Evidence?

[Ace Otana]

Avoiding the question or what by some of you

Saying things like 'The burden of proof is on you' simply side steps the question. I know its me who needs to give a reason but that doesn't mean you can't answer what that proof might look like to you.

Also lot of people said 'There can be no proof for God's existance'. Doesn't that leave your position unverifiable and unfalsifiable? Isn't like saying, 'This is what I think and theres no possible way I could be wrong'. I dunno, just seems a bit fishy to me.

Thanks to those who did answer though summed up as prayer studies and miracles.

Saying things like 'The burden of proof is on you' simply side steps the question.

No, it's stating fact. If I claimed there is absolutely no god, could you prove me wrong? You can't and further more it would be down to me to prove it but since I'm not claiming there is no god but instead rejecting the claim that you make.

I know its me who needs to give a reason but that doesn't mean you can't answer what that proof might look like to you.

I cannot say what evidence if there can be no evidence! I cannot say what kind of physical evidence if god is not physical. It's beyond my ability and everyone else's on this planet. God is non-temporal and so is beyond any possible physical study-able/measurable evidence. Do you get it now? I'm not evading your question. I'm giving you a direct answer.

Tell me something. How can anyone prove a non-temporal beings existence? Answer that one for us.

'There can be no proof for God's existance'.

That's right. There can be no proof of his existence. The problem with making a god completely impossible to disprove, it makes it completely impossible to prove as well. Try disprove the god thor. Bet you can't.

Doesn't that leave your position unverifiable and unfalsifiable?

Wrong again. The atheistic position is one of disbelief. It does not require any real reason. Though most atheists tend to have a reason and quite often it's due to lack of evidence. What evidence do you have to say there is a god?

Isn't like saying, 'This is what I think and there's no possible way I could be wrong'.

Nope, not at all. I don't say that and I don't think anyone else here does. Remember, lack of belief. We don't assume 100% certainty that there is no god. It's simply rejection/dismissal.

[Edwardo Piet]

Also lot of people said 'There can be no proof for God's existance'. Doesn't that leave your position unverifiable and unfalsifiable? Isn't like saying, 'This is what I think and theres no possible way I could be wrong'. I dunno, just seems a bit fishy to me.

Well, if you were referring to me (also since you haven't responded to my post, despite the fact it differs quite a bit from others here, who give examples of evidence):

I'm not sure whether there can be evidence or not. And how should I know what it would look like? I can't think of anything that would justify it. God seems unfalsifiable and therefore not scientifically verifiable as far as I can tell. How would I be able to distinguish between a super-powerful alien pretending to be God, that appeared completely God-like and omnipotent, from an actual God? And aliens are evolved, and actually have an explanation, they aren't 'just there'. And also, appearing omnipotent is not the same as being genuinely omnipotent. So the super-powerful alien as opposed to the supernatural God is much more probable.

No, I'm not saying God is impossible. But whether there can be evidence for God or not, I'm not going to believe without any...but I can't prove a negative, I can't know God doesn't exist, whether there can be any evidence or not for him. Because for a start, if he exists, it's possible for him to still exist but there be no way that there can be evidence for him, until after you die and you find out that way. So even if there can't be any evidence for him (and as I said, I don't know if there can or not), that doesn't mean he doesn't exist - because you can't prove a negative.

Hope that clarifies my position, if you didn't already understand it already.

EvF

[theVOID]

Nice responses Ace, enjoyed reading them

@ Solarwave:

There are many things that your omnipotent friend could do to convince the entire world of his existence, the most obvious of which would be to communicate with us! You know, like he did fairly frequently in the OT.... Perhaps he wants the entire world to become Atheists in the next few hundred years because he's realized that:

1) Atheists get divorced less
2) Atheists are 20x less likely to be jailed (0.21% prison population / 8-16% national(USA))
3) Atheism is correlated with lower teen pregnancy
4) Atheists are more likely to receive higher education
5) Atheists earn more money
6) Less infants die to Atheist parents
7) Atheists are less likely to be conned

And they're just the ones i'm aware of!

But anyway, it's pretty clear that God wants us all to be better people and his best way of doing that is to be completely absent from our lives until we forget about the burning bush and all that and become atheists!

God is so clever

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
http://atheistempire.com/
http://www.adherents.com/

[fr0d0]

There are many things that your omnipotent friend could do to convince the entire world of his existence, the most obvious of which would be to communicate with us!

Yet you are not convinced by it (the bible)

[Retorth]

There are many things that your omnipotent friend could do to convince the entire world of his existence, the most obvious of which would be to communicate with us!

Yet you are not convinced by it (the bible)

The bible as his way of communicating? Any human can write a book to communicate with people. That doesn't stand out in the least.

[fr0d0]

The bible as his way of communicating? Any human can write a book to communicate with people. That doesn't stand out in the least.

What? Can you elucidate a little as your comment makes no sense to me. God chose to communicate using a book. That's how people receive communication...

[Retorth]

The bible as his way of communicating? Any human can write a book to communicate with people. That doesn't stand out in the least.

What? Can you elucidate a little as your comment makes no sense to me. God chose to communicate using a book. That's how people receive communication...

Let me simplify:
If you say god chose to communicate through a book, then I feel that is weak. Why do I say it is weak? Simply because any person can write a book to communicate with the masses. It isn't hard.

If your god is supposed to be "almighty", why can't he conjure up something more profound or perhaps attempt to bring forth his message(s) in such a way people (particularly non-believers) can say "ok that definitely is from god, no doubt about it"?

And please don't say that I choose to deny the bible because as I said, the bible is a book written by man. Any man can write a book to spread word of something, be it religious or not.

[fr0d0]

Firstly, it's weakness or strength isn't the question. VOID listed God communicating with us as acceptable evidence.

Secondly, how do you reconcile irrefutable evidence with free will then?

[Retorth]

If he meant that god communicating with christians is acceptable to christians then yeah I can't argue with that. If you hear voices in your head, then it's as real to you as you choose. Your own right.

Secondly, how do you reconcile irrefutable evidence with free will then?

I am not saying the bible isn't evidence enough for you. Obviously it is. I am merely asking why, in all his supposed glory and magnificence, he only has a book to prove himself? It's not impressive at all. Wouldn't something more extraordinary assist in obtaining more firm believers? It's not that hard is it?

[fr0d0]

No, he meant God communicating at all, with anybody. what we have here, in a form you can see, is exactly what VOID requested. ie: "God communicating with us".

---

The question of relevance to myself is again, way off topic. You stated:

why can't he conjure up something more profound or perhaps attempt to bring forth his message(s) in such a way people (particularly non-believers) can say "ok that definitely is from god, no doubt about it"?

So you are saying you want something irrefutable to prove God. This would then take away our choice to believe, and hence free will. So how do you reconcile that logically?