Evidence

[ChildOfReason]

One of the biggest arguments I hear on this forum is "there is evidence for (a) god.
If so, show me this evidence.
Simply explain to me why your specific god exists.
It's a straightforward question, so don't set up any strawmen or evade the subject, you'll just make a fool of yourself.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The evidence is all around you. Open your eyes.

[FallentoReason]

The theist vs. atheist debate will finally progress when the atheist realises asking for evidence is ridiculous. What is it that you're expecting from the theist? An experiment with a beaker and a few chemicals that prove God exists? No, such evidence will *never* be available because we're talking about a concept that is "outside" of our universe. How can materialistic things prove to you that there is a consciousness that feels love, anger, jealousy etc. which wants to connect with you personally? They can't.

[Owlix]

I agree, FallentoReason, except that we know animals existed for millions upon hundred millions of years, not any shorter amount of time. Humans didn't walk with dinosaurs, and it was around 65 million years ago that the last 'saur' walked the earth. Tiny rodent like mammals survived the great extinction (a meteor, would you believe? A meteor that caused chaos the world over, nuclear winter, volcanoes, earthquakes, 'hell on earth'. It was not just the meteor that extincted the dinosaurs, it was the domino or butterfly effect of said meteor) only because they burrowed and as such escaped the harmful effects happening topside. There is a basic understanding of how things evolved from single celled organisms, not 'poof! and you shall be man! Crack, and you are woman'. Ice ages and global warming, plate tectonics.....

The thing that I find so disgusting is that in the face of all of this information and knowledge and enlightenment, so many choose to ignore because of a fucking book.
Science is not speculation. Nor is mathematics. Formulae, experiements, variables and controls, denominators, these things are consistent and don't leave much room for interpretation. You can change the values, but the data at the end yields the same result.

Not so with religion. Who knows what was written metaphorically, allegorically, literally, or imagined? That's why it's hard to think about something that exists outside of everything we know. Because the only things that exist to tell us about said entity repeatedly fall when placed under scrutiny.

[FallentoReason]

I agree, FallentoReason, except that we know animals existed for millions upon hundred millions of years, not any shorter amount of time. Humans didn't walk with dinosaurs, and it was around 65 million years ago that the last 'saur' walked the earth. Tiny rodent like mammals survived the great extinction (a meteor, would you believe? A meteor that caused chaos the world over, nuclear winter, volcanoes, earthquakes, 'hell on earth'. It was not just the meteor that extincted the dinosaurs, it was the domino or butterfly effect of said meteor) only because they burrowed and as such escaped the harmful effects happening topside. There is a basic understanding of how things evolved from single celled organisms, not 'poof! and you shall be man! Crack, and you are woman'. Ice ages and global warming, plate tectonics.....

I agree with all of this. That is the flip-side, the double-edged sword for the theist, when it comes to trying to tame science in a religious way; they should be able to convince the atheist that no material evidence will ever be found for God's existence, but at the same time their god's Creation tells a story that is incompatible with what their god says about his own creation.

[Minimalist]

As evidenced by Post#2, evasion and bullshit is what they do best. In fact, it is all they do.

[ChildOfReason]

The theist vs. atheist debate will finally progress when the atheist realises asking for evidence is ridiculous. What is it that you're expecting from the theist? An experiment with a beaker and a few chemicals that prove God exists? No, such evidence will *never* be available because we're talking about a concept that is "outside" of our universe. How can materialistic things prove to you that there is a consciousness that feels love, anger, jealousy etc. which wants to connect with you personally? They can't.

I disagree with the first statement. The debate will only progress when the theist realises that there is no evidence. Everything else that you said is exactly my point. There is no material evidence, and we live in a material world.

---

The evidence is all around you. Open your eyes.

My eyes are open. I am looking around, and here is a list of what I see:
A wall, floor, TV, bed, chair, two doors, a computer, a ps3, cables attatched to the tv, two desks, and a trash can. About it. No evidence for your god.

[Cato]

The evidence is all around you. Open your eyes.

Does this mean you found my foreskin? Praise Jesus.

Send me a PM so I can give you my address.

[FallentoReason]

The theist vs. atheist debate will finally progress when the atheist realises asking for evidence is ridiculous. What is it that you're expecting from the theist? An experiment with a beaker and a few chemicals that prove God exists? No, such evidence will *never* be available because we're talking about a concept that is "outside" of our universe. How can materialistic things prove to you that there is a consciousness that feels love, anger, jealousy etc. which wants to connect with you personally? They can't.

I disagree with the first statement. The debate will only progress when the theist realises that there is no evidence. Everything else that you said is exactly my point. There is no material evidence, and we live in a material world.

I'm confused. Why would the theist need to realise that there is no evidence? It's the atheist that is usually wanting physical evidence on a silver platter presented to them that proves God. The chance that all these atheists are asking rhetorically is extremely low, as it is obvious that they're implying that such evidence is what they require in order to start believing, hence why they're most likely asking in the first place.

[Whateverist]

The theist vs. atheist debate will finally progress when the atheist realises asking for evidence is ridiculous. What is it that you're expecting from the theist? An experiment with a beaker and a few chemicals that prove God exists? No, such evidence will *never* be available because we're talking about a concept that is "outside" of our universe. How can materialistic things prove to you that there is a consciousness that feels love, anger, jealousy etc. which wants to connect with you personally? They can't.

I guess what I'd like to know is why, if no evidence is to be found out there, how come they presume this "consciousness .. which wants to connect with you personally" is out there. Just as the underpinnings of consciousness are to be found in the brain, so too will this "greater consciousness". If it isn't supported in our brains then it has no place in this universe at all. Why turn down such a location for gods? Maybe your gods are in here. Consciousness is not unitary. There is plenty of room for your gods right on board that noggin of yours. You know, I and I.