(May 6, 2015 at 2:59 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I think some atheists exaggerate when demanding evidence. Asking for physical evidence for a supernatural creator that exists outside time and space seems ridiculous and unreasonable to me, so I'll be happy with a coherent, logically consistent deductive argument that leads me to conclude a god needs to exist (either to explain, justify or fill in something that is completely and forever empty)
The idea of a supernatural creator that exists outside time and space is a ridiculous and unreasonable concept in the first place. There is no need to request evidence for such a being, because the very concept is incoherent.
Existence itself requires space and time, so existence that is without time and space is meaningless.
But, for arguments sake, lets say there is a god that exists outside of time and space. If this god interacts with this universe at all (miracles, answering prayer, etc), then it would leave physical evidence, and therefore asking for evidence is well within reason.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
