Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Deesse23]

Please re-read.... you are mixing two separate lines of thought.     I said specifically, that I'm not discussing your hypotheticals.

These are not hypotheticals.
I did cook my breakfast this morning and I am 640 years old.

You have my testimony.
Don't you believe me ?

Why do you deny this ?
I have given you testimonial evidence.

Isn't that enough ?

Here is some corrobating evidence. My testimony:

I have met Rahn. He looks old, very old, quite probably 640 years old. But i havent seen him cooking breakfast, ever. I dont believe he ever cooked breakfast.
I swear!

P.S.: I have met him in New York. You can check this on any map! It was after 2001 when the towers fell. You can check any history book!

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry,   You are going to have to discuss the reasoning behind what you are trying to say.   You should also re-read what I have said about corroborating evidence.  Discuss your reasoning first, and then we can test it.

It's not enough is it.
You require something more than my mere testimony.
Why ?

Is it because it's an extraordinary claim .
I claim to be 640 years old and you find it unbelievable because of the simple well known fact that human beings don't live that long.

You need evidence of this claim, but more than that you won't even entertain the idea of discussing because you consider it hypothetical.

According to your own standards, your entire religion is hypothetical.

My reasons for asking these questions are to get you to understand that all claims are not the same. You must present evidence that is equal in nature to the claim being presented.

This whole thread is about presenting evidence for a god.

We can't rely on testimony for such a claim.
We need something more.

Don't you agree ?

I don’t share your double standards, and you have not provided any justification for your special pleading. You seem to be deciding apart from evidence, not because of it.

[Amarok]

I have this anonymously written magic book that i swear 500 have seen that proves he's over 600 years old

[Rahn127]

It's not enough is it.
You require something more than my mere testimony.
Why ?

Is it because it's an extraordinary claim .
I claim to be 640 years old and you find it unbelievable because of the simple well known fact that human beings don't live that long.

You need evidence of this claim, but more than that you won't even entertain the idea of discussing because you consider it hypothetical.

According to your own standards, your entire religion is hypothetical.

My reasons for asking these questions are to get you to understand that all claims are not the same. You must present evidence that is equal in nature to the claim being presented.

This whole thread is about presenting evidence for a god.

We can't rely on testimony for such a claim.
We need something more.

Don't you agree ?

I don’t share your double standards, and you have not provided any justification for your special pleading. You seem to be deciding apart from evidence, not because of it.

I've given you more than enough chances.

You're done

[RoadRunner79]

I don’t share your double standards, and you have not provided any justification for your special pleading.  You seem to be deciding apart from evidence, not because of it.

I've given you more than enough chances.

You're done

Very well.    All I'm asking is; for the reasoning that you are using.   Perhaps you should think through this a little more, rather than going off of feelings.

If you are asking me if I would believe something that goes against my views; based on good and sufficient evidence, then my answer is yes... however; I try to leave my bias out of it, and look objectively at the evidence.

---

I don’t share your double standards, and you have not provided any justification for your special pleading.  You seem to be deciding apart from evidence, not because of it.

I've given you more than enough chances.

You're done

For what you may have been trying to get at with the stories.   You gave just as much reason to believe either (although both only have a single point of evidence; which I talked about before).  The main difference is that for the one you may be willing to give greater assumptions or faith towards,  in order to proceed with less sufficient evidence.  This faith is offered, and isn't required.  So, there is no obligation for another to believe either story, if their is insufficient evidence for them.  This faith might be from prior established trust, inconsequential effects from believing the claim, or because you are feeling generous or any other number of reasons.  If your standards are so high, that anyone can deny anything, then I think that you should re-evaluate your standards.  However I do think that you should be consistent with your reasons and standards.

However I have been told by people here before, when pointing out that the same logic, should produce a similar conclusion (unless you can show a premise is invalid such as a category error or something).   I was told that logic doesn't work that way.   If the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, then I do have a problem with logic, however I'm pretty sure it's not me.

[Amarok]

I don’t share your double standards, and you have not provided any justification for your special pleading.  You seem to be deciding apart from evidence, not because of it.

I've given you more than enough chances.

You're done

We have been giving him chances for years .He's failed every time

[A. Secular Human]

I must have missed the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that gods exist.

Can someone point me to it?

All this talk of preparing breakfast has made me hungry.

[Minimalist]

Forget extraordinary evidence.  How about any evidence?

All these fuckers can ever do is point to their holy books and go "see?"

[possibletarian]

What most amuses me about all this is when asked for evidence about this supreme King of the whole universe, the being who fill their life with such joy. The being who created every atom and without whom the whole of time and space would fall apart...

The answer is...

Well a few thousand years ago, in a time of magic and superstition an anonymous unverifiable author wrote....

Fucking hilarious.

[Dimmesdale]

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.