Evidence that God exists

[Kyuuketsuki]

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

And again, I would say you are either blind or being deliberately obfuscative.

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?

And again, religion is more about finding ways to justify what you want to believe ... IMO you just reinterpret your own views to fool yourself that you are actually doubting. It's a bit like when theists claim that belief is the harder path ... it's rubbish, it's easy to believe, it's harder (much harder) to remain sceptical.

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.

And all you appear to be doing is advancing some kind of version of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) which is rubbish because there is nothing currently accepted as real that isn't supported by some kind of scientifically analysable evidence

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

Not trying to be funny but do I have to read through an entire thread to find the definition and how hard is it to copy & paste your own stuff?

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.

My comments were precisely on the topic of evidence for "God" so please ... stop dodging the questions, try answering them.

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.

Again nice dodge ... since when was Adrian's opinion mine?

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.

A claim is a claim regardless of whether it is based in fact or faith ... faith is fine if you keep it to yourself but the moment you try (as you have done) to advance it as some kind of truth or propose it as having some kind of merit in a public forum then it should be treated exactly he same as any other claim.

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.

No it doesn't, at least not in any significant way ... it certainly doesn't ask believers to question whether there is or is not a god. You're going to have to explain what you meant by the stuff on parallel links.

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

The proper approach from a scientific POV to ANY claim is scepticism and what is scepticism? It is a form of doubt. The proper approach for a believer to a core religious claim is faith without question.

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

Whut?

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

As I said others have answered you on this several times before as have I ... IMO that means you are either blind (and I do not think you are) or obfuscative.

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.

That would be the No True Scotsman fallacy then.

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.

I don't deny that religion is of interest to me ... friendship with theists isn't I'm afraid. TBH I don't think you're a "real Christian" since you are quite evidently somewhat freer in your interpretation of scripture than many others ... it's fine to be like that but it doesn't exactly make you representative of Christianity as a whole.

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.

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?[/

You see I don't get that ... you have to have a seriously warped sense of logic to interpret the complete absence of evidence as some kind of logical proof that there is a god.

Kyu