(July 23, 2013 at 2:06 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(July 23, 2013 at 11:54 am)Chuck Wrote: What you want is evidence for something that is indistinguishable from God, yet is not that which is indistinguishable from god but is not god.

Good luck.

---

Anything that inspires awe in, and is said to demand obedience from, the yokel.

That definition could include kings or priests.

And so kings and priests have claimed to be god, and idiots have regarded them as such. There was even a layabout carpenter turned guru who came to a miserable end. If that can be regarded as god, what couldn't be?

(July 23, 2013 at 2:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Why is necessary to have evidence for the existence of God?

That depends on the nature of the god in question. If it's a powerful creator who made everything and then left the universe to its own devices, it isn't necessary at all. If it's a powerful creator who made everything then involved himself in the development of humanity for a short time and has determined to grant amazing rewards or truly horrifying punishments depending on behavior, then he owes humanity a lot more than a poorly written book and going AWOL for two thousand years.

Unless he's an irredeemably sadistic and wicked person, in which case it's also unnecessary.

(July 23, 2013 at 2:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Why is necessary to have evidence for the existence of God?

Are you fucking serious?

Quote:Why is necessary to have evidence for the existence of God?

Because the rational mind demands evidence. I fully understand that there are some people who think their brain cramps are evidence of "god" but I do not take such people seriously.

(July 23, 2013 at 2:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Why is necessary to have evidence for the existence of God? I have started to suspect that knowledge of God comes largely from perception and personal experience. It's like watching a movie with a friend. You might take it as a just a fun popcorn film. Your friend might find significance in certain elements of the film.

So, you have boiled down belief, or lack thereof, in God to nothing more than an opinion?

(July 23, 2013 at 2:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: From there you could have a debate about whether the director intended a deeper reading of the film or whether they were accidental plot features. If the director doesn't return phone calls, such a debate can never be fully resolved.

It could be resolved depending on the claims made about the movie.

(July 23, 2013 at 3:25 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(July 23, 2013 at 2:44 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Why is necessary to have evidence for the existence of God?

If it's a powerful creator who made everything then involved himself in the development of humanity for a short time and has determined to grant amazing rewards or truly horrifying punishments depending on behavior, then he owes humanity a lot more than a poorly written book and going AWOL for two thousand years.

Why?

Because only shitheads believe the story.

(July 23, 2013 at 11:49 am)Kim Wrote: So, could there be an absolute evidence for God?

no........

I'm actually pretty surprised at the responses thus far, considering this is a philosophy forum!

Let me rephrase that again, for the sake of argument, what evidence would make you believe in the existing of a supernatural being that created the universe?

If no evidence, none whatsoever is sufficient, then you are no different from the theists. You claim you will change your mind when provided with evidence? Give me an example of an evidence that would change your mind. Is this clear enough? Geez.

(July 23, 2013 at 6:25 pm)Godschild Wrote: Why?

Because it smacks of irresponsible "parenting" to me. If god's offer to humanity is a reward of heaven/paradise and a punishment of death and no more existence, I would consider that to be fair even with the lack of a clear guide for everyone. If his offer is a reward of heaven/paradise and a punishment of eternal suffering, he owes us better or he is evil.