No verifiable evidence is the Christian position

[fr0d0]

No Mike

* fr0d0 sighs because he thought Mike got it

[Esquilax]

Please expand. Do you think Christians believe that there is verifiable evidence? Can you find me any that manage to show it to you?

No Nora, this is our position: there can't be any. You demanding it off them hugely supports Christianity. The truth is like you affirm for us. And I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Thanks!

Alright, so why should any of us bother even responding to you? You're in possession of a useless, pointless, nothing of a god belief, you cannot be rationally justified in holding it, and thus you are both wrong and irrational by definition. I'm happy to just call you deluded and move on, if that's the case.

But if you actually want to have a discussion- I know, sounds pretty crazy, especially since you joined an atheist forum- then you'll have to actually pony up something real.

[NoraBrimstone]

Fr0d0, you need to think just a teeny-tiny little bit more on this subject. You must be able to almost feel the epiphany brewing.

Please expand. Do you think Christians believe that there is verifiable evidence? Can you find me any that manage to show it to you?

No Nora, this is our position: there can't be any. You demanding it off them hugely supports Christianity. The truth is like you affirm for us. And I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Thanks!

That's not what I meant at all. Try again...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

even if we deny that there is any evidence for a deity, at least verifiable evidence (the only form that matters to the question at hand), then we have to contradict accounts in numerous holy literature that claims directly that its deity had a physical (and thus verifiable) impact on the temporal realm.

A burning bush, sending your son (yourself?) down to earth, turning water into wine, people who live for hundreds of years and so on.

Physical results from physical impacts. These should be measurable, unless we start claiming special pleading. But them the argument falls due to its fallacious underpinnings.

Nah you got it all wrong Fid

Not one of those things, although actual (if you're happy to accept that) physical interactions with reality, leave no trace of the supernatural. The can all be explained naturally, which is why, even seeing those things with their own eyes, just the same as you see miracles with _your_ own eyes, people still didn't all believe that their wasn't a naturalistic explanation.

Nothing is measurable, so your claims stay intact. There is no verifiable physical evidence of God.

I'd like to thank you personally for your supportive post.

Thanks!

So you're saying that even supposedly supernatural occurances are indistinguishable from non-supernatural occruances?

Well doesn't that just mean that Occam's razor eliminates the requirement for anyone to view them as anything other than natural, non supernaturally inspired occurances in the first place?

So really, me not seeing 'miracles' as miracles is entirely logical, even by your own logic (if the above holds true).

[fr0d0]

Hey Esq, I think I have to leave you to work out your conflicts. To you, science is wrong. I'm on their side. Your philosophy makes no sense to me.

That's not what I meant at all. Try again...

Help me out? (I have no idea what you're alluding to)

---

So you're saying that even supposedly supernatural occurances are indistinguishable from non-supernatural occruances?

Well doesn't that just mean that Occam's razor eliminates the requirement for anyone to view them as anything other than natural, non supernaturally inspired occurances in the first place?

So really, me not seeing 'miracles' as miracles is entirely logical, even by your own logic (if the above holds true).

1. Yes they have to be don't they? Otherwise they are surely not supernatural? /how can you claim to naturally have evidence of something supernatural?

2. Sure without any thought you should assume everything is purely natural.

3. logic requires thinking. Unless you are making a rule that it shouldn't.

[Chas]

This thread is a huge thank you to all non Christians who support us Christians (and possibly all theists) by constantly banging on about there not being any verifiable evidence of God.

No matter how many times you say it, there are still people out there with other idiotic ideas about there being verifiable evidence.

So thanks a lot guys, your support it very much appreciated!

You believe something for which there not only isn't any evidence but can't be any evidence, so you claim that by our asking for evidence it strengthens you position.

Is that what you are saying?

[fr0d0]

No and yes Chas. Notice the qualifier.

[Esquilax]

No and yes Chas. Notice the qualifier.

If you can't verify it, then how can it possibly count as evidence for anything?

[Chas]

No and yes Chas. Notice the qualifier.

Um, what qualifier?

[fr0d0]

Because it's logically valid Esq. Logically valid yet possible to translate another way. I don't see how the alternate translation/s lead to an equally satisfying answer, but that's for you to support, if you oppose it.

Esq spotted it Chas. "verifiable"