Evidence that God exists

[Kyuuketsuki]

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.

And I'll thank you to stop being disingenuous ... I repeat that my comments within this thread are ABSOLUTELY on topic.

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?

No, as I said earlier, recent evidence suggests that it is human nature to believe so therefore the harder path is to be the sceptic.

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???

I quoted the one which was my direct answer, my apologies ... #180

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.

No I didn't ... perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here, perhaps the OP should be rather more careful about their choice of title? If that is an issue then it would be the OP's fault.

Meanwhile I repeat, my comments are entirely on topic.

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!!

BIG
PHYSICALLY BIG ... are you being deliberately obtuse?

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

No I'm not ... answer the question.

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.

No it's not ... deal with the point made please.

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.

I like the way you avoid the points being made ... oh no, I don't ... go figure!

I never said I was unbiased, I am biased against religion, the claims it makes and the effects it has on society ... but then there's nothing about objectivity that implies one must remain unbiased; In the words of my favourite scientist, "I think it's important to realise that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." Richard Dawkins.

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??

That's not the impression your comments in this forum give.

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.

I get that you answered but it doesn't mean that your answers trounced the question asked or point made ... you answered several of my points above but you didn't actually answer them properly did you?

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.

OK, perhaps NTS isn't the fallacy in question but it implies there’s no way to explain things to an outsider so it would make the very idea of debate seem rather pointless.

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.

Cut people out? From what? Like any human I evaluate (judge) people based on a number of observable factors ... if I didn't I wouldn't be able to decide who to trust, who not to, who represent danger and who don't, who to believe and who not to ... we need a method of evaluating others and situations so what's the big deal?

I do deny I interpret differently from the majority of Christians yes.

You say there is no afterlife ... that is a MAJOR departure from mainstream Christian doctrine so, if it's OK with you, I think I'll stick to my evaluation of you

Yet again the No True Scotsman fallacy.

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

See above

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?

Do I agree there is no empirical evidence for the existence of your god? Yes, but that cannot be used to prove anything because there is equally no evidence for the existence of Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl and so on. IOW the second part of your argument does not follow.

Kyu