Can you make a God claim?

[robvalue]

Alpha male: Perceived probabilities? Do you mean that you and your mate agreed that this was too much of a coincidence so must have a special explanation? And out of the infinite possible non-standard explanations, you decided it was God communicating with you? In other words, you had no rational explanation so just made one up, and managed to convince your mate. For a claim to be worth anything, it must be able to be investigated by anyone who wants to. I hope you would not draw conclusions in the field of law based on one guy guessing explanations and then convincing one other guy, and saying this puts it beyond reasonable doubt. Would that stand up in court?

You have no evidence it was God, that is your imagined explanation with no basis other than you don't accept natural explanations.

Also, you can't start attributing things to "God" before you have defined what God is, and demonstrated it exists at all. Otherwise you might as well say the magic teapot orbiting the sun gave you a nudge. And is is the point; how can distinguish between a magical teapot nudge, a God nudge, or metawind upsetting your spiritual essence?

Chad: I'm not looking for a definition of God that encapsulates everything. I'm just looking for enough that demonstrates you actually know what it is. Since I nor anyone else have had any actual experience of a God (unsubstantiated claims aside) it needs to be shown that it is something other than wishful thinking. Still no one has been able to even tell me what supernatural being means. Defining something doesn't mean telling me what it is not; it's not in time, it's not physical, it's not natural... That gets me no closer to what it actually is. And yes, not only could I give a definition of me pretty well, I have been observed frequently and can even submit DNA for testing. I'm a human, and we have reams of scientific data on humans, what they are, how they work, what they are capable of, and so on. For God, we have nothing. Just what he has supposedly done, and reasons we can't detect him.

---

Alpha: you do seem to agree faith is not a good way to find truth, at least you didn't deny it. If you were born in an islam country, your faith would have been almost certainly in islam. They can't both be right, and there is now way to tell which is right.

---

Rayaan: thank you for your contribution I see you've had a decent go at defining God there, more than anyone has tried to do so far in this thread. By your own admission it is incredibly vague, because it's so different to anything else. But why is that? It's because we know almost nothing about it, we've had no experience of it. All of its attributes are very abstract. These are all indicators of an abstract, rather than real, God. I see no way a God with your definition could ever be tested for, and as such I see no reason to presume anything like that does or even could exist. Defining what "exist" even means is important, because once you remove the physical and such, you're talking about a kind of existence we also have no experience of.

What would ever give anyone a good enough reason to think that something so bizarre, alien, and impossible sounding exists in the first place?

---

But by all means keep it coming, and I would very pleased to see a testable claim put forward

---

The definition of God is important, because how can you test for something if you've not been told what you're testing for? And why should anyone believe you have good reason to believe something is real, if you can't describe it in a way that it exists in any meaningful way? I would suggest that God in fact has to be natural, to be testable. So my advice would be to start with that.