Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I have noticed a trend in theists.
The argument seems to be that anything existing at all is evidence for god.

It is a stupid argument and a sign of desperation.

What is more likely some natural phenomenon created the universe or a supernatural being? The natural process wins hands down. We can witness natural processes everyday but no supernatural process has ever been proven to exist.


And there is never an explanation of why the supernatural is a better answer, they just assert that it is.


They never say how the supernatural being did the creating, where it was where it got the stuff, it just did coz its awesome (apparently).


It is a non-answer, a childs answer to complex issues and seems to need no proof to support it in the simplistic eyes of believers.

It's actually a true statement, but inconclusive to many people who choose not to understand.

No it isn't. See I can just state things too.

What you're suggesting is more desperation.  The "something from nothing" nonsense doesn't hold weight.  Just wishful thinking from people who don't want to believe there is a God.

What is with this "don't want to believe" nonsense. I have no choice but to not believe because I find it silly.

Something cannot come from nothing through natural processes.  The claims suggesting it can have been debunked and debunked some more every time someone tries to suggest how it may have happened.  Matter cannot be created or destroyed through any natural process.  This is known as the "Conservation of Mass."

Ok then, tell me how god did it? where did it get the stuff? what process did it use? where was it before it did all this? what is god made of?
I want evidence for all your answers.

I would guess that you don't have any.

Now we're supposed to ignore science to accommodate the atheists?

No but then science does not support the idea of a god, or indeed anything supernatural.

The "idea" if you can even call it that that god did it is supremely unhelpful, it has no explanatory use at all.

It is the thoughts of the childhood of our species and should have been jetisoned along with believing in the bogieman long ago.

- I didn't just "state something" just because.  If you claim I did, then prove it.
- So because you had an emotional experience, you chose to discount something.  Got it.
- What you attempted is known as Whataboutism, or the tu quoque fallacy.  Of course you mixed it in with a false premise.
So I'm supposed to assert information about an assertion I didn't make.  Got it again.  You are a most assuredly a genius, but in your own mind.  *rolls eyes*

---

We've already been through this on the thread.


I can't make anyone believe anything because we have self-determination and I can't impose belief in someone's mind no matter what I show or tell them.

You could ask for proof of a duck, I could hand you a duck, and by your own self-determination could tell me it wasn't a real duck, and that I'm trying to fool you with a decoy.  I could sit in on the floor and let it walk around, and you could tell me it was battery operated.  I could hack it open and show you its organs, and you could simply accuse me of putting it all in an empty shell, sewing it up, and presenting it.  I'm sure you wouldn't, but by your own self-determination you could because I can't force something into your mind.

No. I could, but I won't. That leaves you with just the usual bullshit.

Could what?  If you've already convinced yourself of one possible conclusion, then what else is there