Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[Neo-Scholastic]

soooooooo no matter what person i debate, the way i see it is, if you cant prove gods existence, then NOTHING you say about, attribute to your god will help you, unless you can prove his existence. in my experience NO ONE has ever convinced me that their god exists and the "evidence" is soooo vague and ignorantly claimed without further thought. Other than me being bored, i challenge any theist to try to convince me that god exists (or YOUR god for that matter...)

Sounds like you've already made up your mind. Come back after having lived a little longer.

[fr0d0]

Here's the thing. I only know one person who became a Christian because the examined the evidence and decided that was the best / most likely explanation. All the rest, myself included, became Christian because they had an experience they attributed to God.

Bollocks

Ugh I guess I must elaborate...

I hate superstitious idiots, and you appear to be one. Sorry.

People come to BELIEVE in God through faith.

OP: no one can have transferable evidence of God, as that would be illogical. God is metaphysical by definition. ie not physical. If you want to chase that definition I suggest that you put in a little work and find out what it is your trying to discuss. At the moment your question doesn't address the subject at all.

What is Faith:

Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

[truthBtold]

If god is not physical. . Then jesus was not real..

[fr0d0]

Jesus was man AND God.

[Brakeman]

if you cant prove gods existence, ...)

Sounds like you've already made up your mind. Come back after having lived a little longer.

Yep, maybe after senility starts to kick in and his intellectual faculties start to falter, he might once again be susceptible to silly arguments without any physical evidence.

I picture you as a kid at a boyscout campfire, telling a beguiling ghost story that you want the other campers to believe so much, so they'll be so scared and cling to you and your fearlessness. You could never admit it to anyone on fear of having your story crash around you, but deep down, you know that your story is mostly BS.

In fact that is how I picture most "christians."

The ones that do take time to question, never let the inadequacies of their answers show outwardly to the public.

[MindForgedManacle]

There is a difference between "There is no evidence for God" and "There is no good evidence for God". The former is false, the latter is true (from my perspective).


To be evidence for something is merely to say that "X is more likely true given the existence of information Y, than if Y had not existed" (this is really easy to demonstrate). Hence, the existence of the Bible, of Christian theists and arguments for God's existence make his existence more likely than it would have been if those things were not existing. However, it doesn't mean that God's existence is more likely than not, because I don't think those things are good evidence, which is - as Alex noted - the right question to ask. Likewise, I think it's obvious that there can be
some kinds of evidence that is private to those who experience things others haven't. If you are framed for a crime that you didn't dpo, and yet there is fabricated evidence indicating (to others) that you almost certainly did commit the crime, is that going to overturn your recollection of definitely not having committed the crime? Of course not, and I would tend to see claimed experiences of various divine beings that way. It's useless as far as arguments go because it was a privste experience for which further evidence is not guaranteed in the slightest, yet it is evidence to they who experienced it.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Here's the thing. I only know one person who became a Christian because the examined the evidence and decided that was the best / most likely explanation. All the rest, myself included, became Christian because they had an experience they attributed to God.

Bollocks

Ugh I guess I must elaborate...


People come to BELIEVE in God through faith.

Interesting...

So People come to believe through faith.

I looked up faith and here's what the dictionary said

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Spiritual conviction. What does that mean to you?

I hate superstitious idiots, and you appear to be one. Sorry.

Says they guy who believes... etc etc.

[fr0d0]

See above Jacob

[truthBtold]

Jesus was man AND God.

So he is physical. . Now I can sleep better.. thanks

[fr0d0]

Jesus was man AND God.

So he is physical. . Now I can sleep better.. thanks

Can you give me empirical proof that Jesus was God?

Thought not.