Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

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.

It's my thread! Can't I say what it's about then!?!

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.

Totally disagree. Do YOU think it's harder not to believe in God than not!? (I jest). How is it harder to remain skeptical? I take it you have full on experience as a practicing Christian to be able to level that accusation at me then?

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

If you demand that this isn't a case of that, then yes.

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?

Well yes, seeing this is not the topic here, I think that's reasonable. It's not like you aren't contributing on that thread too. Why not keep threads on topic.

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.

This thread is about the idea that faith isn't provable ...it's my thread!! I answered you out of politeness there.

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?

You stated that this was off topic, and I said why it wasn't, and what brought it to light once more.

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.

It isn't the subject of the faith that I'm advancing, but the assertion by non-theists that faith requires evidence, and I'm discussing that in a way that works for scientific/ factual/ evidence based probing.

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 you misinterpret. Assurity from faith is different from knowing fact. I'd have to look it up, and you can rightly call me on it, but I assure you this is right.. God hates subservience in the way of people not questioning him. To him those people are spiritually dead. They have no spiritual life. To question proves you are alive and searching. that's the point. How could (spiritual) death and inactivity ever equate to life in all it's fullness? It just makes no sense.

You said claims have to be tested - by parallel links I meant that surely you have to test like for like. testing against dissimilar subjects would be nonsensical perhaps.

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.

Absolutely disagree.

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.

Yet you still fail to point this out.

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.

Nope. that would be answered by the statement: "Christianity is an aim and not a destination". Here I'm talking lack of knowledge of something, not an unreachable ideal.

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.

That's very discriminatory of you.

Studying the Bible, or related topic to infinite depth does not qualify you to have any authority on Christianity. Only experiencing actual Christianity as a fully paid up member does. I'm honoured of course that you would resort to trying to belittle my claim of Christian to win an argument.

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.

*calm* ...I'm not trying to claim that - that is a separate topic. How can you repeatedly not get that. I'm gonna whip out the circular argument material on you in a bit if you don't stop! </joke>

Do you, or do you not agree with me. Answer the question.