Dualism

[fr0d0]

No E, that's a vast oversimplification of the facts. We're moving through points here, not cracking the mysteries of the universe. There is evidence for God, it just can't be provable. Everything in the universe is proof of God's existence. Or not. Depending on your POV.

You know what I think of your religious experience. The devil believes in God. That makes him a Christian too by this forum's reasoning.

So what do you think my reason is for believing in God then E? And what proof is there may I ask? Or is this an empty statement? You seem to want there to be some spurious reasoning because to you that's all that could make sense in your world view. You would condemn before finding out.

Wanting evidence for god is not ridiculous, it's logical. Anyone who wants to believe what is most likely true will demand evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. God requires evidence no matter how much you say otherwise.

And there we go again with the same old pointless statement. Wanting evidence for God is precisely illogical given the astounding evidence to the contrary in every non superstitious religious precedent known to man. Unless of course you know differently E. I expect to be inundated by your torrent of proofs to the contrary.

[Edwardo Piet]

There is evidence for God, it just can't be provable. Everything in the universe is proof of God's existence. Or not. Depending on your POV.

Once again--you've done this several times now--you've gone from "No evidence" to "no provable evidence" (or "no empirical evidence" as you've said before too!)...

If 'everything in the universe' is 'proof of God's existence' but it 'depends on your point of view', then if it depends on your point of view, it's not objective...there's no substance there and it's not evidence of any shape or form. Whether provable or not...otherwise you might as well say that anything is evidence for anything else ...it just depends on your POV!! It's a completely meaningless statement.

Evidence has to be objective whether provable...or not - otherwise it's in no way evidence because it can apply to anything and everything which IOW equates to it applying to NOTHING. It's not evidence by that definition at all....it's just subjective nonsense..."Well it's evidence to me...it's not provable evidence...but it's evidence to me" - that's just entirely nonsensical, by definition that's not evidence. It can't 'depend on your point of view' and be subjective like that or it's not evidence of any shape or form.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

And there we go again with the same old pointless statement. Wanting evidence for God is precisely illogical given the astounding evidence to the contrary in every non superstitious religious precedent known to man. Unless of course you know differently E. I expect to be inundated by your torrent of proofs to the contrary.

It is not in the slightest bit ridiculous ... let's run through:

• In order for something to happen (something humans can sense) there must be a phenomenon.
  
• For that phenomenon, that effect, to occur something must affect something else.
  
• These things leave trails of evidence even if the only piece of evidence is the phenomenon itself.
  
• Such evidence can (at least potentially) be investigated.

I know you think there can be no evidence for your god but you are wrong ... anything that affects our universe MUST leave a [potential] trail of evidence. If your god does not leave a trail then it has not affected our universe and it therefore can be rationally assumed to play no part in our universe. The easiest way to explain the complete and utter lack of evidence for your god (or any other) is that it DOES (they DO) NOT EXIST.

As the meerkats say, "Simples!"

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Once again--you've done this several times now--you've gone from "No evidence" to "no provable evidence" (or "no empirical evidence" as you've said before too!)...

Incorrect Evie (also @ Kyu). I have used a general term (evidence) having qualified it to be lack of proof. I'm simply reiterating. Like I've said many times, proof of Gods existence is everything. How would you distinguish a signature of a creator that appears universally? You couldn't. So it's there, but you cannot prove one way or another the existence of God from the evidence. I hope that's clear.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Incorrect Evie (also @ Kyu). I have used a general term (evidence) having qualified it to be lack of proof. I'm simply reiterating. Like I've said many times, proof of Gods existence is everything. How would you distinguish a signature of a creator that appears universally? You couldn't. So it's there, but you cannot prove one way or another the existence of God from the evidence. I hope that's clear.

It's clear what you believe ... it's also clear that you are completely and utterly wrong for reasons already given that you have yet to deal with on any rational basis.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

If you mean I haven't answered your four bullet point Kyu then I say yes I have in my previous post. Thoroughly. Or is there something else that I haven't addressed? (understand that I'm making requests for proofs from your side here with no response so far).

[Eilonnwy]

We don't have to provide proof for god's nonexistence. We have the negative stance. You are asserting god exists so you have to provide the evidence.

And saying god made everything and therefore that's the evidence. It's not proof, it's a cop out.

[Purple Rabbit]

Once again--you've done this several times now--you've gone from "No evidence" to "no provable evidence" (or "no empirical evidence" as you've said before too!)...

Incorrect Evie (also @ Kyu). I have used a general term (evidence) having qualified it to be lack of proof. I'm simply reiterating. Like I've said many times, proof of Gods existence is everything. How would you distinguish a signature of a creator that appears universally? You couldn't. So it's there, but you cannot prove one way or another the existence of God from the evidence. I hope that's clear.

This discussion can go on forever in this way.

The first question is which concept of god is it that you are assessing? Is it the Christian god based on literal interpretation of KJV or is it some new age invented intangible force in nature. A big difference.

Furthermore before playing the evidence game the criterion on what is considered evidence, should be made clear. Falsifiability is the key word in the science department. This means that it should be possible to distinguish between to possible alternatives.

To assess the statement that the whole of the universe is evidence for KJV god, one could use what I call the purple rabbit criterion. As an alternative to the KJV interpretation I could conjecture that our universe and everything in it has been (accidentally) created by a purple rabbit in the 26th dimension. In other words your KJV claim is challenged by demanding demonstration of crucial differences with the purple rabbit alternative.

You will have to come forward with verifiable observations of facts that cannot be a result of creation by the purple rabbit. I have seen none so far in this thread. If for instance praying indeed would cure disease than that would certainly support the KJV style god, but praying does not cure cancer (indeed in some studies there is a slight negative effect of praying probably due to increased stress on the patient being prayed for) and we cannot distinguish the KJV claim from the purple rabbit claim. In fact, I would favour the purple rabbit alternative at the moment but not because it is my creation. It is because of things like kid cancer. Such evil strongly supports the notion that there is no mercy in nature, a trait I would expect in the KJV alternative of an almighty, all good creator. As long as this is the case, the KJV claim and the purple rabbit claim are on a par. Both lacking any concrete distinguishing evidence, they are totally in the realm of speculation and conjecture.

Also it is clear that KJV god is not distinguishable from many new age holistic versions and that I could have picked these new age gods instead with the same result. When the claim made cannot be distinguished from nonsense, the claim has the same informative value as nonsense.

[fr0d0]

You made the claim E... And my original requests for proof are not for God's existence.

& how is everything being evidence a cop out? How is everything not possibly evidence then? How would you find anything that wasn't created by the creator of everything so you could determine his signature? I'd be interested to know.

@ PR: mine is the NIV God . Belief has to be a matter of faith so you are at liberty to choose your deity/ ridiculous notion. The reasoning then continues into the resultant benefits of your chosen deity.

My single point here is that there cannot be conclusive proof. This is integral the Christianity and most religiousbelief. Making the condition that there has to be evidence is entirely illogical.

[Kyuuketsuki]

If you mean I haven't answered your four bullet point Kyu then I say yes I have in my previous post. Thoroughly. Or is there something else that I haven't addressed? (understand that I'm making requests for proofs from your side here with no response so far).

If dismissing them (which is all you have done) is answering then yes, I agree you have answered but you have not dealt with them in any real sense.

Kyu