On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

I feel we've gone as far as we're going to without repeating ourselves. My larger point in posting this, beyond simply the simple nature of evidence in it's different forms, is to address our communal level of discourse by drawing attention to the fact, that lacking scientific data on either side, other people's experiences are just as valid to them as yours are to you. A failure to recognize this when debating any philosophical topic results in a failure to consider things seriously from the other person's point of view. If you wish to do this, that is fine, but it is both non-productive and has a tendency to perpetuate wars of words instead of spirited, friendly, enlightening debates, which is all anybody can hope for on this topic at the moment. I think this is a bad thing, and if you would like your conversations with other people to be more productive, you should try to be the kinder, more understanding person, as this is the only part of the conversation you have any control over. I would like to think I have done so to the best of my ability during these exchanges, even when bated.

---

I implied nothing

You wrote "it's already been fixed well enough for you. What more would constitute fixing it at this point?"

You presumed is was enough. Don't you even read your own posts?

And, yes, lacking evidence opinions are all worth very little. And you still don't understand what constitutes evidence.

and politely asked a followup question, which you ignored, and failed to answer the question while implying none was asked. You, sir, are a quisling.

I don't think that word means what you think it means, because it makes no sense in this context.

You appear more interested in venting your personal frustrations than discussing the topic outlined in a calm and rational manner. Please express your personal internal frustrations to someone else.

And I suggest you take your passive-aggressive crap elsewhere.

I am not passive-aggressive, while you have clearly moved from passive-aggression to openly aggressive-agressive during the course of your comments and have since resorted to outright name calling. Also you are correct, I misused the word quisling. I meant to call you an inadequate and inferior intellect. I'm glad we could clear that up. Please tell me if you know the actual Q word I was thinking of. Now please stop trying to bait me into an argument so you can feel good about being mean to someone you've never met for the rest of the day, as there is no other point in continuing the conversation. If you would like to sign off without using an insult I would be more than happy to let you have the last word. Otherwise, I'm going to keep pointing out how immature you're being, and you will presumably continue to prove me right until one of us gets bored and leaves.

[Clueless Morgan]

I would like to know what the atheists on this forum WOULD consider to be persuasive evidence of God's existence.

which god are you talking about? More specificity is needed to even consider the question.

[Chas]

You wrote "it's already been fixed well enough for you. What more would constitute fixing it at this point?"

You presumed is was enough. Don't you even read your own posts?

And, yes, lacking evidence opinions are all worth very little. And you still don't understand what constitutes evidence.

I don't think that word means what you think it means, because it makes no sense in this context.


And I suggest you take your passive-aggressive crap elsewhere.

I am not passive-aggressive, while you have clearly moved from passive-aggression to openly aggressive-agressive during the course of your comments and have since resorted to outright name calling. Also you are correct, I misused the word quisling. I meant to call you an inadequate and inferior intellect. I'm glad we could clear that up. Please tell me if you know the actual Q word I was thinking of. Now please stop trying to bait me into an argument so you can feel good about being mean to someone you've never met for the rest of the day, as there is no other point in continuing the conversation. If you would like to sign off without using an insult I would be more than happy to let you have the last word. Otherwise, I'm going to keep pointing out how immature you're being, and you will presumably continue to prove me right until one of us gets bored and leaves.

I have no desire to continue with you.

[trmof]

The Bible does not call God omnipotent.

Revelation 19:6 (KJV): 'And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.'

I get so tired correcting theists on scripture....

Boru

The English translation calls him omnipotent, so you are partially right about that. However

Greek definition from the Strong's Concordance:

1 he who holds sway over all things
2 the ruler of all
3 almighty: God

This is the only time this word is used in the Bible, and it has three possible meanings, only the first of which has any semblance to omnipotence, but it is still not the same thing as the English understanding of "omnipotence;" it merely describes him having "sway" over all things, not unbridled power. Nor is God described as being omnipotent anywhere else, but is described several times in context as having certain limitations, whether self-imposed or otherwise.

I would suggest doing more exhaustive research when trying to "one-up" someone for the purposes of appearing smarter than them about a particular topic, especially when you have no idea what their pre-existing level of knowledge on the subject is, or how much larger it is than yours. For example: I was smart enough to remember that the Bible was not written in English and you were not. There, that is how you effectively how you one-up somebody.

[KUSA]

The evidence I require is to see god. I think this would clear everything up.

[Cyberman]

The Bible does not call God omnipotent. The God you are describing is not the God I worship, so your opinions about this particular potential form of God are not something I can address.

Which is exactly why I've been asking you to define the parameters of your god, so we can avoid these kinds of misunderstandings. You mention the bible, which already isn't a promising sign.

[trmof]

The Bible does not call God omnipotent. The God you are describing is not the God I worship, so your opinions about this particular potential form of God are not something I can address.

Which is exactly why I've been asking you to define the parameters of your god, so we can avoid these kinds of misunderstandings. You mention the bible, which already isn't a promising sign.

My previous definition made no assumption of omnipotence, merely power to influence events to some superhuman degree. Feel include that to the definition now. As for, "to some superhuman degree," I could spend all day defining this for myself, but the point of the post is really to get YOUR opinion on what you think would be the subtlest possible level of this sort of influence which would make you reconsider whether your current conception of God is true or not.

In other words, what is your bare minimum for the miraculous? I've yet to hear from someone who's personal burden of proof is as low as or lower than mine, which is perfectly fine. That is, however, the reason why I feel no need to share my personal testimony of strange occurrences, as it would be fruitless if no one would care about it anyway.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Revelation 19:6 (KJV): 'And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.'

I get so tired correcting theists on scripture....

Boru

The English translation calls him omnipotent, so you are partially right about that. However

Greek definition from the Strong's Concordance:

1 he who holds sway over all things
2 the ruler of all
3 almighty: God

This is the only time this word is used in the Bible, and it has three possible meanings, only the first of which has any semblance to omnipotence, but it is still not the same thing as the English understanding of "omnipotence;" it merely describes him having "sway" over all things, not unbridled power. Nor is God described as being omnipotent anywhere else, but is described several times in context as having certain limitations, whether self-imposed or otherwise.

I would suggest doing more exhaustive research when trying to "one-up" someone for the purposes of appearing smarter than them about a particular topic, especially when you have no idea what their pre-existing level of knowledge on the subject is, or how much larger it is than yours. For example: I was smart enough to remember that the Bible was not written in English and you were not. There, that is how you effectively how you one-up somebody.

What is the semantic difference between 'almighty' and 'omnipotent'?

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

The same difference as between dodgy and dishonest.

[Mudhammam]

My previous definition made no assumption of omnipotence, merely power to influence events to some superhuman degree.

Of course, since you have no evidence or good reason to believe that such a being exists (disregarding your emotions and intuitions), it's quite convenient to define your concept as vague and elastic as the present circumstances demand i.e. how you "feel" about it. Hence, you agree:

Feel include that to the definition now. As for, "to some superhuman degree," I could spend all day defining this for myself, but the point of the post is really to get YOUR opinion on what you think would be the subtlest possible level of this sort of influence which would make you reconsider whether your current conception of God is true or not.

Now you're basically just affirming: If there are any forces in the Universe that we currently do not understand or are unable to explain, believe this about it and call it (he?) god.

When that thing gets explained, you'll say, "yes, but we need god to explain that!"

Maybe we need a god to explain god? Of course, revert to the elasticity of your meaningless concept and require that all questions stop there. It's a great strategy to conclude all thought, not to do philosophy.

In other words, what is your bare minimum for the miraculous? I've yet to hear from someone who's personal burden of proof is as low as or lower than mine, which is perfectly fine. That is, however, the reason why I feel no need to share my personal testimony of strange occurrences, as it would be fruitless if no one would care about it anyway.

Your personal experiences don't tell you anything about the origins of the Universe or beings that live in other dimensions. Dead ancestors aren't really speaking to you (not that you're into that really, but your bar is so low it wouldn't actually make any difference than your present claim).

You misunderstood the causes underlying your experiences. Get over it. Learn what actually happened so that you can repeat them, or grow from them as a more rational, ethical human being.