Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Zen Badger]

That's nice, now show evidence of your invisible friend.

As I have told you before, Zen, I think the existence of the universe itself is evidence of the existence of God. Does the existence of the universe necessitate that conclusion? No, but it is evidence nonetheless, even if you take the existence of the universe as evidence of something else altogether.

And your evidence that the universe is proof of god?

Because the universe is only evidence for itself

[Ashendant]

is one where people share common beliefs,

In that case, a political party is a "religion".

In the case he said every group is a religion, for example football teams are actually religion and the balls are vicious religious wars

[rjh4 is back]

Then I suppose that the statement "God does exist" can only be accurately/believably said by someone who is omniscient, as only one who is omniscient knows for certain that this deity is real and can determine whether or not the statement is accurate.

I agree with that. ...

I think I want to retract my agreement as quoted above. After thinking about this more, knowing or claiming that something exists does not require omnicience to be accurate whereas knowing or claiming something doesn't exist would.

[Thor]

Then I suppose that the statement "God does exist" can only be accurately/believably said by someone who is omniscient, as only one who is omniscient knows for certain that this deity is real and can determine whether or not the statement is accurate.

I agree with that. ...

I think I want to retract my agreement as quoted above. After thinking about this more, knowing or claiming that something exists does not require omnicience to be accurate whereas knowing or claiming something doesn't exist would.

Not even when this statement applies to a being who is invisible and completely undetectable?

[Minimalist]

This thread has long since given up on "evidence" for any alleged deity and gone to "wishful thinking" for it.

[Thor]

This thread has long since given up on "evidence" for any alleged deity and gone to "wishful thinking" for it.

Isn't that always the case anyway?

[The Omnissiunt One]

Then I suppose that the statement "God does exist" can only be accurately/believably said by someone who is omniscient, as only one who is omniscient knows for certain that this deity is real and can determine whether or not the statement is accurate.

I agree with that. ...

I think I want to retract my agreement as quoted above. After thinking about this more, knowing or claiming that something exists does not require omnicience to be accurate whereas knowing or claiming something doesn't exist would.

Certainty one way or another would indeed require omniscience, unless the concept in question were false by definition. After all, no amount of evidence is sufficient to prove something conclusively. However, a statement can be proved or disproved probabilistically. Very few atheists would say categorically that there is definitely no form of deity (though no doubt some would). My view is that a position of disbelief in something unproven is the default position, because there is no necessary correspondence between the human imagination and reality, and therefore things which we speculate to exist are very unlikely to be real unless there is evidence for them.

[tackattack]

Zen, how exactly is the universe evidence for itself?

[tavarish]

Zen, how exactly is the universe evidence for itself?

The universe - meaning reality as demonstrated by our environment - is self evident. It is the basis to which things apply, of which existence isn't simply an attribute, but the essence of the entity. What I think Zen described was more of a tautology, and not necessarily something of explanatory merit.

I'll paint a picture for you:

You make distinctions in life based on your experiences in reality. It is a given that your perceptions within this reality - this universe will be perceived as true if they comport with your idea of how reality works. The universe, or reality, in this case, is self evident because it's being used as a method of determining what is true and what is not true - you use it as a yardstick to which all other attributes apply.

Example:

I don't believe fairies exist because it doesn't comport with my perception of the universe - the universe being the constant in this equation and being considered a given as true.

[tackattack]

Ok I can comprehend that explanation. So why is everyone so up in arms when Fr0d0 say God just is, he's self-evident. I'll fit it into your explination:

God - meaning creator of our enviornment - is self evident. It is the basis to which morality applies. You make distinctions in your life based on your perceptions of God. It's a given that everything you percieve is from God since God created everything. The concept of God will be percieved as righteous if it conforms with your idea of how reality works. God is self evident because it's used as a method for determining what is right and not right - I use God as a yardstick to measure and improve individual morality.