Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

Well evidence takes the form of human experience, emotional response, intellectual justification, coincidence ...off the top of my head.

All the evidence has to be of the type that could very simply be refuted factually. Or we'd know that it isn't from God, using the Bible as our guide.

That's a bit odd looking but it works perfectly and seems to me, knowing little about philosophy, to be a perfect clause that should be regarded as a truth statement. It's the height of serious religion = a perfect statement. Hope that makes sense.

[Kyuuketsuki]

And again, I would say you are either blind or being deliberately obfuscative.

It's my thread! Can't I say what it's about then!?!

Um, no one owns a thread, threads drift, things are said; those things have to be addressed.

And again, religion is more about finding ways to justify what you want to believe ... IMO you just reinterpret your own views to fool yourself that you are actually doubting. It's a bit like when theists claim that belief is the harder path ... it's rubbish, it's easy to believe, it's harder (much harder) to remain sceptical.

Totally disagree. Do YOU think it's harder not to believe in God than not!? (I jest). How is it harder to remain skeptical? I take it you have full on experience as a practicing Christian to be able to level that accusation at me then?

I think it's a lot easier to believe in things like god (indeed recent research suggest we're built to believe), it takes education, training & discipline not to fall for that kind of rubbish.

And all you appear to be doing is advancing some kind of version of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) which is rubbish because there is nothing currently accepted as real that isn't supported by some kind of scientifically analysable evidence

If you demand that this isn't a case of that, then yes.

Whut?

Not trying to be funny but do I have to read through an entire thread to find the definition and how hard is it to copy & paste your own stuff?

Well yes, seeing this is not the topic here, I think that's reasonable. It's not like you aren't contributing on that thread too. Why not keep threads on topic.

You are the one that brought it up (post #181), I'm simply responding so yes, IMO it's your responsibility to justify it.

My comments were precisely on the topic of evidence for "God" so please ... stop dodging the questions, try answering them.

This thread is about the idea that faith isn't provable ...it's my thread!! I answered you out of politeness there.

The thread is entitled "Evidence that God exists" so I repeat ... my comments were entirely on topic.

Again nice dodge ... since when was Adrian's opinion mine?

You stated that this was off topic, and I said why it wasn't, and what brought it to light once more.

I didn't say it was "off topic" I said it was a strawman.

It isn't the subject of the faith that I'm advancing, but the assertion by non-theists that faith requires evidence, and I'm discussing that in a way that works for scientific/ factual/ evidence based probing.

Are you naïve enough to believe that using big (and I mean size not complex) words in some way make your argument more powerful? Maybe it's some kind of voodoo thing?

I don't know of any atheist that says faith needs evidence, claims however do ... it's all very well saying that you believe x on faith but once you claim x is true it is as subject to rigorous analysis as any other claim.

I think you misinterpret. Assurity from faith is different from knowing fact. I'd have to look it up, and you can rightly call me on it, but I assure you this is right.

Oh I understand that faith is different from fact but if that is so, if the only thing you have for your god is faith then it is pointless ... you claim (that a god exists) is pointless, your decision to be a Christian pathetic and any claim your personal religion has to be the one true religion meaningless.

God hates subservience in the way of people not questioning him. To him those people are spiritually dead. They have no spiritual life. To question proves you are alive and searching. that's the point. How could (spiritual) death and inactivity ever equate to life in all it's fullness? It just makes no sense.

Which god? The pointless Christian one? The pointless Jewish one (or do they have some kind of evidence worth evaluating that Christianity does not)? Or maybe the pointless Islamic one?

To question is human nature (well some humans at least) but whether we do or don't cannot be used as evidence in support of a chosen deity.

The rantings of mad nuns aside, there is no verifiable evidence that there is any kind of life after death.

You said claims have to be tested - by parallel links I meant that surely you have to test like for like. testing against dissimilar subjects would be nonsensical perhaps.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my answers given above & previously on this subject.

The proper approach from a scientific POV to ANY claim is scepticism and what is scepticism? It is a form of doubt. The proper approach for a believer to a core religious claim is faith without question.

Absolutely disagree.

Wow! Gobsmacked! Colour me unimpressed!

[quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='12133' dateline='1237501493']As I said others have answered you on this several times before as have I ... IMO that means you are either blind (and I do not think you are) or obfuscative.

Yet you still fail to point this out.

Direct references:

#010 (Eilonnwy)
#085 (Mark)
#136 (Demonaura)
#174 (Mark)
#183 (Athoughtfulman)
#184 (Kyuuketsuki)

I haven't looked for indirect references.

That would be the No True Scotsman fallacy then.

Nope. that would be answered by the statement: "Christianity is an aim and not a destination". Here I'm talking lack of knowledge of something, not an unreachable ideal.

In essence you are saying that unless you are a Christian (travelling on the Christian journey) you won't understand ... that is the absolute classic definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I don't deny that religion is of interest to me ... friendship with theists isn't I'm afraid. TBH I don't think you're a "real Christian" since you are quite evidently somewhat freer in your interpretation of scripture than many others ... it's fine to be like that but it doesn't exactly make you representative of Christianity as a whole.

That's very discriminatory of you.

Is it? I rather think it an objective assessment. Do you deny that you interpret your own scriptures in a somewhat different way from the majority of Christians?

Studying the Bible, or related topic to infinite depth does not qualify you to have any authority on Christianity. Only experiencing actual Christianity as a fully paid up member does. I'm honoured of course that you would resort to trying to belittle my claim of Christian to win an argument.

Yet again the No True Scotsman fallacy.

It can be demonstrated by the lack of observable evidence surely. I think the conclusion should be absolute and not woolly. What do you think?

You see I don't get that ... you have to have a seriously warped sense of logic to interpret the complete absence of evidence as some kind of logical proof that there is a god.

*calm* ...I'm not trying to claim that - that is a separate topic. How can you repeatedly not get that. I'm gonna whip out the circular argument material on you in a bit if you don't stop!

So I'm being stupid?

I'm only answering what you said (or appeared to say) ... I'm a fairly intelligent bloke, if I don't get what you're saying there's a reasonable chance that you're the one who's expressing it poorly.

Do you, or do you not agree with me. Answer the question.

Do I agree or disagree with WHAT question?

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Um, no one owns a thread, threads drift, things are said; those things have to be addressed.

I choose to postpone aswers on life, the universe & everything to relevsant discussions. Pleasde don't try derailing tactics.

I think it's a lot easier to believe in things like god (indeed recent research suggest we're built to believe), it takes education, training & discipline not to fall for that kind of rubbish.

Interesting. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot you'd be calling 'brainwashed'. You're denying human nature then?

You are the one that brought it up (post #181), I'm simply responding so yes, IMO it's your responsibility to justify it.

Post #181 is yours???

The thread is entitled "Evidence that God exists" so I repeat ... my comments were entirely on topic.

You know very well the thread title is actually the opposite of what thread is about. I worry about you if you didn't get that.

It isn't the subject of the faith that I'm advancing, but the assertion by non-theists that faith requires evidence, and I'm discussing that in a way that works for scientific/ factual/ evidence based probing.

Are you naïve enough to believe that using big (and I mean size not complex) words in some way make your argument more powerful? Maybe it's some kind of voodoo thing?

there are no big words there!!

I don't know of any atheist that says faith needs evidence, claims however do ... it's all very well saying that you believe x on faith but once you claim x is true it is as subject to rigorous analysis as any other claim.

You're mincing words

Oh I understand that faith is different from fact but if that is so, if the only thing you have for your god is faith then it is pointless ... you claim (that a god exists) is pointless, your decision to be a Christian pathetic and any claim your personal religion has to be the one true religion meaningless.

This is flame baiting. Nice try.

Which god? The pointless Christian one? The pointless Jewish one (or do they have some kind of evidence worth evaluating that Christianity does not)? Or maybe the pointless Islamic one?

I like the way you remain impartial here.

To question is human nature (well some humans at least) but whether we do or don't cannot be used as evidence in support of a chosen deity.

I don't think so either??

The rantings of mad nuns aside, there is no verifiable evidence that there is any kind of life after death.

Yay! I think you're getting it now.

Yet you still fail to point this out.

Direct references:

#010 (Eilonnwy)
#085 (Mark)
#136 (Demonaura)
#174 (Mark)
#183 (Athoughtfulman)
#184 (Kyuuketsuki)

I haven't looked for indirect references.

I've answered questions where they're asked. Obviously you didn't get the answer.

In essence you are saying that unless you are a Christian (travelling on the Christian journey) you won't understand ... that is the absolute classic definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Strange logic.

I don't deny that religion is of interest to me ... friendship with theists isn't I'm afraid. TBH I don't think you're a "real Christian" since you are quite evidently somewhat freer in your interpretation of scripture than many others ... it's fine to be like that but it doesn't exactly make you representative of Christianity as a whole.

That's very discriminatory of you.

Is it? I rather think it an objective assessment. Do you deny that you interpret your own scriptures in a somewhat different way from the majority of Christians?

It's an objective assessment to cut out people because of their beliefs? Maybe so. It's also descrimination.
I do deny I interpret differently from the majority of Christians yes.

Studying the Bible, or related topic to infinite depth does not qualify you to have any authority on Christianity. Only experiencing actual Christianity as a fully paid up member does. I'm honoured of course that you would resort to trying to belittle my claim of Christian to win an argument.

Yet again the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Keep wriggling. I'm sure you've fooled yourself at least.

I'm only answering what you said (or appeared to say) ... I'm a fairly intelligent bloke, if I don't get what you're saying there's a reasonable chance that you're the one who's expressing it poorly.

Granted.

Do you, or do you not agree with me. Answer the question.

Do I agree or disagree with WHAT question?

Here's the question again:

So don't discuss it then. I think I can securely claim that there has not been empirical evidence of God's existence that is known to mankind. We can speculate about the future, but that seems beside the point, and deals with an idea. I'm talking about something we can know. We're talking solid fact here, none of which, I'm 100% certain, exists. Unless you know different of course.

It can be demonstrated by the lack of observable evidence surely. I think the conclusion should be absolute and not woolly. What do you think?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Um, no one owns a thread, threads drift, things are said; those things have to be addressed.

I choose to postpone aswers on life, the universe & everything to relevsant discussions. Pleasde don't try derailing tactics.

And I'll thank you to stop being disingenuous ... I repeat that my comments within this thread are ABSOLUTELY on topic.

I think it's a lot easier to believe in things like god (indeed recent research suggest we're built to believe), it takes education, training & discipline not to fall for that kind of rubbish.

Interesting. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot you'd be calling 'brainwashed'. You're denying human nature then?

No, as I said earlier, recent evidence suggests that it is human nature to believe so therefore the harder path is to be the sceptic.

You are the one that brought it up (post #181), I'm simply responding so yes, IMO it's your responsibility to justify it.

Post #181 is yours???

I quoted the one which was my direct answer, my apologies ... #180

The thread is entitled "Evidence that God exists" so I repeat ... my comments were entirely on topic.

You know very well the thread title is actually the opposite of what thread is about. I worry about you if you didn't get that.

No I didn't ... perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here, perhaps the OP should be rather more careful about their choice of title? If that is an issue then it would be the OP's fault.

Meanwhile I repeat, my comments are entirely on topic.

Are you naïve enough to believe that using big (and I mean size not complex) words in some way make your argument more powerful? Maybe it's some kind of voodoo thing?

there are no big words there!!

BIG
PHYSICALLY BIG ... are you being deliberately obtuse?

I don't know of any atheist that says faith needs evidence, claims however do ... it's all very well saying that you believe x on faith but once you claim x is true it is as subject to rigorous analysis as any other claim.

You're mincing words

No I'm not ... answer the question.

Oh I understand that faith is different from fact but if that is so, if the only thing you have for your god is faith then it is pointless ... you claim (that a god exists) is pointless, your decision to be a Christian pathetic and any claim your personal religion has to be the one true religion meaningless.

This is flame baiting. Nice try.

No it's not ... deal with the point made please.

Which god? The pointless Christian one? The pointless Jewish one (or do they have some kind of evidence worth evaluating that Christianity does not)? Or maybe the pointless Islamic one?

I like the way you remain impartial here.

I like the way you avoid the points being made ... oh no, I don't ... go figure!

I never said I was unbiased, I am biased against religion, the claims it makes and the effects it has on society ... but then there's nothing about objectivity that implies one must remain unbiased; In the words of my favourite scientist, "I think it's important to realise that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." Richard Dawkins.

To question is human nature (well some humans at least) but whether we do or don't cannot be used as evidence in support of a chosen deity.

I don't think so either??

That's not the impression your comments in this forum give.

Direct references:

#010 (Eilonnwy)
#085 (Mark)
#136 (Demonaura)
#174 (Mark)
#183 (Athoughtfulman)
#184 (Kyuuketsuki)

I haven't looked for indirect references.

I've answered questions where they're asked. Obviously you didn't get the answer.

I get that you answered but it doesn't mean that your answers trounced the question asked or point made ... you answered several of my points above but you didn't actually answer them properly did you?

In essence you are saying that unless you are a Christian (travelling on the Christian journey) you won't understand ... that is the absolute classic definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Strange logic.

OK, perhaps NTS isn't the fallacy in question but it implies there’s no way to explain things to an outsider so it would make the very idea of debate seem rather pointless.

Is it? I rather think it an objective assessment. Do you deny that you interpret your own scriptures in a somewhat different way from the majority of Christians?

It's an objective assessment to cut out people because of their beliefs? Maybe so. It's also descrimination.

Cut people out? From what? Like any human I evaluate (judge) people based on a number of observable factors ... if I didn't I wouldn't be able to decide who to trust, who not to, who represent danger and who don't, who to believe and who not to ... we need a method of evaluating others and situations so what's the big deal?

I do deny I interpret differently from the majority of Christians yes.

You say there is no afterlife ... that is a MAJOR departure from mainstream Christian doctrine so, if it's OK with you, I think I'll stick to my evaluation of you

Yet again the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Keep wriggling. I'm sure you've fooled yourself at least.

See above

Do you, or do you not agree with me. Answer the question.

Do I agree or disagree with WHAT question?

Here's the question again:

So don't discuss it then. I think I can securely claim that there has not been empirical evidence of God's existence that is known to mankind. We can speculate about the future, but that seems beside the point, and deals with an idea. I'm talking about something we can know. We're talking solid fact here, none of which, I'm 100% certain, exists. Unless you know different of course.

It can be demonstrated by the lack of observable evidence surely. I think the conclusion should be absolute and not woolly. What do you think?

Do I agree there is no empirical evidence for the existence of your god? Yes, but that cannot be used to prove anything because there is equally no evidence for the existence of Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl and so on. IOW the second part of your argument does not follow.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I don't think you're engaging me at all Kyu. It seems entirely pointless to carry on with this yes you did, no you didn't interchange.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't think you're engaging me at all Kyu. It seems entirely pointless to carry on with this yes you did, no you didn't interchange.

So your final stance is to lie about your opponent then chicken out of the "debate"? Wow! I'd expect no less!

Cluck cluck!

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I don't think you're engaging me at all Kyu. It seems entirely pointless to carry on with this yes you did, no you didn't interchange.

So your final stance is to lie about your opponent then chicken out of the "debate"? Wow! I'd expect no less!

Cluck cluck!

Kyu

Where did I lie about you Kyu?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Where did I lie about you Kyu?

QUOTE: I don't think you're engaging me at all Kyu. It seems entirely pointless to carry on with this yes you did, no you didn't interchange.

Happy?

Kyu

[twawki]

My background is secular family (abusive one), had a number of spiritual encounters as a child, went to church was nothing like what I thought it would be (I expected people to be loving - but then I was a needy kid), fluttered in and out of the church through high school and university, helped set up and pastor a home church, got married, had kids, went to bible college to become a missionary and left half way through as I didnt feel right about telling others how to live their lives and also decided to explore issues with my sexuality.

Needless to say the church, ex wife were ruthless in their response - long story - will make a book one day! Still love and adore my kids and they me. However the reason why I spill my guts (a little) is that despite the rages of the church I still feel very very loved by God. Are my emotions because of what I ate for breakfast, maybe. But then maybe they are real - well they are to me. I find Christ inspirational I find the church appalling. Spiritually I am alive, the way I look at society is like a jigsaw - we are all different bits but when we are true to ourselves we make an amazing picture. So I enjoy my friends regardless of their religious or non religious position - they all contribute.

How does any of this prove God. Well I dont think truth can be absolute to man (and I use that to mean mankind) because man isnt absolute. How can a finite being comprehend the infinite? Is me jumping up and down screaming Im right going to prove anything? - no. But if what I feel is right for me now then isnt that enough. Surely the world shouldnt be full of cookie cutter humans - isnt it our diversity that enriches us rather than our sameness.

Also what about quantum physics - as Ive been reading there is proof for 10 dimensions. Could spirituality not exist in a number of those dimensions - the book of Enoch talks about this (not in all Bibles). Could these dimensions explain the unexplainable in my life? Sometimes things happen that arnt rational - I somehow know theres a parking space 1/3 of the way down the next street before I get there etc - doesnt always work but the times it does I think hmmmm

If you dont want to believe in God having the proof wont make you will it?

[Giff]

Also what about quantum physics - as Ive been reading there is proof for 10 dimensions. Could spirituality not exist in a number of those dimensions - the book of Enoch talks about this (not in all Bibles). Could these dimensions explain the unexplainable in my life?

No

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics