Evidence God Exists

[Watson]

I agree it would not be difficult for God to create such a thing as intelligence, shit, I even believe He has created such a thing as 'super-intellgience'(though that is a different matter entirely)...but Godschild, you still have not shown to me or the atheist members of this board how God did so. If God just 'poof'd intelligence into existence, then wouldn't it be obvious that He did so? And if it were obvious that He did so, then there would be no choice but to believe in Him, meaning no free will...see where I'm going?

Also, IMO, evil comes about from the perversion of good...which is a very hard thing to convey in words, by the way. haha Basically, good people are twisted by evil perceptions.

[tackattack]

There is always a choice to believe or not watson from the earliest of the creaition story. It's called denial.

@fr0d0-
I would amnd that to yes God is not percieved as omnibenevolent because some refuse God's love. It doesn't lessen God's love.

[Minimalist]

Why do believers harp on the fact that their deity can't be disproven?

Because they are not too stupid to understand that they cannot "prove" his existence either, so this is their attempt to shift the burden of proof.

I try to avoid saying that god can't be proven. Instead, I use the more neutral statement that there is no evidence for their particular superstition....or any of the others that mankind has invented through the millenia.

[tackattack]

thesists are not too stupid to understand something... surey this is a typo min

[Frank]

When scientists explore the possibility of UFOs, they do not start out by asking why people believe in UFOs. They delve into other possibilities, not excluding witness accounts, which could be likened to the faith-based experiences of believers.

Is there something analogous to cosmological arguments commonly used to support the existence of UFO's?

Though we've seen many situations in which leaders have been killed, and no new religion has been created. The point is who can say whether what you claim is true or not.

It simply refutes a commonly held notion (examining the motives of would be myth makers is relevant if you're interested in studying religous mythology).

[AngelThMan]

Cosmological arguments and other apologetic devices (e.g. intelligent design) are merely post-hoc attempts to justify a preexisting belief system (which is the exact opposite of how science actually discovers things).

When scientists explore the possibility of UFOs, they do not start out by asking why people believe in UFOs. They delve into other possibilities, not excluding witness accounts, which could be likened to the faith-based experiences of believers.

Is there something analogous to cosmological arguments commonly used to support the existence of UFO's?

I guess the closest kin would be the argument affirming a belief that there must be life outside of earth, though there's no conclusive proof. The argument I presented is that witness accounts of UFOs are analogous to faith-based experiences, such as when believers proclaim they have felt God's presence in their hearts. Both require the consideration of personal testimony. And if scientists can consider UFO witness accounts, they should also be able to consider accounts of inner faith. I tend not to separate science and faith like a lot of atheists, as well as a lot of Christians, do.

Though we've seen many situations in which leaders have been killed, and no new religion has been created. The point is who can say whether what you claim is true or not?

It simply refutes a commonly held notion (examining the motives of would be myth makers is relevant if you're interested in studying religous mythology).

It is relevant, but certainly not conclusive.

[Minimalist]

thesists are not too stupid to understand something... surey this is a typo min

No. They do understand the flaw in their reasoning as they can not "prove" their assorted gods exist. If they thought they could prove it they wouldn't keep trying to shift the burden away from that simple fact. They'd just try to prove it.

"God" is the assertion of the believer. Prove your assertion. Telling me that I can't disprove it is meaningless.

I can't disprove invisible pink unicorns drinking marqaritas in a Tiajuana bar during Mardi Gras, either. Doesn't make it any more likely.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

"God" is the assertion of the believer. Prove your assertion. Telling me that I can't disprove it is meaningless

Yup. One of the most common logical fallacies used by the more simple minded apologists; Argument from ignorance, arguing that a proposition is true because it cannot be proven to be false. ( or the converse,used by some of the more simple minded atheists)

The argument from ignorance,[1] also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"[1][2]), or negative evidence,[1] is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I though about explaining the burden of proof for Angel but on reading his posts I ,honestly think the concept is too complicated for him. What do you think Min? An adolescent of modest intellect or an adult of VERY modest intellect? I'm leaning towards adolescent..

[Tiberius]

And if scientists can consider UFO witness accounts, they should also be able to consider accounts of inner faith.

Scientists don't consider UFO witness accounts. UFOs have nothing to do with science since they are unidentified by definition and thereby untestable / non-experiment-able.

I tend not to separate science and faith like a lot of atheists, as well as a lot of Christians, do.

How does faith tie into the scientific method at all? How can you measure faith in any meaningful way? How can you test it?

[fr0d0]

An existence of God claim from any theist would be an argument from ignorance but I don't ever see such a claim. It'd be much like an opposite claim of non existence from an atheist. What I do always see is constant defence from atheists against these imaginary existence claims. It's a whole complicated web of illogic and justification for a fake dismissal.