Evidence for the existence of God

[Mister Agenda]

Lawful except for the chaotic parts. And if you say those are governed lawfully too, what would unlawful even look like, or mean?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The opposite of lawful would be absurd.

[The Grand Nudger]

So by lawful, you only mean sensible or rationally approachable?

as in:

"All current observations suggest that epistemological limits result from sensible/rational processes."

I'd call that a no shit statement, since epistemological limits are necessarily an issue of what is sensible/rational......you don't even need observations for that one.....it's pretty much true by definition, lol.

[Angrboda]

...does it help if I state it more neutrally? All current observations suggest that epistemological limits result from lawful processes.

I'm not sure what you mean by epistemological limits, but the universe is orderly because we describe the orderly bits, and we don't describe the bits that don't follow a pattern. This suggests you're conflating a selective process of description with one that is proscriptive. We do infer a law of uniformitarianism upon our observations which is not purely a matter of description, but rather an assumption we make to preserve the lawfulness of reality. "Epistemological limits" do not result from lawful processes but rather from a selective process of modeling what can be modeled and not modeling that which can't be modeled.

[Neo-Scholastic]

First I would say that uniformitarianism is more than an assumption; I would call it properly basic. Similarly, I am of the opinion that the ability to model the world descriptively strongly suggests an underlying proscriptive order and that in the absence of a defeater, that should be the default position.

With respect to epistemological limits, I mean things our current models cannot even in theory determine or know, like those I mentioned. For example, if the universe is expanding in such a way that the distance between our galaxy and some others increases at a rate that can never be traversed at the speed of light then there is no way we could even know about it. it's a hard limit, but the limit itself exists lawfully.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC the things we can know are limited by a rational or sensible process, namely, the fact that a we use a rational process....-the- rational process...to arrive at them?  OFC, that doesn't tell us much about the stuff that we can't rationally describe, if there is such stuff, which there may be, and so the fact that the stuff we can describe, with that rational process..happens to be the stuff describable -by- that rational process...means what...exactly, again....proscription of some sort?  That's a hell of an opinion, unless the proscriptor in reference is us, proscripting the rules of that rational process.....by which we describe that which we currently describe.......and here again I'd say...after all that shit above, no shit?

Lets be blunt...what you -want- to express is a lawgiver making laws that are enforced, somehow, from on high, top down. The cosmic puppetmaster. The non-human explanation, god. Nothing to do with or in reference to anything else. No sense in obfuscation. I know it, you know it, we know it....mincing words will only help people to fuck with the things you say.

[downbeatplumb]

...does it help if I state it more neutrally? All current observations suggest that epistemological limits result from lawful processes.

No.

[brewer]

Looked all around the house today and still nothing. (sigh). This is like the x-mas morning that never comes.

[rado84]

Atheists, please define "evidence".

I am evidence because I am god and I exist. What more do you need?

[Cephus]

Atheists, please define "evidence".

Very easy.  Objective, demonstrable evidence that requires no faith or previous belief to examine.

Got any?

---

Shit, I'll bite too I guess.  Give me an example of a miracle that has been explicitly linked to the supernatural while accounting for all possible natural explanations, for a start.

But that's the thing, how could you show it is linked to the supernatural when nobody can even define what the supernatural is.  It's defined by what it's not, not by what it is.  What constitutes supernatural without referring to the natural?  Nobody knows.