Evidence God Exists

[tavarish]

But you haven't once actually addressed them. Maybe they've been brought up many times because you ignore them. If you had an actual answer then they would no longer be an issue...

I see. So to you addressing a question is providing an answer that is agreeable to you based on your own beliefs. You're being dishonest, because I remember specifically addressing some of your questions.

No. Addressing a question is providing evidence for your case, not just rehashing or restating your case. You also need to know what is permissible as evidence for your case. A good way to check your claims for validity is to analyze their logical merit. Make sure they make sense and aren't fallacious or illogical. After that, you can fact-check and provide citations as to where you got the information you did, how you understand the information to be correct, and why it helped you reach your conclusion.

You have done literally none of this. You started off with a fallacious argument, and when asked for evidence, you regurgitated your argument and called everyone juvenile. Don't for a second someone here just didn't attempt to "really" understand what you put forth. It's not hard to understand - it's just fractally wrong, unreasonable, and illogical.

You have failed to see that and dragged it on to a 70 page epic, and honored us with a sequel of just as much tripe as this one. I wonder what Part III will be about, the wood on Mt. Ararat being from Noah's Ark?

Seriously, spare the BS and be honest with yourself first and analyze and proofread your text before you post it.

[AngelThMan]

Angel, you just don't seem to get it. The things that you have claimed are evidence have been considered and dismissed, because they are not evidence. It is you that just keeps repeating them over and over again without any attempt to listen to what you are being told.

As tavarish said:

"Lack of evidence for abiogenesis isn't evidence of God's existence.

Human intelligence isn't evidence of God's existence."

Those things are not evidence. If you still want to believe that they are, that's fine, but we do not consider them so. How many times must we ride this merry-go-round with you before you drop it and move on?

Were you paying attention? How can I ignore rebuttals and repeat things over and over? The whole point is that you guys repeat things over and over, and I ignore repetitive comments. I get it!! You don't feel what I've provided is evidence. I DON'T AGREE!!! STOP REPEATING THE SAME THING!!

If you have something new or fresh to say, I will address it.

---

But you haven't once actually addressed them. Maybe they've been brought up many times because you ignore them. If you had an actual answer then they would no longer be an issue...

I see. So to you addressing a question is providing an answer that is agreeable to you based on your own beliefs. You're being dishonest, because I remember specifically addressing some of your questions.

No. Addressing a question is providing evidence for your case...

Again showing how dumb you are. Addressing a question is addressing a question. Providing evidence that you like is something else.

[Paul the Human]

*laughs*

You have a point there, Angel. We do keep repeating the same things over and over again, but it's because you have never once admitted that your evidence is not evidence. Now you have. Thank you.

This thread basically went like this:

Angel: Here is my evidence.

Us: That's not evidence.

Angel: Yes, it is.

Us: No, it isn't.

Angel: Yes, it is.

Us: No, it isn't.

We are all guilty of repeating ourselves ad nauseum in this thread. How about we move on to other topics of conversation now? Maybe we can even make it fun again, eh?

[AngelThMan]

*laughs*

You have a point there, Angel. We do keep repeating the same things over and over again, but it's because you have never once admitted that your evidence is not evidence. Now you have. Thank you.

Oh come on, Paul. Do I have to put you in tavarish's intellectually-challenged category? I had a little bit of respect for you, but that's quickly waning.

When did I admit that my evidence is not evidence? I was challenging tavarish's claim that "answering a question is providing evidence for your case." The point is that those are two different things. Aren't you smart enough to understand that what I answered was not an admission that my evidence is not evidence, but a rebuttal to make a distinction between answering a question and providing evidence?

This thread basically went like this:

Angel: Here is my evidence.

Us: That's not evidence.

Angel: Yes, it is.

Us: No, it isn't.

Angel: Yes, it is.

Us: No, it isn't.

Let's define who Us is: die-hard atheists on an atheists forum. In the real world, my evidence would at least be considered rather than dismissed from the get-go.

Now explain to me why I should change my mind just because a few atheists on an atheists forum say that my evidence is not evidence, when the discussion would go differently in the real world? Give me something new and fresh so that I can address it.

[Paul the Human]

*laughs*

You have a point there, Angel. We do keep repeating the same things over and over again, but it's because you have never once admitted that your evidence is not evidence. Now you have. Thank you.

Oh come on, Paul. Do I have to put you in tavarish's intellectually-challenged category? I had a little bit of respect for you, but that's quickly waning.

My bad. I misread your post. You provided what you consider to be evidence and several of us have tried to explain why it is not evidence, but you are still clinging to your claim that it is. As far as respect goes, you are not doing anything to keep mine, either. This has just gotten silly.

This thread basically went like this:

(see above)

Let's define who Us is: die-hard atheists on an atheists forum. In the real world, my evidence would be considered rather than dismissed from the get-go.

By other die-hard theists? Probably. That does not mean it is actually evidence.

Now explain to me why I should change my mind just because a few atheists on an atheists forum say that my evidence is not evidence, when the discussion would go differently in the real world? Give me something new and fresh so that I can address it.

You presented what you think is evidence. We all read the post and know that it is not evidence. There is nothing more to add... and yet, together, we have typed up almost 70 pages worth of posts. No one says you have to stop thinking that it is evidence despite what 'we' say, but you seem to be obsessed with convincing us we are wrong. Give us something fresh so that we can address it.

Seriously. It is just silly to keep arguing over whether or not what you have presented is actually evidence. I certainly do not consider it evidence and I have explained why I do not. What else is there to say about that? It's not like we're going to change each other's minds.

You keep accusing 'us' of not giving any consideration to what you've said, but that is simply not true. Evidence is something we atheists are very interested in, so if someone were to offer evidence that god exists, that we could actually call evidence (by the definition we're using), we'd be more than happy to accept it as evidence. Unless you want to keep trying to convince us that human intelligence and gaps in scientific knowledge are evidence that god exists (which they are not), I suggest you let this go and partake in other conversations on the site.

[Minimalist]

In the real world, my evidence would be considered rather than dismissed from the get-go.

In the real world your evidence would still not be "evidence." Merely a rather poorly thought-out opinion of a silly theist who oh so desperately wants his sky-daddy to be real.

[Godscreated]

In the real world, my evidence would be considered rather than dismissed from the get-go.

In the real world your evidence would still not be "evidence." Merely a rather poorly thought-out opinion of a silly theist who oh so desperately wants his sky-daddy to be real.

Min the underlined must be one of your favorite quotes, Im not sure why though. We are not desperate about the reality of God for us He is real and there is an answer for that, I have no evidence you will accept, a personal experience with Him is my answer to you.

[Minimalist]

We are not desperate about the reality of God

Of course you are, sonny. The only reason you are here is because you find our very existence to be a threat to your continued belief in fairy tales. Believers cannot stand the fact that anyone disputes their silly concoction of gods, devils, saints, sinners, angels, elves, and Santa Claus.


Someday, you may grow up. I have no hope for Angel.


PS- you are right about one thing. Your personal experiences are fucking worthless as "evidence."

[Tiberius]

@Tiberius. Here's a perfect example. ^ Hogwash comments I've already heard.

Firstly, I don't see anything hogwash about that comment. I'm so sorry it's a comment you've heard before, but the fact is that it is logically valid. Your arguments are not logically valid, and we've explained why.

I'll change my objection though, because you are correct on one point. You have responded to some rebuttals, but:

You've never once responded to mine. Did you perhaps miss them?

[tackattack]

We are not desperate about the reality of God

Of course you are, sonny. The only reason you are here is because you find our very existence to be a threat to your continued belief in fairy tales. Believers cannot stand the fact that anyone disputes their silly concoction of gods, devils, saints, sinners, angels, elves, and Santa Claus.


Someday, you may grow up. I have no hope for Angel.


PS- you are right about one thing. Your personal experiences are fucking worthless as "evidence."

Bolding by me

Really Min is that why any believer comes here, because we can't stand the fact you disagree? It couldn't be to falsify their belief, the pursuit of truth, seeing another's opinion or simple curiosity? He must have got you pretty heated for you to get that far in your rut

I'll play along and checnge the stream of thought for everyone to pick apart.

If humans evolve through cognitive social and natural selection and we carry that out through the existence of humanity, where does that lead? Is it feasible for one day, if the world becomes slowly unlivable by todays means (O2 , fresh water, food intake), that a humans could evolve past the need for a physical body? Could they transcend their physical selves into a semi-tangible transcendant form? Once in that form would it not be easier to experiment/ control the forces of the universe (gravity, energy, radiation, time). If the species transcended to a point where it was one collective amount of sentient energy, with control over the forces of nature would we not attept to create life ourselves on a planet, if only for experimentation? With all this being plausible, why is God so implausible aren't they basically the same thing?