Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[polymath257]

Well, the laws of nature are descriptive. So, to say that something is inexplicable by the laws of nature simply means there are no discernible patterns in its behavior. Furthermore, it would mean there is no discernible patterns in the probabilities of its behavior, etc. Since evidence of existence would require a discernible pattern of some sort, that would imply there cannot be evidence of the existence.

At that point I would question in what sense it can be said to exist.

Maybe, but if it supersedes the natural, then it could potentially dictate said laws and processes.  So that brings me back to my original question about what would be considered evidence.  What is it I would need to provide to be considered evidence?  If I don't know what counts as evidence per the OP, it would be silly for me to assume something, or I would just be told, "Well that's not acceptable evidence."

Evidence is that which is obtained through our senses. We then hypothesize laws to describe the regularities we suspect and test those laws with further observation. Again, the laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. They are 'dictated' b the behavior of what we can observe.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the wingnut contingent of the faithful's dance.  They wish to maintain the truth of their conjectures by what we can observe...even though they reject our observations.  

-blah blah blah "that's just your opinion"..shut mup, Max, in advance.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Maybe, but if it supersedes the natural, then it could potentially dictate said laws and processes.  So that brings me back to my original question about what would be considered evidence.  What is it I would need to provide to be considered evidence?  If I don't know what counts as evidence per the OP, it would be silly for me to assume something, or I would just be told, "Well that's not acceptable evidence."

Evidence is that which is obtained through our senses. We then hypothesize laws to describe the regularities we suspect and test those laws with further observation. Again, the laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. They are 'dictated' b the behavior of what we can observe.

Seems kind of a generic answer.  Do you have a source for that statement?  I can dig it in part, but some of it seems limited in scope.

Touch, taste, sight, smell, sound.   Although these are all functions of the brain and its ability to interpret, it doesn't include things like "thought"   Also, senses can be fooled and misinterpreted.  I believe it's called "foiling" when applied to our senses.  But regardless, if we just assume the five senses, which sense would you need to use as evidence and what would that sense (or senses) need to interpret for it to be considered viable evidence?  Obvious just because you hear or taste something, doesn't mean it's God or gods, or anything supernatural.  At what point can we say, "yep, that's God."

---

It's not a negotiation.  Either you want something or you don't.  If not, then why go on about it?  If you do, why not just answer the question rather than cry about how I didn't give you something?  I never said I would, but it doesn't mean I won't attempt to if I know what specifically you would like provided as evidence.  That's not reasonable?

You seem to want to indicate that I'm trolling you, but every time I provide you with an opportunity to have constructive dialogue, you avoid it.  Fair enough, I probably do troll "you" some, but it's because you want to be a jackass about anything and everything.  No reason to coddle you and you don't want friendly dialogue, so what's left?  ROOOOAAAR!

Mommy, the mean ol' troll is picking on me.

Eight times, now.  At some point you'll just have to shit or get off the pot.

Nine.  Have to stick close to the pot so I can get your responses.  Got it Charlie Brown?

Hey wait...pot...brown, it's all starting to come into prospective.  Wait until Snoopy hears about this!  We can invite Lucy over too so we can tell her, and maybe she'll bring her football for you to kick.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a grand question....for you.

-and since we're on to nine...how about that nine tailed fox? Sexy bitch, amiright?

Shit or get off the pot, troll.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

That's a grand question....for you.

-and since we're on to nine...how about that nine tailed fox?  Sexy bitch, amiright?

Shit or get off the pot, troll.

Why not just give it ten tails?  But it's your story, so tell it how you like.

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus christ, you're even dumber than -I- thought........I take back everything I've ever said about trolling. You're not a troll..you're just fucking "challenged"...lol?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Jesus christ, you're even dumber than -I- thought........I take back everything I've ever said about trolling.  You're not a troll..you're just fucking "challenged"...lol?

Of course I'm a "troll" or "challenged" and wouldn't expect you to say otherwise.  Anything else?

[The Grand Nudger]

Google nine tailed fox, for me...... lol.  I'll wait.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Google nine tailed fox, for me...... lol.  I'll wait.

I would if you were nice, but I would imagine you're just looking for something to fuss about.

[The Grand Nudger]

Determined to be wrong about..literally, everything...and now we're at twelve missed opportunities.