Can I ask you a counter question:

Why should I care whether this "God" exists?

(January 11, 2017 at 11:38 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 11, 2017 at 4:50 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: http://lmgtfy.com/?iie=1&q=define+evidence

LMAO!  That made my night, Hammy.  Thank you!  

Yay!

(January 11, 2017 at 10:52 pm)Yadayadayada Wrote: You won't get CCTV footage or DNA samples as evidence of God. So, what would constitute enough "proof" or "evidence" for atheists to believe in God, or at least to consider God as the most credible explanation for the existence of the universe and life on earth?

Think about how you worded your statement-- you won't get any direct evidence of God's existence, so what would be enough circumstantial evidence to make you believe in God?

Part of the problem is that much of this kind of evidence doesn't point to God. If the geological and archeological records showed that fully-developed life forms suddenly appeared at the same time, followed by humans suddenly appearing with no precursors, that there was a cataclysmic event at one very brief point in time that killed everything and that the world was repopulated from a single point on the planet --at which we'd find the remains of a large ark-- then you'd have a massive fingerprint that would point to God. If there was any sort of evidence of this nature and on this scale, God's existence would have been so clear that not only would we all believe in God... we'd believe in the same God.

But no, the evidence comes in the form of unverifiable personal experiences, or statues that bleed, or images on toast. And here you are, wondering if that would be enough to convince us. Can you understand where we're coming from?

(January 11, 2017 at 10:52 pm)Yadayadayada Wrote: Well, yes, this is what I am getting at.

You won't get CCTV footage or DNA samples as evidence of God. So, what would constitute enough "proof" or "evidence" for atheists to believe in God, or at least to consider God as the most credible explanation for the existence of the universe and life on earth?

So, you establish right off the bat that your god cannot clear an extremely low bar of evidence, the sort of evidence that a common flea could provide, yet the all powerful architect of the universe apparently can't. Having done that, you then proceed to question us, as though we're somehow obligated to accept some form of evidence below that low, low bar, what we'd need. What happens if the sort of evidence you'd excluded is the sort of evidence you'd need? Is that a problem for you?

As to your god? The biblical one? No, that god can't exist. It can't, because the evidence we already have contradicts the god described in the bible so thoroughly that there's really no way to salvage it. Not really our problem that your favorite explanation is an untenable idea, though.

As to the question "What proof would it take to convince me?" - I don't know. But any god that wants me to know he exists should know exactly what proof it would take for me to believe in him. Just waiting for him to present that to me.

So far, I've found the arguments of all his various self-appointed spokespeople to be unconvincing.

(January 12, 2017 at 4:09 am)robvalue Wrote: Can I ask you a counter question:

Why should I care whether this "God" exists?

The vibes that I got from talking to believers go something like this, regarding your question "I decided to walk the "noble path" of religion and so should you, otherwise the morally perfect book describes severe punishment for not following its prefect rules". In the age of consumerism that's a very exotic or rare statement.

(January 11, 2017 at 11:30 pm)21stCenturyIconoclast Wrote:

(January 11, 2017 at 4:01 pm)Yadayadayada Wrote: Atheists, please define "evidence".

Yadayadayada,

God damn it, when will you pagan god freaks ever learn?!  Which god of the primitive Bronze and Iron Age are you talking about???

Don't be like the ever so inept Neo-Scholasitc, Catholic Lady, Drich, Phillip2, et al, okay?  By you using the term "god," you act as though 
there is only one god which is laughable!  For the sake of your further embarrassment, I have included a list of many pagan 
gods throughout history,  so please pick from the list below in which primitive god you're referring too! 


Azura Mazda, Angus, Belenos, Brigid, Dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Allah Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, 
Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, 
Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Ganesh, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Shiva Thuno, Tir, Vishnu, Weyland, Woden, Yahweh, Alfar, Balder, 
Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, 
Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, Saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Herne, Holda, 
Nehalennia, Nerthus, Endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Jesus, Juno, Jupiter, 
Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, 
Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, 
Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, 
Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, 
Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, 
Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fukurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, 
Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac and Zaramama. 



m

We're not at all discussing what or which god etc. That would detract from my question.

---

(January 11, 2017 at 4:01 pm)Yadayadayada Wrote: Atheists, please define "evidence".

(January 12, 2017 at 9:20 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 11, 2017 at 10:52 pm)Yadayadayada Wrote: Well, yes, this is what I am getting at.

You won't get CCTV footage or DNA samples as evidence of God. So, what would constitute enough "proof" or "evidence" for atheists to believe in God, or at least to consider God as the most credible explanation for the existence of the universe and life on earth?

So, you establish right off the bat that your god cannot clear an extremely low bar of evidence, the sort of evidence that a common flea could provide, yet the all powerful architect of the universe apparently can't. Having done that, you then proceed to question us, as though we're somehow obligated to accept some form of evidence below that low, low bar, what we'd need. What happens if the sort of evidence you'd excluded is the sort of evidence you'd need? Is that a problem for you?

As to your god? The biblical one? No, that god can't exist. It can't, because the evidence we already have contradicts the god described in the bible so thoroughly that there's really no way to salvage it. Not really our problem that your favorite explanation is an untenable idea, though.

I couldn't really find an answer in all of your drivel Esquilax. Again the question is:  What do you consider evidence for the existence of God?

---

Yadayadayada Wrote:

FatAndFaithless Wrote:..We're not the ones claiming something exists. 

No, you are the ones claiming that there is no evidence that something exists.

Which is easily refuted by providing any evidence. If you want it spelled out: we are not aware of any evidence that God is real that stands up to scrutiny.

Evidence is a fact that points to a particular conclusion. For instance, the fact that Joe is dead doesn't point to him having been murdered, there are too many other possible reasons that he could be dead. The additional fact that Joe has fourteen axe wounds in his back would be evidence that murder is the most likely explanation, though not yet conclusive. An autopsy showing the axe wounds were the cause of death would be reasonably conclusive evidence that Joe was murdered. However, if the autopsy revealed that Joe was dead of liver failure, no toxins are present, and the axe wounds were post-mortem; the most reasonable final conclusion is that Joe died of natural causes and then someone hacked at him with an axe.

(January 11, 2017 at 4:01 pm)Yadayadayada Wrote: Atheists, please define "evidence".

(January 12, 2017 at 10:18 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Yadayadayada Wrote:

FatAndFaithless Wrote:..We're not the ones claiming something exists. 

No, you are the ones claiming that there is no evidence that something exists.

Quote:Which is easily refuted by providing any evidence. If you want it spelled out: we are not aware of any evidence that God is real that stands up to scrutiny.

Evidence is a fact that points to a particular conclusion. For instance, the fact that Joe is dead doesn't point to him having been murdered, there are too many other possible reasons that he could be dead. The additional fact that Joe has fourteen axe wounds in his back would be evidence that murder is the most likely explanation, though not yet conclusive. An autopsy showing the axe wounds were the cause of death would be reasonably conclusive evidence that Joe was murdered. However, if the autopsy revealed that Joe was dead of liver failure, no toxins are present, and the axe wounds were post-mortem; the most reasonable final conclusion is that Joe died of natural causes and then someone hacked at him with an axe.

So, what EXACTLY would you need to see to be able to say, "Wow yes, there is a God..."  What do you consider evidence?

(January 12, 2017 at 10:24 am)Yadayadayada Wrote:

(January 11, 2017 at 4:01 pm)Yadayadayada Wrote: Atheists, please define "evidence".

So, what EXACTLY would you need to see to be able to say, "Wow yes, there is a God..."  What do you consider evidence?

Dude..you're the one asserting the existence of something.  You have actually present something, and then we can examine it and judge whether it constitutes evidence in our opinion(s).