Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[GrandizerII]

I exist too. I believe the existence of "myself" is self-authenticating. But even though it is incontrovertible, for another person it may not be incontrovertible insofar as their "opinion" goes. Some may deny it altogether and not even give a hearing to it. This is in spite of the fact that they suppress what is self-evident. I do not say that that is my opinion, though it can be taken as such, but I believe (rightly) that it is the truth.

One has to take into account standards of evidence, and not everyone possesses the same standard of evidence. For someone who rejects things like logic and things that are self-evident, forms of authority and so on, it may be impossible to even begin with the preliminaries of formulating an argument, a justification for beliefs.

Let's go beyond my own existence, how do I believe in other minds (besides my own) at all? There is a consensus among most human beings that there are other minds. We at least act as though there are. But what is the proof of this? At bottom, we only believe it because it is accepted, because others believe it, or due to some kind of existential knowledge. So let's extend that sort of scope of what is evident regarding the divine. I believe, based upon similar common sense, that some kind of Supreme Being or Essence exists, and that knowledge of this being, even only that of a "bare-bones" variety, is natural to our reasoning capacities and personal psyches. I extend my standard of evidence broader than others. And I more than believe, I know, that I am correct and others (atheists) are not, in this regard.

No, sorry, you don't get to argue that because solipsism isn't reasonable that therefore atheism isn't reasonable. There's a world of difference between not accepting the clear existence of other people and not believing in the existence of some magical being for which we have no evidence whatsoever that it exists (and for which we have a plethora of good reasons to reject its existence).

[Dimmesdale]

Grandizer:

No, sorry, you don't get to argue that because solipsism isn't reasonable that therefore atheism isn't reasonable. There's a world of difference between not accepting the clear existence of other people and not believing in the existence of some magical being for which we have no evidence whatsoever that it exists (and for which we have a plethora of good reasons to reject its existence).

Actually I can argue this way, and I am right.

This is because the existence of the divine is as clear as the existence of other people (to me and to others). I did not think this at one point, but then I simply suppressed the knowledge of the divine that was in me. At this point, my consciousness clearly points toward the divine, both explicitly and implicitly.

Sorry if that offends you.

[GrandizerII]

No, sorry, you don't get to argue that because solipsism isn't reasonable that therefore atheism isn't reasonable. There's a world of difference between not accepting the clear existence of other people and not believing in the existence of some magical being for which we have no evidence whatsoever that it exists (and for which we have a plethora of good reasons to reject its existence).

Actually I can argue this way, and I am right.

Show a bit of intellectual humility, will you?

This is because the existence of the divine is as clear as the existence of other people (to me and to others).

Bullshit.

I did not think this at one point, but then I simply suppressed the knowledge of the divine that was in me. At this point, my consciousness clearly points toward the divine, both explicitly and implicitly.

That people like you are wired to believe in the divine does not mean the divine therefore exists. It only means that you are wired that way. You still need to produce evidence that shows the divine exists, something I have not seen any theist do to this day.

Sorry if that offends you.

It doesn't offend me, but it frustrates me that you think this is a compelling argument that you're making when it just isn't.

[Dimmesdale]

(Grandizer) Show a bit of intellectual humility, will you?

Very well. I think that I am right. I suppose that's once removed from being absolutely right, right? But the thing is, in myself, I know this to be the case. So it's not a matter of pride or humility, but simply of fact. I have the fact at hand. Actually I think everyone does, but they suppress it, or it has been suppressed in them.  

Bullshit.

Once one arrives at a certain point in one's conscious development, the obvious becomes obvious again.

That people like you are wired to believe in the divine does not mean the divine therefore exists. It only means that you are wired that way. You still need to produce evidence that shows the divine exists, something I have not seen any theist do to this day.

And I am not against evidence. I am all for evidence. But I think all evidence can do is to condition the mind to uncover facts which themselves go beyond evidence, and towards the core of what is real, which is within and self-authenticating.

It doesn't offend me, but it frustrates me that you think this is a compelling argument that you're making when it just isn't.

It may not seem compelling to you in your illusioned state, but that does not mean it isn't compelling to others who come with a different view to the evidence....

(btw, I can't get the quote function working properly, you know how to fix it?)

[GrandizerII]

(Grandizer) Show a bit of intellectual humility, will you?

Very well. I think that I am right. I suppose that's once removed from being absolutely right, right? But the thing is, in myself, I know this to be the case. So it's not a matter of pride or humility, but simply of fact. I have the fact at hand.

And I guarantee that you don't have the fact at hand and that you don't really know that God exists. Can you show me I'm wrong?

Actually I think everyone does, but they suppress it, or it has been suppressed in them.

Well, first demonstrate that you do, and then you can talk about others.

Bullshit.

Once one arrives at a certain point in one's conscious development, the obvious becomes obvious again.

And I am not against evidence. I am all for evidence. But I think all evidence can do is to condition the mind to uncover facts which themselves go beyond evidence, and towards the core of what is real, which is within and self-authenticating.

Facts beyond evidence? How does that even work? You can't have facts without some evidence leading to them.

You're basically just speaking theological gibberish, and thinking you're making a reasonable point when it isn't.

It doesn't offend me, but it frustrates me that you think this is a compelling argument that you're making when it just isn't.

It may not seem compelling to you in your illusioned state, but that does not mean it isn't compelling to others who come with a different view to the evidence....

Without evidence, it can't be compelling. At least not if you're trying to be as intellectually honest as possible.

(btw, I can't get the quote function working properly, you know how to fix it?)

You seem to be doing fine here.

[Dimmesdale]

Very well. I think that I am right. I suppose that's once removed from being absolutely right, right? But the thing is, in myself, I know this to be the case. So it's not a matter of pride or humility, but simply of fact. I have the fact at hand.

And I guarantee that you don't have the fact at hand and that you don't really know that God exists. Can you show me I'm wrong?

I can't show you anything if you are dead set on maintaining a certain belief system, such as atheism.... Now, if you widened the scope of your standard of evidence, then I could perhaps begin showing the error of your ways. But if you remain a fundamentalist in your stance, then there is very little I can do for you.

Actually I think everyone does, but they suppress it, or it has been suppressed in them.

Well, first demonstrate that you do, and then you can talk about others.

Some things can only be known on an inward basis... but outward evidence can however augment what is really before your very eyes.....

Once one arrives at a certain point in one's conscious development, the obvious becomes obvious again.

One must realize truth, not just analyze it. Sorry if that sounds dodgy to you, but it's the truth.

And I am not against evidence. I am all for evidence. But I think all evidence can do is to condition the mind to uncover facts which themselves go beyond evidence, and towards the core of what is real, which is within and self-authenticating.

Facts beyond evidence? How does that even work? You can't have facts without some evidence leading to them.

You're basically just speaking theological gibberish, and thinking you're making a reasonable point when it isn't.

That which is, IS. There is nothing to mediate it, besides it's own naked Being. Evidence may help one arrive at certain conclusions, but evidence is not exhaustive; one must finally make that last leap on one's own.

What I say may sound to you like gibberish, but at times deeper meanings are opaque. It is not my fault that you want to dismiss certain less well-understood subjects without so much as a fair hearing....

It may not seem compelling to you in your illusioned state, but that does not mean it isn't compelling to others who come with a different view to the evidence....

Without evidence, it can't be compelling. At least not if you're trying to be as intellectually honest as possible.

At times one's own VIEW is an aspect of evidentiary support. Again, standards of evidence.....

(btw, I can't get the quote function working properly, you know how to fix it?)

You seem to be doing fine here.

Yeah, I'm not redoing this...

[Amarok]

So his whole argument is a list of assertions

[GrandizerII]

I can't show you anything if you are dead set on maintaining a certain belief system, such as atheism....

At least try. Be that one special theist who actually makes an effort to explain how they really do know God exists without appealing to "gut-feelings" and such.

Now, if you widened the scope of your standard of evidence, then I could perhaps begin showing the error of your ways. But if you remain a fundamentalist in your stance, then there is very little I can do for you.

I'm more open-minded than you think I am. It's just I'm currently not convinced at all that you know anything about God or that you even know that God exists.

Some things can only be known on an inward basis... but outward evidence can however augment what is really before your very eyes.....

So, basically, God exists because your "gut-feelings" say so? Yeah, sorry but that's not at all a good argument for God.

And if it's more than that, convince me that it is. Otherwise, I have no good reason to believe you.

One must realize truth, not just analyze it. Sorry if that sounds dodgy to you, but it's the truth.

How did you realize it's the truth? That's what I'm trying to get at here. But like all theists before you, you just dodge the challenge.

That which is, IS. There is nothing to mediate it, besides it's own naked Being.

I'm not asking for an explanation for its existence, dude/dudette. I'm asking for some evidence, something that shows me you really know the being "that is".

Evidence may help one arrive at certain conclusions, but evidence is not exhaustive; one must finally make that last leap on one's own.

If you need to make a leap of faith to arrive at some conclusion, then evidence did not help you get there. You made the irrational choice to get there by making a blind leap.

What I say may sound to you like gibberish, but at times deeper meanings are opaque. It is not my fault that you want to dismiss certain less well-understood subjects without so much as a fair hearing....

I am giving it a fair hearing. I can't honestly see that what you're saying is anything but gibberish.

At times one's own VIEW is an aspect of evidentiary support. Again, standards of evidence.....

Strongly disagree. One's position or view that something is true is not evidence for that something. Otherwise, anything goes and all rationality goes out the window.

Yeah, I'm not redoing this...

You did it before, you can do it again.

[The Grand Nudger]

Intuitionism is a powerful argument for personal belief, but utterly worthless when it comes to convincing some other person of a thing they don't already believe in.  There's a simple reason for this.  

If one person grants such value to their intuition that they hold it capable of ascertaining the truth of whether there is a god and that this is compelling, by default, they have also granted equal value to opposing bits of intuition...for example, that one has absolutely no experience of gods whatsoever, or that one "just knows" that there isn't a god, as well.  

So, before we critically examine human intuition, even..of the possible spread of intuitivist positions, two out of three are godless, either positively or effectively.  Then, there's the nagging fact that human intuition can be and often is entirely wrong.  This can cut both ways, but in trying to demonstrate which way the blade swings on this particular issue..it only gets worse for the lone god containing intuition.  That we even find ourselves discussing the intuitionist position is a demonstration of the paucity of evidence for gods by any standard.

The only evidence for such a thing would be reports of direct experience confirming intuition which.....contrary to pious theater and religious language...are exceedingly rare. Even the faithful regard such reports with extreme skepticism and suspicion. This is what makes an argument from intuition for gods entirely less compelling than others of the type, which do have the vast and genuine scope that makes them credible, even if it doesn't raise to the level of a demonstration. An argument for self by intuition can work..because the other person shares that experience. An argument for the existence of the world, likewise. An argument for good and evil..again the same. An argument for love or hatred..even. This simply isn't the case when it comes to gods.

[Pat Mustard]

I exist too. I believe the existence of "myself" is self-authenticating. But even though it is incontrovertible, for another person it may not be incontrovertible insofar as their "opinion" goes. Some may deny it altogether and not even give a hearing to it. This is in spite of the fact that they suppress what is self-evident. I do not say that that is my opinion, though it can be taken as such, but I believe (rightly) that it is the truth.

One has to take into account standards of evidence, and not everyone possesses the same standard of evidence. For someone who rejects things like logic and things that are self-evident, forms of authority and so on, it may be impossible to even begin with the preliminaries of formulating an argument, a justification for beliefs.

Let's go beyond my own existence, how do I believe in other minds (besides my own) at all? There is a consensus among most human beings that there are other minds. We at least act as though there are. But what is the proof of this? At bottom, we only believe it because it is accepted, because others believe it, or due to some kind of existential knowledge. So let's extend that sort of scope of what is evident regarding the divine. I believe, based upon similar common sense, that some kind of Supreme Being or Essence exists, and that knowledge of this being, even only that of a "bare-bones" variety, is natural to our reasoning capacities and personal psyches. I extend my standard of evidence broader than others. And I more than believe, I know, that I am correct and others (atheists) are not, in this regard.

Awww, pity about you. Standards of evidence being too high a bar for you is your problem not ours. I know other people exist because I have objective and independent evidence of their existence. I lack any evidence for god, at all.