Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[Alex K]

If the universe were only a bit differently, life couldn't exist. Many factors have to be correct in order for Stars to really work for example, including subtle resonances in nuclear scattering, so obviously somebody knew what they were doing when the laws of nature were chosen. The anthropic principle is obviously ndo defence because in order for it to explain anything, you need many univereses with different laws, and there's no proof for that either
As for which God is the right one, since we are obviously the dominant and smartest species in the known universe, whoever made it is probably like us. That makes the judeo-christian god the perfect candidate, although some others are also raving lunatics, so it's hard to decide.

Are you saying that life began on Earth as as soon as the Sun when on line?

From what we know it seems to have done so with about a billion years delay, but how does that question relate to the passage you quoted from me?

[MindForgedManacle]

[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='625434' dateline='1395017668']

The "meta" in "metaphysical" is not about being non-physical, but about being ABOUT the physical, or rather, about existing things.

Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after" or "beyond") is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

...And? That's exactly what I said, indicated by the underlined bits. Metaphysics is not about the "non-physical", which is what you said. It's about things that exist, which obviously includes physical things. You are either being very dishonest or you really don't understand what you're talking about.

I think you've failed to understand the quote. It already deals with dissenters. Ryft is/was a hugely respected member here. I've linked the original discussion.

1) I did understand it and it completely fails to deal with "dissenters", the term which itself is question-begging the way you're using it here. It ignores 4 of the biggest heavy hitters in Christian philosophy and theology, so calling them dissenters is a bit like calling Galileo a poor scientist.

2) I could care less if it was made by a respected member here. Claims stand and fall on their own merit.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@MFM agree on all. Not sure what you say about metaphysics. It includes both physical and nonphysical, yes?

[orangebox21]

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...)

What are some examples of things you know to 'exist' and what is the 'proof' that led to your belief?

I've read articles whereby some scientists strongly speculate that "life" may have originated on mars and somehow (asteroid?) made it to earth. It is a plausible "concept" (not quite a theory) and if that were the case, what might that do to the whole Creationist "argument?"

From a creationist perspective this speculation doesn't answer the question, just kicks the can down the road so to speak. Answering the question of how life originated on earth by saying that life originated on mars begs the question: How did life originate on mars? We're left with the same initial question just on a different planet.

[fr0d0]

[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='625434' dateline='1395017668']

The "meta" in "metaphysical" is not about being non-physical, but about being ABOUT the physical, or rather, about existing things.

Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after" or "beyond") is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

...And? That's exactly what I said, indicated by the underlined bits. Metaphysics is not about the "non-physical", which is what you said. It's about things that exist, which obviously includes physical things. You are either being very dishonest or you really don't understand what you're talking about.

That's not what you said at all.

So is God metaphysical or not? By your definition of metaphysical he is physically existent. Is this what you're stating?

Main Entry: meta·phys·i·cal
Pronunciation: \-ˈfi-zi-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to metaphysics 2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : supernatural 3 : highly abstract or abstruse ; also : theoretical 4 often capitalized : of or relating to poetry especially of the early 17th century that is highly intellectual and philosophical and marked by unconventional imagery

It seems the dictionary disagrees with you.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not interested in a pissing match with you. If I'm misusing language I'm grateful for the correction.

---

I think you've failed to understand the quote. It already deals with dissenters. Ryft is/was a hugely respected member here. I've linked the original discussion.

1) I did understand it and it completely fails to deal with "dissenters", the term which itself is question-begging the way you're using it here. It ignores 4 of the biggest heavy hitters in Christian philosophy and theology, so calling them dissenters is a bit like calling Galileo a poor scientist.

2) I could care less if it was made by a respected member here. Claims stand and fall on their own merit.

Your mistake is your interpretation of the Christian philosophers. You fail to see the subject matter they're addressing isn't related to what we're taking about here.

---

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.

Those caricatures bear no resemblance.

You as an atheist know better. Hmm. More substantive reasoning needed.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@MFM "Is God metaphyical?" The Father, YHVH, is the fully transcendent aspect, the glorified Christ is the visible manifestation, and the Holy Spirit is the divine in operation...at least that's New Church doctrine. Not sure how that fits with your question.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Well, metaphysical implies transcendence of the non physical through the physical, so you should have no problem addressing the OP with physical evidence of God's existence instead of sidelining the thread with semantic Tourette's.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, metaphysical implies transcendence of the non physical through the physical, so you should have no problem addressing the OP with physical evidence of God's existence instead of sidelining the thread with semantic Tourette's.

I have already supplied evidence in several threads. So far the only person who seems to understand it and offer a serious challenge has been MFM.

That's because nonthinkers like you just repeat the same atheistic twaddle in the hopeless attempt to shoehorn a complex idea into your narrow minded concept of religion.

[shep]

From a creationist perspective this speculation doesn't answer the question, just kicks the can down the road so to speak. Answering the question of how life originated on earth by saying that life originated on mars begs the question: How did life originate on mars? We're left with the same initial question just on a different planet.

er, didnt you know, god created mars-adam then plucked mars-eve from his rib, loaded them into the war of the worlds aliens canon and shot them towards earth.

[Jacob(smooth)]

B is what we actually do when we believe in God. A is meaningless superstition.

I had no conversion experience, no. I wasn't baptised. My denomination don't practice that.

In the nicest possible way, you don't get to decide what "we" do when we believe in God. You get to speak for one person. Yourself. Just like me.

And I find it quite funny that as someone who believes a Jewish guy was born of a Virgin, died, came back to life, and flew up into the air is accusing me of "superstition" for believing something similar for different reasons.

---

@ Jacob & Fro do, stop it. You sound like those AF members that GTPIAK over the definition of atheist.

Really?