Claims and demands, but no evidence.  Is there something ambiguous, do you reckon..in the evident fact that there was once no life on earth, and then there was?  Do you disagree, do you instead think that there has eoither always been life on earth, or that life on earth comes from life from elsewhere™? Common descent, likewise, is a falsifiable proposition.  All you need to do is find some unrelated lineage.

So..again for clarity, you would not only like to present untestable "evidence" (though you;ve failed to do so as of yet), you would also like to bitch and moan about actual evidence which strongly suggests that your religious beliefs and rationalizations are ignorant or misinformed?

"Testability" is not a requirement for something to be considered evidence, or do you not know that?

There is a term called 'corroborating evidence. If you only accept evidence that is testable when it come to spiritual matters then you hold a clear double standard.

Ironically, all those "Christians" who corroborate on having "evidence" for God's existence have no such thing. They're all simply agreeing to believe in the same thing based on mere subjective "feels". Not to mention that a good majority of them were raised/indoctrinated to believe as they do.

If there's evidence, you don't need faith!

Also, religions wouldn't be religions if there was actually any evidence. They seem to, by definition, have to involve untestable/untrue claims. Otherwise they'd just be science/philosophy.

(March 5, 2018 at 7:33 pm)Cecelia Wrote:

(March 5, 2018 at 5:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: How about this... I present evidence that God exists and you present evidence that a God does not exist and we'll judge based on who has the most evidence for and against.

How about this... I present evidence that Odin exists and you present evidence that Odin does not exist and we'll judge based on who has the most evidence for and against.

Then we'll repeat that for every other god except the Christian God.  We'll see how you go about obtaining evidence against the existence of these other gods.

I'll take you up on submitting evidence against Odin, I won't break a sweat winning that argument.

Start a thread whenever you're ready.

(March 6, 2018 at 7:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote: "Testability" is not a requirement  for something to be considered evidence,  or do you not know that?

There is a term called 'corroborating evidence. If you only accept evidence that is testable when it come to spiritual matters then you hold a clear double standard.

So, in addition to wishing to present untestable and unspecified "evidence", and bitch and moan about actual and specified evidence, you would also like to bitch and moan about about other peoples standards?  

It would be a double standard if I appropached anything differently.  Approaching "spiritual matters" like I approach any other does not qualify.  What does, in fact, qualify..is demanding that there -be- two standards.

Your "evidence" is starting to look like one long unhinged complaint. Granted...that's surely evidence of something.

Anything can be presented as "evidence". But it's only useful if it is convincing. If it only convinces the person presenting it and no one else, they may as well not bother even mentioning it. No one needs permission or validation to believe what they already believe.

Personally, I want to base my beliefs on evidence that I think would be convincing to a rational, uninvested third party. That means that they should be able to investigate the evidence and come to the same conclusion as me, without having to take my word for anything. If I don't have this, then I will question why I believe the thing in the first place.

---

PS: there can't even be any evidence for "God" until it's defined in such a way that its existence if falsifiable. It's just people rationalizing what they believe.

(March 5, 2018 at 8:38 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I thought I answered that, if you can prove God does not exist, I would stop believing in him.

Y'all act like evidence for God doesn't exist, it does, y'all just don't want to examine it objectively.

You still don't get it.  Let me try it with Gertrude for you.  Compare these two statements :

(1) I want believe in Gertrude, if Gertrude exists.  I do not want to believe in Gertrude, if Gertrude does not exist.

(2) If you can prove Gertrude does not exist, I will stop believing in her.


Notice that statement number one expresses a desire to know the truth.  Statement number two does not.  Statement number two expresses a stubborn resolve to believe in Gertrude unless she is absolutely proven not to exist.


Notice also that it is possible to truthfully say statement one while currently believing in Gertrude. It's also possible to truthfully say statement one if you don't believe in Gertrude.  That's not true of statement two.    

Or compare these two statements:

(1) I want to believe in god if god exists and not believe in god if he doesn't. 
(2) I will believe in god if you can prove to me he exists.

So, who do you think will look at the evidence fairly,  speaker one or speaker two?

(March 6, 2018 at 5:27 am)Huggy74 Wrote: If "testable" is the requirement, then you must dismiss abiogenesis and evolution from a single cell organism... How's that for a start?

Both are not only testable, but are being tested. The second has been extensively tested and has passed multiple tests. The first is also being tested by attempts to understand the underlying chemistry.

You don't understand what it means to 'test', not what it means to be 'evidence'.

Collaborating evidence, without some other evidence being testable is just confirmation bias.

(March 6, 2018 at 4:10 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 6, 2018 at 12:27 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: So, present it or shut the fuck up.

If you had actual, testable, verifiable evidence you could win a fucking Nobel prize, but all you do is talk shit. Put up or shut up Huggies.

Who said anything about testable? If God was testable then he wouldn't be supernatural would he? Not all evidence is testable... must I point out scientific beliefs you hold that are in no way testable? So you can sit down.

Ok, untestable evidence.
How was this untestable evidence collected?