Atheism

[Sam]

Fair enough but the ONLY reason your god is beyond that is BECAUSE YOU DEFINE IT TO BE SO

Not me... us

So you believe that because your definition is widely accepted it is correct? To be honest I've seen this become an increasing trand amongst the religious; After all their reasoning and 'evidence' have been refuted they retreat to a definition of God which is 'Outside nature/the universe & Non-Temporal'. Under this definition they give Theology de facto validity whilst removing the need for verifiable proof or at least realistic reasoning.

My main problem with this is that it seems totally arbitrary, it easy to start supposing 'God' as some unknowable force but there is no support for the belief aside from vastly over worked 'reasoning'.

Would it not seem entirely logical to you that a 'God' which is 'Outside' the universe would be unable to interfere with it? I mean, we know that we cannot fix the position of an atom & know it's direction as the act of observing it changes it's state and this is caused by a (relatively) small variance in spatial scale! Surely the same must be held true for being interfering in realms that are not their own!

In my personal opinion this 'definition' of 'God' is no more valid than any other despite claims of 'Onotological Differences'.

... what I dispute is the validity of the DEFINITION!! I simply DO NOT and NEVER WILL accept that a god of any kind can act upon this universe WITHOUT LEAVING A TRAIL OF EVIDENCE!

You either:
1. limit God's omnipotence by ruling that he's not powerful enough to hide his tracks.
2. limit your understanding of what would constitute an act of God

This confused me ... Omnipotence = All Powerful? Why would such a being need to leave tracks to cover up? It seems you cannot even grasp your own God 'Concept'! My argument is that God's act of covering his tracks would again require interference in a realm not his own and therefore generate more tracks ad infinitum

Here's the answer you're looking for:

I have no idea actually testifies to the fact that I do not accept it can happen without evidence and NOT to the way you twist it to mean.

Which amounts to: you can't provide one example of what would constitute evidence for God.

Therefore: To be honest you should refrain from saying that God hasn't shown up because given your own reasoning this is impossible to prove.

To be quite honest your demand for 'Evidence that would constitue an act of God' seems illogical, not least because the burden of proof for your claims is with you, not vice versa. Some phonomena can only be explained and atributed to a cause 'after the fact' so maybe we cannot define exactly what evidence would validate 'God' untill it has appeared, been analysed and all other possibilities refuted. Plus with such a loose definition of an 'Omnipotent, Non-Temporal Being' you could easily try and weasel out of any working ideas at this satge.

To be honest the only evidence I would take for the existence of 'God' would be; If the entire universe collapsed, then re-expanded without any of loosing or lives or suffering at all ... Or maybe if Armagedon actually happened? lol

Sam