Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

So what's your point?

That faith only exists in the presence of doubt? Great. Millions of people doubt the existence of this god all around the world then. If he were so good, big, powerful, so apparently everywhere, why does every single christian doubt him? Because they all believe by faith right? So they all doubt the existence of god? Why the hell do they believe then?

The anit-theist mantra "give me proof" is not anti-theist. It is simply logical. If someone makes a claim, we need evidence to recognise that claim. Though many atheists seem to turn it into a religion itself, atheism is simply the pursuit of reality.

Thanks for the reply thoughtful. I don't think any of that questions the proposition.

ALL people doubt the existance of God yes. How CAN'T they???

"Because they all believe by faith right?" - you used to believe in God - did you have any empirical evidence?

Did you have faith in his existence and the assurity of his existence despite the lack of empirical evidence? ..of course you did! That's how it works. It's no different for anyone else. You only want it to be. Suddenly you're making an unreasonable request for the impossible.

Atheism seems to be the denial of rationality, holding up science as the only explanation for everything that doesn't concern it as well as that which does.

---

Hi Kyu

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.

I posted about this a couple of times on the soul thread. Hope that's ok.

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?

My claims either way are not the topic of this thread. Faith in God is incredible to the unbeliever, I don't see how it can't be. I'll state: That logic follows.

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.

I think the "Don't doubt / don't need faith. Doubt / would need faith" bit holds. It's core to the discussion to me. also, Adrian is saying that this doesn't follow.

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).

Can you only compare faith based claims with other faith based claims? (honest question, I don't know). I would think you would have to. How can you compare a faith claim with a fact claim? Sure, fact claims can be questioned, but the line of reasoning possibly doesn't suit faith based claims at all.
Would you have to apply some parallel links to establish truth? Christianity implores followers to test and question to see if something is correct or not. It's how you could come to the conclusion that action A would be bad for you, where action B would be good and action C would be borderline.

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 think that's incorrect. We can all fool ourselves; but for atheism and it's opposite I think fooling yourself is always undesirable.

I think this kind of statement is from the "applied to you, bad, applied to me, good" school of thought.

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.

I've tried to answer every point. Please tell me if I've missed one.

I know an awful lot about atheism, but I think non Christians are actually extremely naive about Christianity, and make claims which are vastly illogical. I include Richard Dawkins in that group.

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?

No, here's just fine

Seriously, I'm interested in seeing what atheists think about this. It mildly occurs to me to take this discussion onto a Christian forum, but I don't feel the need to yet.

This forum, existing for 'atheists', is held together by discussion on gobbledegook (to you). It's what you're interested is it not? I am like minded in that I also find the subject fascinating, and find I can discuss topics that interest me, with people who mainly disagree. I think that's great. Hopefully we can be friends, whilst at the same time having lively discussions. I hope you wouldn't want to continue in your ignorance, if you had any, and learn what a real Christian actually thinks rather than addressing a stereotype.

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.

So don't discuss it then. I think I can securely claim that there has not been empirical evidence of God's existence that is known to mankind. We can speculate about the future, but that seems beside the point, and deals with an idea. I'm talking about something we can know. We're talking solid fact here, none of which, I'm 100% certain, exists. Unless you know different of course.

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.

It can be demonstrated by the lack of observable evidence surely. I think the conclusion should be absolute and not woolly. What do you think?