A Serious Question For Theists

[Severan]

Here's a question for every theist and creationist out there.

What evidence or arguments do you have for a god?

As far as I've seen, we've been able to refute nearly all the arguments and rationalize all of the evidence you have. Do you have any legitimate support for the 'god' you claim?

The reason I'm asking for this proof is that the burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim.

It's obvious that theists have made the claim that there is a 'god' or some higher power. There are hundreds of religions. Each one is a claim to be the true belief. Religion is claiming a deity.

Yet despite this, theists fight tooth and nail to shift the burden of proof to atheists. We are just skeptics. Until any religion provides evidence for a claim, we must assume that god does not exist.

So, really. Don't give me 'bible verses' or already refuted arguments and call it evidence. Give me some real evidence that your god exists. If you can't find any, that's because it really doesn't.

[Mr Greene]

I'll add in that any 'proof' that includes the line;
"lets assume there's a god" fails on precisely this point.

[Sinbad]

Wheres an emoticon for tumbleweed when you need one?

Its a bit quite out there!

[JesusHChrist]

You just need to have faith!

[Napoléon]

Usually a theist's standard of evidence is so low that they fool themselves into thinking they actually have evidence to support their deity.

Those that do acknowledge there is no concrete evidence of a god, simply believe because they want to, and that's what it comes down to.

[ThePinsir]

There's this...um...beetle...that would...um...explode or something, so it's...um...irreducibly complex, and, um God made it!

[RobbyPants]

I'll add in that any 'proof' that includes the line;
"lets assume there's a god" fails on precisely this point.

Yeah, every bit of "proof" I've seen either requires the assumption of God's existence as a premise (sometimes implicitly) or it requires weird presupposition claims (in order to think about God, he must exist!).

I've noticed whenever someone wants to believe something, implicit assumptions and presupposition do not bother them; however, they stick out like a sore thumb when you don't simply want to believe it.

[Nine]

Humans can't make tree's, somebody has to make tree's therefore God. Or Bigfoot sneaking round in the woods building tree's and being all blurry. The real reason for global warming is Bigfoot being an asshole and having too much time off. I say we kidnap Bigfoot and make him work 24/7, maybe clone him too. Then we have an army of Bigfoot's fixing the planet like at asshole is meant to be doing. Then we send a team of them to the moon and mars obviously. Need to terraform that shit with tree's. I think the lock Ness monster is responsive for making water so naturally we need to get that guy too.

[Mudhammam]

2,500 years and counting. Any substantial answers yet?

[Severan]

You just need to have faith!

Why do you have the 'faith' in this god in particular? Was it your parents that said this is the right one? There are hundreds of other gods. Why this one?

---

I'll add in that any 'proof' that includes the line;
"lets assume there's a god" fails on precisely this point.

Yeah, every bit of "proof" I've seen either requires the assumption of God's existence as a premise (sometimes implicitly) or it requires weird presupposition claims (in order to think about God, he must exist!).

I've noticed whenever someone wants to believe something, implicit assumptions and presupposition do not bother them; however, they stick out like a sore thumb when you don't simply want to believe it.

Beliefs should not change facts. Facts should change beliefs. Any person who presupposes the existence of 'god' is a lunatic.