Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

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

I choose to postpone aswers on life, the universe & everything to relevsant discussions. Pleasde don't try derailing tactics.

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.

Interesting. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot you'd be calling 'brainwashed'. You're denying human nature then?

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

Post #181 is yours???

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

You know very well the thread title is actually the opposite of what thread is about. I worry about you if you didn't get that.

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?

there are no big words there!!

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.

You're mincing words

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.

This is flame baiting. Nice try.

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?

I like the way you remain impartial here.

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.

I don't think so either??

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

Yay! I think you're getting it now.

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.

I've answered questions where they're asked. Obviously you didn't get the answer.

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.

Strange logic.

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?

It's an objective assessment to cut out people because of their beliefs? Maybe so. It's also descrimination.
I do deny I interpret differently from the majority of Christians yes.

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.

Keep wriggling. I'm sure you've fooled yourself at least.

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.

Granted.

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

Do I agree or disagree with WHAT question?

Here's the question again:

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?