On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

But the more important point is you have again shown yourself as Biblically uneducated, and I again get to point out your ignorance on the subject. The passage you are quoting from is specifically set after God REGAINS full control of the earth and it's inhabitants at the very end of Revelation, which the Bible explicitly states he does not currently have. The Bible makes it clear that Satan is the king of this world and directs it's affairs currently.

Who should be embarrassed? Me who is willfully ignorant of scripture? Or you who have put so much time and effort into such a pointless endeavor?

BrianSoddingBoru4, who claimed to be more educated on the Bible than a Christian when he doesn't even know how it ends. I'm am not interested in your opinions about how you enter into the equation.

---

I have certain knowledge that there is invisible purple nothing in my basement. It does not exist in any dimension we can perceive. It does not affect the dimensions we can perceive in any testable or predictable way. Nothing it does cannot be explained by things that naturally occur which we can detect.

I know this invisible purple nothing exists because I've opened my mind and heart to it and I feel very much that knowledge of it's existence makes my life meaningful. And yes I'm really certain that though it is invisible, it is purple.

What evidence would the OP accept to prove it exists or doesn't exist?

So? Answer your own question already.

Fair enough, I missed that particular part. I would expect this being to send me lots of obvious signs of it's existence which would speak to me personally, and then it would throw lot's of unasked for material providence at me on a regular basis after I confirm that I could hear it and was interested in what it had to say, so as to maintain the relationship. Since I don't know what God looks like or whether he prefers to localize in your basement at present, it's entirely possible they are one and the same.

---

Now that I've offered my own standard of evidence, which is not going to be swayed by any of your opinions since it's conditions have already been met and surpassed, can we please put a button on this topic and meet again on another thread? I'm getting tired and I have literally nothing to do with my life except compulsively answer these posts.

[KUSA]

Well I hope you are not correct because your god is a complete dickhead. He loves killing babies and has a fetish for penis forskins.

Your opinions about the potential characteristics of a tacitly non-existent entity are unimportant, whether the deity does or does not exist. God is not, nor should he be, interested in your personal opinions on how he should conduct himself. If he exists, he is certainly better and more experienced at being God than you are. If he doesn't, then you are trying to tell me how a fictional character, whom I am the sole author of, should behave. In that case, I choose not to take your advice.

It's not my opinion christard. It's in your stupid bible.

[bennyboy]

So the thread is about the nature of evidence, and you come back with how God is a pretty nice guy and how we are going to meet him? Really?

Yes, that is an attempt to say something nice to someone I am clearly not going to convince and would like to leave with a kind word. What is your specific problem with that?

My problem is that you should be able to anticipate that talking about Sky Daddy to a confirmed atheist will be received about as warmly as you kindly telling him his daughter is a hot piece of ass.

But let's get back to evidence. This thread is about what evidence a non-Christian would accept for the existence of God. But that's condescending-- it implies that the Christian already has good reason to believe in God, and the atheist doesn't "get" it-- a proverbial doubting Thomas. The real question is this-- what evidence do YOU have that has caused you to believe that God is real, rather than a cultural fiction fed to you by your parents or peers? Why should anyone outside your culture adopt your ideas about reality?

Let's stop goofing around with the burden of proof. Most of the atheists here are atheists simply because they feel there's no compelling reason to hold to, and act on, a God idea. If you want them to change their mind, then go ahead and give them a good reason. But don't be surprised if you have to get in line-- the hindus, buddhists, muslims, Zoroastrians, Satanists, pagans, and dog-talking serial killers also have their own fantasies that they want others to adopt. And they're all saying the same thing: "You can't PROVE that reality is what it seems to be, so Krshna, Gotama, Zoroaster, Beelzebub, Zeus, Rover."

[Jenny A]

Fair enough, I missed that particular part. I would expect this being to send me lots of obvious signs of it's existence which would speak to me personally, and then it would throw lot's of unasked for material providence at me on a regular basis after I confirm that I could hear it and was interested in what it had to say, so as to maintain the relationship. Since I don't know what God looks like or whether he prefers to localize in your basement at present, it's entirely possible they are one and the same.

---

Now that I've offered my own standard of evidence, which is not going to be swayed by any of your opinions since it's conditions have already been met and surpassed, can we please put a button on this topic and meet again on another thread? I'm getting tired and I have literally nothing to do with my life except compulsively answer these posts.

I could make my invisible purple nothing diametrically opposed to your Christian version in all ways possible, and then there would be nothing to choose between them. There in lies the problem. If there is nothing to choose between them, then they are both equally likely, or unlikely.

I don't of course actually believe in the invisible purple nothing (I'm sure you're relieved) but people do believe and have believed in the past, in a number of gods who do contradict the Christian god on essentially the same evidence as yours, and who is to choose between them?

I can see why you'd wish someone would put a button on this thread. It's because as you've defined god there is not possible evidence for or against him, only how you and others feel. And people feel there is and isn't a variety of gods.

The bulk of those gods could because of their assumed powers, prove their existence, but all decline to do so.

All which is to say that you've defined your god as scientifically unprovable and then asked what proof of him we'd accept.

Failing scientific evidence you say, well the heart is proof. Well, I don't accept feelings as proof of anything because so many people feel so many different things. Mine is the rational position. Yours is one of feeling. If ALL people felt as you do, it would give me pause. But since what people feel about god is largely cultural, it does not.

[Surgenator]

The standard of evidence for the creator of the universe have to be really high. You are lowering them to a ridiculously low level as everyone here pointed out. Your attempt to explain why your god no longer does miracles is laughable. It makes your god look weak.

What you also missed is that you can show that you are talking to a "higher" being. There are plenty of scientific mysteries that still need to be answered. The creator of the universe can easily answer these questions without breaking any physical laws he supposedly put in place. So ask your friend in your head what is dark energy and how do we prove it.

[Mudhammam]

It's not a healthy personality trait to be unable to simply agree to disagree with somebody in a cordial manner. However, this is based simply on my personal experiences and intuition, so I don't expect it to sway you at all.

It's far more unhealthy to confuse a disagreement of opinion with an inability to determine fact from fantasy. Fortunately, it can be cured.

[trmof]

Yes, that is an attempt to say something nice to someone I am clearly not going to convince and would like to leave with a kind word. What is your specific problem with that?

My problem is that you should be able to anticipate that talking about Sky Daddy to a confirmed atheist will be received about as warmly as you kindly telling him his daughter is a hot piece of ass.

But let's get back to evidence. This thread is about what evidence a non-Christian would accept for the existence of God. But that's condescending-- it implies that the Christian already has good reason to believe in God, and the atheist doesn't "get" it-- a proverbial doubting Thomas. The real question is this-- what evidence do YOU have that has caused you to believe that God is real, rather than a cultural fiction fed to you by your parents or peers? Why should anyone outside your culture adopt your ideas about reality?

Let's stop goofing around with the burden of proof. Most of the atheists here are atheists simply because they feel there's no compelling reason to hold to, and act on, a God idea. If you want them to change their mind, then go ahead and give them a good reason. But don't be surprised if you have to get in line-- the hindus, buddhists, muslims, Zoroastrians, Satanists, pagans, and dog-talking serial killers also have their own fantasies that they want others to adopt. And they're all saying the same thing: "You can't PROVE that reality is what it seems to be, so Krshna, Gotama, Zoroaster, Beelzebub, Zeus, Rover."

That is a universally unlikable reaction to have to things that you disagree with, and it should make the one who has it question why they are so sensitive about the subject. If you think it is normal or expected you should rethink that presumption, as this is not a common reaction and will do nothing to endear you to others, or to sway their opinions . I prefer to treat people with respect until they have treated me otherwise several times. It's a very endearing social skill to have.

As for my personal testimony, I plan on posting that at some point in the near future in another part of the forum. Feel free to dissect it there.

---

It's not a healthy personality trait to be unable to simply agree to disagree with somebody in a cordial manner. However, this is based simply on my personal experiences and intuition, so I don't expect it to sway you at all.

It's far more unhealthy to confuse a disagreement of opinion with an inability to determine fact from fantasy. Fortunately, it can be cured.

This is nothing but your intuition on healthy social conduct. You have already stated that personal intuition is not a reliable indicator of reality, therefore I will apply your own standard to this statement and discount it as false and irrelevant on it's face.

[genkaus]

So what could a God do that would personally convince you of it's existence?

Let's start with the basics - your god is supposed to be an intelligent immaterial entity. Start with proving that intelligence can exist without a material medium and then we'll go to the next step.

[trmof]

The standard of evidence for the creator of the universe have to be really high. You are lowering them to a ridiculously low level as everyone here pointed out. Your attempt to explain why your god no longer does miracles is laughable. It makes your god look weak.

What you also missed is that you can show that you are talking to a "higher" being. There are plenty of scientific mysteries that still need to be answered. The creator of the universe can easily answer these questions without breaking any physical laws he supposedly put in place. So ask your friend in your head what is dark energy and how do we prove it.

I am not interested in anybody's opinions about the nature of my presumably non-existent God. If the don't like him neither I nor him particularly care.

Giving mankind undiscovered secrets of physics would be very unwise for even a PERSON to do, let alone a God. The first thing we have done with any new piece of scientific knowledge is start exploring the possibilities of weaponizing it.

---

So what could a God do that would personally convince you of it's existence?

Let's start with the basics - your god is supposed to be an intelligent immaterial entity. Start with proving that intelligence can exist without a material medium and then we'll go to the next step.

I never claimed him to be immaterial.

[genkaus]

I think you might be setting your standards too high. As someone who I presume lives an ordinary life without major worldwide repercussions, it might be unreasonable to ask God for something so major that he has to make the laws of physics jump through hoops. He has to take into account the butterfly effect this would have on everything in your immediate vicinity and beyond.

He doesn't seem to have any problem with making laws of physics jump through hoops in any of your scripture. The standard of proof here is the same it was 2000 years ago - that's not setting the bar too high.

In my experience God is much more likely to communicate with people through strange circumstances which speak to them personally, as these are much easier to engineer. I would suggest you ask humbly for a very simple sign of this kind, and don't immediately write it off as a coincidence when something unusual happens; but ask God to provide a larger, bolder sign to confirm the first. If he is an active personality as I believe, he will see fit to give you these signs and make them more and more obvious. However, if you DO receive these increasingly obvious signs and still refuse to acknowledge them as circumstantial evidence, then God will eventually stop trying.

Been there, done that, got nothing. What's next?