Evidence that God exists

[Kyuuketsuki]

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!?!

Um, no one owns a thread, threads drift, things are said; those things have to be addressed.

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?

I think it's a lot easier to believe in things like god (indeed recent research suggest we're built to believe), it takes education, training & discipline not to fall for that kind of rubbish.

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.

Whut?

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.

You are the one that brought it up (post #181), I'm simply responding so yes, IMO it's your responsibility to justify it.

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.

The thread is entitled "Evidence that God exists" so I repeat ... my comments were entirely on topic.

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.

I didn't say it was "off topic" I said it was a strawman.

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.

Are you naïve enough to believe that using big (and I mean size not complex) words in some way make your argument more powerful? Maybe it's some kind of voodoo thing?

I don't know of any atheist that says faith needs evidence, claims however do ... it's all very well saying that you believe x on faith but once you claim x is true it is as subject to rigorous analysis as any other claim.

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.

Oh I understand that faith is different from fact but if that is so, if the only thing you have for your god is faith then it is pointless ... you claim (that a god exists) is pointless, your decision to be a Christian pathetic and any claim your personal religion has to be the one true religion meaningless.

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.

Which god? The pointless Christian one? The pointless Jewish one (or do they have some kind of evidence worth evaluating that Christianity does not)? Or maybe the pointless Islamic one?

To question is human nature (well some humans at least) but whether we do or don't cannot be used as evidence in support of a chosen deity.

The rantings of mad nuns aside, there is no verifiable evidence that there is any kind of life after death.

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 refer the honourable gentleman to my answers given above & previously on this subject.

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.

Wow! Gobsmacked! Colour me unimpressed!

[quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='12133' dateline='1237501493']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.

Direct references:

#010 (Eilonnwy)
#085 (Mark)
#136 (Demonaura)
#174 (Mark)
#183 (Athoughtfulman)
#184 (Kyuuketsuki)

I haven't looked for indirect references.

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.

In essence you are saying that unless you are a Christian (travelling on the Christian journey) you won't understand ... that is the absolute classic definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

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.

Is it? I rather think it an objective assessment. Do you deny that you interpret your own scriptures in a somewhat different way from the majority of Christians?

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.

Yet again the No True Scotsman fallacy.

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!

So I'm being stupid?

I'm only answering what you said (or appeared to say) ... I'm a fairly intelligent bloke, if I don't get what you're saying there's a reasonable chance that you're the one who's expressing it poorly.

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

Do I agree or disagree with WHAT question?

Kyu