Evidence that God exists

[Mark]

Thanks for your post Mark. Haven't we covered this? Seemingly from your points we haven't.

I didn't concede or suggest that God couldn't intervene in this world at all. I said if he did intervene that it wouldn't be provable, ..following precedent. So you seem to have completely misunderstood me there. This is an important point. I need you to understand where I'm coming from here.

So, then you're second point, that I assert that miracles written in the bible didn't occur... no I do not. Necessarily those miracles are not provable, because, as is the theme of this thread, that would invalidate faith. Again, another important point.

I think that God is a God of natural laws. God created everything meaning the natural laws as we know them, and as we are discovering. I agree with you that to science, the consideration of God's existence cannot be a valid pursuit. From that point of view, I agree with Dawkins. But then that is to miss the point of religion, which to me, doesn't ever deal with scientific type explanation of the world. If you think it does then I fail to see your case.

Interesting yes, that this is a limit of God's ability, that he cannot intervene in this reality and also leave provable evidence. This though is a logical aspect of God. If that were to be the case, that God was a known entity, testable etc., then this existence would be totally different.. the natural laws we live by would be thrown on their head and this would be a different reality. All this is pie in the sky of conjecture of course. We're talking about something we know not to be true so far. So why bother? Why not think about this reality and what concerns us now, than all this talk of fairies, dragons, pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters and spatula wielding monsters. Why not debate the guts of the matter which can be a real topic for serious debate?

I'd be interested to hear your reply.

Regards

I am trying to figure out what the "guts of the matter" could possibly be, given that the god in which you believe appears to be not only impossible of being encountered, but even somewhat disingenuous, since he had it put in his divine book that he has worked miracles at various times, miracles which you allege he is unable to have done.

But it appears that you do not, after all, think that it is a logical necessity that the supposed God cannot work miracles -- deeds which, when beheld, lead clearly to the conclusion that he exists. It is just that, as a matter of fact does not do so. Am I right?

Do you agree that there is no way to know whether God might someday work a miracle (as defined above)? That is, we cannot know whether the supposed god is incapable of doing miracles or whether, for the time being, he merely chooses not to do them? And so, that god will never work a miracle is a claim incapable of being supported by fact, but is instead an article of faith? (I do not use this term in a pejorative sense, since I among the articles of my faith are not only that there will never be any miracles, but that there are no gods to do them.)

Taking this article of faith as a starting point, then, do you agree that it is an implication of your position that the supposed god can never answer prayer in any consistent way, or systematically favor the faithful over the unfaithful, or the good over the wicked, since doing so would create a empirical basis for proving his existence?

Do you agree this particular article of faith implies that the supposed god cannot convincingly and consistently address a person in his mind, still less directly reveal divine truth, since doing so would permit that person to draw the quite reasonable conclusion that he exists? Or is it only groups of people to which the supposed God is incapable of revealing his existence?

Do you agree that if this is true, then it must be that Jesus gave no clear sign to men that he was a god? In particular, that he was not resurrected from the dead?

You say, "Why not think about this reality and what concerns us now?"

Well all right, let us address the question of whether the supposed god can have any effects at all upon this reality of ours. You have said, god perhaps can have effects so long as they are do not lead to the conclusion that he exists. But how are these possible divine effects different from the operation of the blind natural forces that are widely supposed to be the exclusive mechanisms of this world of ours? Would not any difference at all be a basis for inferring his existence? And upon what basis then, can it be said that the supposed god has the power to work any such effects? Do you agree that the strongest possible statement that can be made in this regard is that we do not know whether or not the supposed god is capable of working any real effects whatsoever?

Do you think that there is a life after death, and if so, do you maintain that it will be possible to know at that time, for certain, whether or not the supposed god exists?