Evidence

[FallentoReason]

The theist vs. atheist debate will finally progress when the atheist realises asking for evidence is ridiculous. What is it that you're expecting from the theist? An experiment with a beaker and a few chemicals that prove God exists? No, such evidence will *never* be available because we're talking about a concept that is "outside" of our universe. How can materialistic things prove to you that there is a consciousness that feels love, anger, jealousy etc. which wants to connect with you personally? They can't.

I guess what I'd like to know is why, if no evidence is to be found out there, how come they presume this "consciousness .. which wants to connect with you personally" is out there.

That's for the theist to answer.

Just as the underpinnings of consciousness are to be found in the brain, so too will this "greater consciousness".

This comparison suggests that the universe is in fact the brain of God. I don't think that's what you meant to say..?

If it isn't supported in our brains then it has no place in this universe at all. Why turn down such a location for gods? Maybe you gods are in here. Consciousness is not unitary. There is plenty of room for your gods right on board that noggin of yours. You know, I and I.

Oh wait, are you saying God should be able to be found in our consciousness??? Consciousness is not unitary??? Are you a schizophrenic by any chance?

---

I'm confused. Why would the theist need to realise that there is no evidence? It's the atheist that is usually wanting physical evidence on a silver platter presented to them that proves God. The chance that all these atheists are asking rhetorically is extremely low, as it is obvious that they're implying that such evidence is what they require in order to start believing, hence why they're most likely asking in the first place.

It is true that the atheist is the one who wants evidence. The problem is that rather than admitting the lack of material evidence, the theist will persistently make claims that there is evidence, making the argument linger on that specific subject. Outside of an argument purely about whether there is evidence or not, the theist will try to make the claim that there is. I argue using the point that there is no material evidence to prevent the theist from making their claim that there is evidence later.

Ah, I see. Yeah, I think the honest answer that both parties should adopt is that there is no empirical evidence for God. Therefore, the logistics of the theist shouldn't involve bluffing about evidence, and the logistics of the atheist shouldn't involve expecting physical evidence on demand.