RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.
November 20, 2018 at 1:56 am
The burden of proof lies upon he who alleges. Religious people should be aware that I'm perfectly willing to believe in god(s), ghosts, mediums, demons, angels, spirits, channeling, miracles, horoscopes, astrology, psychics, Ouija boards, the supernatural, and anything else for that matter, as long as they adhere to one proviso: prove it! That's all I ask for. Just one simple request. Prove it!
Don't give me speculations, guesses, hopes, dreams, wishes, desires, beliefs, faith (or appeals to faith), or indoctrinations. Don't give me one-time-only, non-repeatable, non-testable events. Don't give me internal alterations in one's psychology or physiology which cannot be tested, observed or demonstrated, only felt or believed. And don't give me effects that cannot be related to the supposed cause.
I have no objection to believing in a deity as long as proof based upon a rational standard of knowledge is forthcoming. Is that too much to ask? But surely, theists can't expect me to adopt their beliefs on the basis of what has been presented, thus far. Every "proof" that I've heard and very piece of evidence that I've seen for the existence of God(s) has been easily countered by rational evidence/arguments to the contrary. No convincing evidence for the existence of any deity has ever emerged.
I'm more than willing to listen to theistic arguments or view theistic evidence as long as cross-examination is permitted. No claims which must be shielded from rational scrutiny are worth believing. As conditions now stand, theology rests far more on superstition and faith, than upon facts and reason.
Don't give me speculations, guesses, hopes, dreams, wishes, desires, beliefs, faith (or appeals to faith), or indoctrinations. Don't give me one-time-only, non-repeatable, non-testable events. Don't give me internal alterations in one's psychology or physiology which cannot be tested, observed or demonstrated, only felt or believed. And don't give me effects that cannot be related to the supposed cause.
I have no objection to believing in a deity as long as proof based upon a rational standard of knowledge is forthcoming. Is that too much to ask? But surely, theists can't expect me to adopt their beliefs on the basis of what has been presented, thus far. Every "proof" that I've heard and very piece of evidence that I've seen for the existence of God(s) has been easily countered by rational evidence/arguments to the contrary. No convincing evidence for the existence of any deity has ever emerged.
I'm more than willing to listen to theistic arguments or view theistic evidence as long as cross-examination is permitted. No claims which must be shielded from rational scrutiny are worth believing. As conditions now stand, theology rests far more on superstition and faith, than upon facts and reason.
"The world is my country; all of humanity are my brethren; and to do good deeds is my religion." (Thomas Paine)