Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
July 13, 2015 at 11:54 am
What!? What happened! My mind is blown 
I wasn't ready for that.
Posts: 30681
Threads: 2120
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
July 13, 2015 at 12:19 pm
How about humans considering all god claims are made up. No sane person considers lightening evidence for Thor.
Posts: 20476
Threads: 447
Joined: June 16, 2014
Reputation:
111
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
July 13, 2015 at 8:00 pm
(July 13, 2015 at 10:27 am)Stimbo Wrote: (July 11, 2015 at 2:39 pm)snowtracks Wrote: 'big' is a physical dimension.
You heard it here first: 'big' is a physical dimension. So we have time, length, breadth, height - and big. Guys and gals, we are in the presence of a physics genius; we'd better quit now before we embarrass ourselves any further.
He he... I'm sure he meant it in it's strict technical aspect.
You know, like: fluffy, juicy, Squishy, thingamajig, boof.
They're all technical latin terms....
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
July 13, 2015 at 8:05 pm
Meanwhile, back at the OP, perhaps it would help if god left identifiable tracks in the snow. I assume these would have a large magnitude of big-ness. Why lord - oh why do you evade us so? We cry out to thee for a sign, but all we get is Snowtracks.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
July 13, 2015 at 8:59 pm
(July 13, 2015 at 8:05 pm)whateverist Wrote: Meanwhile, back at the OP, perhaps it would help if god left identifiable tracks in the snow. I assume these would have a large magnitude of big-ness. Why lord - oh why do you evade us so? We cry out to thee for a sign, but all we get is Snowtracks. Quote:And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have listened to buffoons with internet usernames such as Gods_Child and Snowtracks.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 950
Threads: 1
Joined: October 10, 2013
Reputation:
2
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
July 13, 2015 at 11:54 pm
(July 9, 2015 at 1:42 am)Kitan Wrote: (July 9, 2015 at 1:38 am)snowtracks Wrote: God has primary revealed himself to humanity in both the words of Scripture and the works of nature. Oh, you mean the scripture written by men with no evidence to support any divine intervention? Do you also mean the nature that is around us that provides no evidence of having been divinely created?
I do not have time for your retarded answers that are just that. If you want to be taken seriously, try being fucking smart for once and not regurgitate the ignorance from thousands of years of mythology. Indications are that the atheistic fortress this one has build is starting to crumble. "methinks he doth protest too much". Why? because he so angry for the reason wherever he or she goes, God's handiwork of nature is on display and he's reminded since scripture tells that the works of God are clearly seen by all. Saying they don't see is a simply a willful denial (myriad of reasons why people resource to this); truth is truly shaper than any two-edged sword. But let's don't bother with him or bother him since his time is so valuable, so extremely valuable; and he obviously is VIPish with more important thing to attend to.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
Posts: 5466
Threads: 36
Joined: November 10, 2014
Reputation:
53
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
July 14, 2015 at 12:11 am
(July 13, 2015 at 11:54 pm)snowtracks Wrote: (July 9, 2015 at 1:42 am)Kitan Wrote: Oh, you mean the scripture written by men with no evidence to support any divine intervention? Do you also mean the nature that is around us that provides no evidence of having been divinely created?
I do not have time for your retarded answers that are just that. If you want to be taken seriously, try being fucking smart for once and not regurgitate the ignorance from thousands of years of mythology. Indications are that the atheistic fortress this one has build is starting to crumble. "methinks he doth protest too much". Why? because he so angry for the reason wherever he or she goes, God's handiwork of nature is on display and he's reminded since scripture tells that the works of God are clearly seen by all. Saying they don't see is a simply a willful denial (myriad of reasons why people resource to this); truth is truly shaper than any two-edged sword. But let's don't bother with him or bother him since his time is so valuable, so extremely valuable; and he obviously is VIPish with more important thing to attend to.
It's so cute when theists try to be snarky.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
July 14, 2015 at 7:36 am
I hate it when they think they know how to use Shakespeare though.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 2421
Threads: 30
Joined: July 16, 2015
Reputation:
50
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
July 16, 2015 at 9:40 am
If you don't mind me jumping in here I'd like to pose a couple thoughts and questions.
Some of you state that there is no evidence in nature of God. I assume you hold to the viewpoint that eventually science will have the explanation for the universes existence (and even further our own existence) or maybe you feel it already has been explained by the likes of Stephen Hawkings revelation, "because there is a law of gravity the universe can and will create itself". If that is true I'd like your opinions on the following:
1. The extreme fine-tuning of the universe in order for the possibility of human life in relation to the astronomically calculated odds of this happening by chance.
2. Why if you see your name written in the sand on the beach you can not fathom that the waves, rocks, sticks somehow worked in random fashion to scrawl your name but you automatically assume a person wrote it (intelligent being), but when you look at the longest word ever discovered, the human genome (3.5 billion letters in precise order) you assume random chance?
Thank you and look forward to the discussion.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
Posts: 7318
Threads: 75
Joined: April 18, 2015
Reputation:
73
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
July 16, 2015 at 9:43 am
The universe is hardly fine tuned for anything, let alone life. 99% of it is very noticeably uninhabitable.
As for the second part, 
|
