Evidence that God exists

[Kyuuketsuki]

Reading Kyu's posts there seems to be no content there to reply to. Apologies Kyu if I missed something.

Well I made a definition for soul, you could either agree it or tell us what the actual definition is ... either way works for me.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I think you as non theists could accept that?

That's fine but it isn't a position (a philosophy if you will) that deserves any respect and, more to the point, it's difficult to distinguish in any real sense from insanity. Why should anyone rationally treat a claim based purely on faith with respect or treat in any way as credible?

I don't doubt/ question that I'm sat here in front of a computer, I know it's true, so I don't need faith. If I didn't know it was here in front of me, If I doubt/ question that it exists, then I would need faith to think it did. You see how doubt/ questioning is on the same side as faith in those statements. Not the opposing side. Don't doubt / don't need faith. Doubt / would need faith

That could be interpreted as a strawman (though I don't think you intended that way) because it has little or no relevance to the issue under discussion. It's a bit like Wiki ... it's a great resource for non-contentious issues (brilliant, marvellous, can't fault it) but when it gets to contentious issues (such as the existence of Jesus Christ, faith, souls etc. etc.) it is little more than a debate forum with those that should loudest holding sway over the current status of the article.

In essence I would say you have to compare the specific faith-based claim with other claims which is why we attack such claims with science (as we indeed would ALL other claims).

Science is a methodology that is essentially characterised by doubt ... religion is not, religion is more about finding ways to justify what you want to believe.

I see nowhere on this thread a successful refutation of this idea. If someone does, please point it out to me because I'd love to explore it.

Then I would say you are either blind or being deliberately obfuscative ... not only do I think my answer above deals directly with what you are saying but I think others have said similar things.

Just a point here.. I should say I have no interest in winning some point between Christians and non Christians. I'm just interested in exploring this idea.

Good for you but surely you'd be better off exploring gobbledegook in a forum that specialises in it?

Many people have come in like a steamroller baited by an admittedly provocative thread title. Obviously I'm saying the opposite. I think there can be no empirical proof that the Christian God exists, and that this is a logical assertion given the above.

But it isn't logical ... it is just another claim and no more deserving of any merit than any other. To think otherwise constitutes special pleading.

The anti theist mantra "give me proof" is not rendered impotent by this logic. We can possibly be more accurate in our discussions.

I believe that observable evidence will always be the way to proceed on claims of any type but I am unsure how one can be more accurate on the subject of something that cannot be demonstrated.

Kyu