"I cannot say that I don't know that Alice is not a god"

How's about that?

(January 9, 2015 at 4:07 pm)robvalue Wrote: When did I say they should be ignored?

In the OP:
So my challenge is, can anyone come up with a non-trivial claim about God that meets these criteria? I have yet to see a single one. Only at that point does it make sense to even consider the evidence being presented,

Not considering a claim is ignoring the claim.

Quote:This whole thread is asking someone to make a claim. You haven't made any for me to ignore.

Sure I did. I claimed that God woke me up when my father died. As that claim does meet your criteria, you ignore it.

Quote:I'm interested in finding out what is true. If that is not your interest, than that is fine. People believing things don't make them true, no matter how many people believe the same thing.

I'm interested in finding out what is true - even if such things cannot be investigated by science. That something cannot be investigated by science does not mean that it is false, or that there aren't other types of evidence that might support it.

No, wait, wait. OK I didn't realize you were presenting that as a God claim.

If you want to use God in a claim, you have to first define god. And we need a way to test the claim. How else can you find out if it is true?

---

What other types of evidence? If there is evidence, it can be tested scientifically.

Your method of finding out if your claim was true seemed to be just accepting it was true.

---

Not being able to prove something false in no way tells you if it is true.

(January 9, 2015 at 4:17 pm)robvalue Wrote: No, wait, wait. OK I didn't realize you were presenting that as a God claim.

If you want to use God in a claim, you have to first define god.

I've done that already as well.

Quote:And we

You should stop saying "we" when you mean "I."

Quote:need a way to test the claim. How else can you find out if it is true?

First, what do you mean by "true"? People keep saying that no one's asking for 100% proof, but that's what "true" implies to me.

Second, I gave a way that the claim can be considered. A coworker said he'd heard enough of that sort of claim that he believed it to be more than coincidence. As I had a rule not to look at the clock but did so in this instance, it seemed to me that the likelihood of the events being unrelated was too small to accept that as an explanation.

You don't have to accept those judgments, but neither is it your place to tell tell others what their standards of evidence must be.

Faith does not find truth, faith is an admission that you have no evidence with which to come to the conclusions you are stating. If you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith. It's the biggest marketing con I think in all of history, selling non-evidence as a virtue.

---

OK well, thanks for the discussion, it seems we are talking at cross purposes so I'll leave it there. It's been a pretty productive debate I think though, anyhow.

(January 9, 2015 at 4:27 pm)robvalue Wrote: Faith does not find truth,

Neither does dodging. As the conclusions in my last post were based on perceived probabilities, not faith, your response is a non sequitur.

(January 9, 2015 at 4:34 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(January 9, 2015 at 4:27 pm)robvalue Wrote: Faith does not find truth,

Neither does dodging. As the conclusions in my last post were based on perceived probabilities, not faith, your response is a non sequitur.

Possibilities need facts and some supporting truth behind it. Just because you want a god. You need to a definition of a god because biblical god can have two meanings all loving and peaceful, vengeful and hateful. After you find your evidence of a god with supporting facts and or theories then you can make on your own the definition of god. All in all you need information. Faith is just stupid you will for something to happen all in all its a coincidence if it works or not.

(January 9, 2015 at 4:17 pm)robvalue Wrote: If you want to use God in a claim, you have to first define god.

There is only so much that I can "define" God because there is nothing in this world that is even comparable to Him. But, here's my take on it as much as I can explain, in a different thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24361-po...#pid613698


I'll post a response to your OP a little later, after I search through my older posts on this same topic ... so stay tuned.

(January 9, 2015 at 3:51 am)robvalue Wrote: I can't make a testable God claim, I can't even form a coherent definition.

Perhaps, because you expect to imposing a limit upon Him with words. Can you put forth a definition of robvalue that captures everything that you are?

(January 9, 2015 at 8:16 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(January 9, 2015 at 3:51 am)robvalue Wrote: I can't make a testable God claim, I can't even form a coherent definition.

Perhaps, because you expect to imposing a limit upon Him with words. Can you put forth a definition of robvalue that captures everything that you are?

Its not even that i try to prove god is real. Finding the evidence or something credible from the bible is well... improbable.... not impossible just improbable. All he has to do is find credible evidence and draw up a hypothesis and theory then we can take a credible look at it.