What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Arkilogue]

"I don't know, what have ya got?"

Typical answer on the Atheist Experience TV show and it's mine too.

I got a lot...in the kingdom of heaven...it's a nice view from here.

It's a model/theory of universal and metaversal order based on an extant God.

[snowtracks]

Bullshit.  There is no support for the notion that ancient Jews used lunar years of 360 days.  That's just crap evangelicals pull from their ass.

Meh, making stuff up isn't a patent owned by one religion.

Even when the Book of Revelation was written in the first century, a 30 day month was used. Typical ref: Rev 11:2-3   "...the nations will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months. 3 And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days." These verses reference back to the Book of Daniel, circa 600 BCE.

[Mudhammam]

These verses reference back to the Book of Daniel, circa 600 BCE.

Try 2nd or 3rd century BCE

[The Grand Nudger]

This is almost sad.

When a writer engages in prophecy after the fact as a vehicle for social commentary the context and narrative positively explodes with useful information. It gives us an idea of then-current events or outcomes as the author saw them, and what the author saw his place (his cultures) place in the world and it;s relationship to others and some ideal of the future to be. Or, or, it's just an incredibly sophisticated deck of tarot cards....we're told, instead, that magic book is a crystal ball.

[Pat Mustard]

Meh, making stuff up isn't a patent owned by one religion.

Even when the Book of Revelation was written in the first century, a 30 day month was used. Typical ref: Rev 11:2-3   "...the nations will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months. 3 And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days." These verses reference back to the Book of Daniel, circa 600 BCE.

Yes, when you want your bullshit mythology to look like it is a continuation of older bullshit mythology it is generally considered a good idea to refer back to it a lot. Whoever wrote revelations was literate in Greek, therefore he could read the septuagint and make sure that his bullshit looked like what he thought was fulfilment of prophesy in daniel.

Incidentally, that is why christians for centuries believed Mary was a virgin when she had Yeshua, because they misread the "prophesy" in Isiah even though that read literally; "see that pregnant young woman over there your Maj., before she has her baby the barbarians currently invading Judah (Assyrians IIRC) will be repulsed and your lands fully restored to you." "I am not worthy from such grace from yhwh" "Yes you are, and when this prophesy comes true (in about six months) you shall call the child Immanuel (meaning the lord is with us)".
As you can see, at no point does that "prophesy" even come close to referring to Yeshua bar Yosef.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Is this thread really still going? Guess Allah has yet to be proven to a room of non-believing skeptical people...For fuck sakes, close this atheist circle jerk thread, we shredded them.

[snowtracks]

The evidence is Creation and Scripture; God cannot have an explanation of His existence which is external to Him for then He would depend for His existence on whatever thing it is. That's why is it said 'God is a necessary Being'. Science and Philosophy theories breakdown when an infinite regression is called upon.
Most get their information from organization and groups (as in NOVA, Nature, Scientific American, all secular universities) that will only explain science from a naturalistic point of view by policy (not a conspiracy, but some don't know this important factoid) even though the explanation is better explain by the supernatural. That why science can be used to determine God's existence but can't be used exclusively, nor can the 5 senses be used exclusively. It's framed better when God's existence is not ruled out before the investigation begins which the AAAS membership does - http://www.aaas.org/

[Pat Mustard]

The evidence is Creation and Scripture; God cannot have an explanation of His existence which is external to Him for then He would depend for His existence on whatever thing it is. That's why is it said 'God is a necessary Being'. Science and Philosophy theories breakdown when an infinite regression is called upon.
Most get their information from organization and groups (as in NOVA, Nature, Scientific American, all secular universities) that will only explain science from a naturalistic point of view by policy (not a conspiracy, but some don't know this important factoid) even though the explanation is better explain by the supernatural. That why science can be used to determine God's existence but can't be used exclusively, nor can the 5 senses be used exclusively. It's framed better when God's existence is not ruled out before the investigation begins which the AAAS membership does - http://www.aaas.org/

The first paragraph is basicly you admitting you've not got the first clue about how god could exist, but ratioalising this inability to explain away as "he cannot be explajned because...reasons". That is a completely inadequate reason, for a munber of reasons, the most glaring of which being it doesn't explain the utter lack of evidence for god, nor why anybody needs assume he is a necessary being.

Your second paragraph, despite your protestation, describes the philosophy of science as a little known conspiracy to keep the truth unknown, which is deeply ironic for two reasons. First it is religion, not science which has a long and ignominious record if denying the truth and torturing those who dare to say it. And second, science's central premise is the elimination of the wrong. The scientific method is not primarily abot confirming rightness but weeding out wrongness. Something can pnly be considered right in science if it keeps passing the tests over and over and over again. Just because something you want to be true doesn't conform with this system, it doesn't follow that the system is wrong, but it is far more likely that you are wrong (especially seeing as not only are you unwilling to provide evidence, but that you insist that evidence is impossible).

You want the world to presuppose god simply because it would make you happy and give your unimaginative and limited brain meaning. Reality does not work that way.

[snowtracks]

The evidence is Creation and Scripture; God cannot have an explanation of His existence which is external to Him for then He would depend for His existence on whatever thing it is. That's why is it said 'God is a necessary Being'. Science and Philosophy theories breakdown when an infinite regression is called upon.
Most get their information from organization and groups (as in NOVA, Nature, Scientific American, all secular universities) that will only explain science from a naturalistic point of view by policy (not a conspiracy, but some don't know this important factoid) even though the explanation is better explain by the supernatural. That why science can be used to determine God's existence but can't be used exclusively, nor can the 5 senses be used exclusively. It's framed better when God's existence is not ruled out before the investigation begins which the AAAS membership does - http://www.aaas.org/

The first paragraph is basicly you admitting you've not got the first clue about how god could exist, but ratioalising this inability to explain away as "he cannot be explajned because...reasons". That is a completely inadequate reason, for a munber of reasons, the most glaring of which being it doesn't explain the utter lack of evidence for god, nor why anybody needs assume he is a necessary being.

Your second paragraph, despite your protestation, describes the philosophy of science as a little known conspiracy to keep the truth unknown, which is deeply ironic for two reasons. First it is religion, not science which has a long and ignominious record if denying the truth and torturing those who dare to say it. And second, science's central premise is the elimination of the wrong. The scientific method is not primarily abot confirming rightness but weeding out wrongness. Something can pnly be considered right in science if it keeps passing the tests over and over and over again. Just because something you want to be true doesn't conform with this system, it doesn't follow that the system is wrong, but it is far more likely that you are wrong (especially seeing as not only are you unwilling to provide evidence, but that you insist that evidence is impossible).

You want the world to presuppose god simply because it would make you happy and give your unimaginative and limited brain meaning. Reality does not work that way.

Using 11 'you' seems unimaginative to me. Atheist pretend they don't believe in God's existence by feigning they have problems with the data. What really is happening is they don't like God's moral authority; everyone was made in the image of God which means they have an eternal spirit which continues to exist post physical death; the issue is therefore accepting redemption which provides eternal spiritual life post physical death or eternal spiritual death (independence from God's influence in one's life). Since everyone believes in God's existence*, no proofs are needed or desired. I post to dialog, not to prove.

*  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[Primordial Bisque]

Using 11 'you' seems unimaginative to me. Atheist pretend they don't believe in God's existence by feigning they have problems with the data. What really is happening is they don't like God's moral authority; everyone was made in the image of God which means they have an eternal spirit which continues to exist post physical death; the issue is therefore accepting redemption which provides eternal spiritual life post physical death or eternal spiritual death (independence from God's influence in one's life). Since everyone believes in God's existence*, no proofs are needed or desired. I post to dialog, not to prove.

*  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

So, you've seen god's invisible qualities? Did god grant you magical eyes?