that's all I've ever experienced. Because I've never heard someone else speaking inside my head. Because I'm the only one that seems to be in control of me and my thoughts.

Where do your flights of imagination come from or your dreams?

The brain. Countless scans have been done to show what parts of the brain are responsible for what.

Do you consciously take responsibility and credit for everything that goes on in your head?

They're my thoughts, so yes.

This is such a strong cultural bias and a huge blind spot.

But it's the *only* option, unless you have concrete evidence to suggest an alternative.

Of course consciousness is fragmentary. Conscious you is just a tool of your greater consciousness. Try not to wet yourself over it but you really aren't the whole show; however you are free to be consciously confused about all this ... as you pretty much have to be until you get some perspective.

Yeah, sure, maybe I'm not capable of 100% being able to use my brain's full capacity or w/e, but it doesn't follow that my consciousness is *shared*!

[Esquilax]

The evidence is all around you. Open your eyes.

I present a brief, one act example of why this is literally the worst argument for anything, ever:

Act one: in which we see why "open your eyes," is the worst argument for anything, ever.

INT: My house.

[Our hero sits on his bed, perusing Atheist Forums. After finding a post detailing the evidence for god as "all around us," and entreating us to "open your eyes," he closes his eyes, puts his laptop to one side, and stands up. Feeling his way along, he leaves his room and makes the familiar turn toward the bathroom. Still blind, he seats himself on the toilet and, after some moments of unclenching, stands, turns around, and looks down. In accordance with this amazing evidence for god, he opens his eyes, and beholds the thing that will lead him to god. He quickly comes to a conclusion.]

HERO: The evidence for god is shit?

[A shake of the head, a flush, and our hero bows. End scene.]

What do you think? Do I have an award winner, there?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Two old fish are talking about the temperature of the water. A young fish asks "what's water?"