The Best Evidence For God and Against God

[Whateverist]

If you're the one making claims, it's up to you to define it. Pick any one you like.

To be honest you can't pick what you like, but the one which is true. It's not a matter of ones private taste.

How would you possibly know that?

[The Joker]

To be honest you can't pick what you like, but the one which is true. It's not a matter of ones private taste.

How would you possibly know that?

 It sounds to me like you are openly rejecting all of them, not just neither affirming or denying any of them.

[brewer]

Moderator Notice
Thread moved to Religion forum as per request

Now that's some damn fine moderatin!

[Jesster]

It sounds to me like you are putting words in people's mouths.

[brewer]

Joker, to me it seems like you set up the parameters that:

1) if you disprove evolution to your satisfaction

or

2) atheists don't prove evolution to your satisfaction

then

GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, it does not work that way. Maybe for the petulant and dull witted, not for me.

[Drich]

The easiest and simplest way to prove God's existence is to provide evidence of its existence. But there is lot lot easier way to do it. Disapprove the theory of Naturalistic Evolution and this automatically Proves God's existence or Prove Evolution and you automatically disapprove God's existence.

The two options.

A)Prove Naturalistic Evolution to be true and you take out God's existence because this shows a natural explanation of how everything came into existence without the assistance of the supernatural.
B)Take out Naturalistic Evolution and the existence of God is automatically Proven.

Because it's either,

A):We came here by an accident without true meaning or purpose, but we are just some random living organism in space, Or
B):God created us with a meaning and purpose to life, not including our private wants.


But it also depends on ones honesty as well, not just the evidence, no amount of evidence is going to convince someone who is unwilling to accept it. So we must look at ii, in both ways.

what if their is a third option?

A) Is there convincing evidence for Naturalistic Evolution?
or
B) Is there convincing evidence against Naturalistic Evolution?

When atheists say, the burden of Proof is on the theist to provide the evidence for Gods existence. There is a twist to the game you see, a theist may say the burden of Proof is on the atheist to provide proof of Naturalistic Evolution that we came into existence by an accident, see the problem? So, we must check both sides.

Why would one theory have to exclude the other?

God is the creator of the Natural universe. So then why would everything He does be restricted to moving "Supernaturally" when ever He wanted to complete a task?

If you build something doesn't your build work in concert with what you want to do? Rather than you having to circumvent the designed or logical process you put into place?

Or rather would you (if being all powerful creator) make a reality that forces you to circumvent all natural law inorder for your will to be accomplished? wouldn't it make more sense to design a system that will naturally work in concert with your will?

Why then creation be any different?

[Edwardo Piet]

The easiest and simplest way to prove God's existence is to provide evidence of its existence.

No.

But there is lot lot easier way to do it. Disapprove the theory of Naturalistic Evolution and this automatically Proves God's existence or Prove Evolution and you automatically disapprove God's existence.

No.

The two options.

A)Prove Naturalistic Evolution to be true and you take out God's existence because this shows a natural explanation of how everything came into existence without the assistance of the supernatural.
B)Take out Naturalistic Evolution and the existence of God is automatically Proven.

Nope.

Because it's either,

A):We came here by an accident without true meaning or purpose, but we are just some random living organism in space, Or
B):God created us with a meaning and purpose to life, not including our private wants.

Nah, false dichotomy.

But it also depends on ones honesty as well, not just the evidence, no amount of evidence is going to convince someone who is unwilling to accept it. So we must look at ii, in both ways.

Nope. Whether someone is convinced by an argument is entirely separate to whether they're honest about that acceptance or whether they live a lie and pretend to be unconvinced. Honesty is separate from belief. Honesty demonstrates what someone believes but dishonesty doesn't represent someone being unwilling to accept something because someone can accept something and pretend not to.

A) Is there convincing evidence for Naturalistic Evolution?
or
B) Is there convincing evidence against Naturalistic Evolution?

There is convincing evidence for naturalistic evolution.

When atheists say, the burden of Proof is on the theist to provide the evidence for Gods existence. There is a twist to the game you see, a theist may say the burden of Proof is on the atheist to provide proof of Naturalistic Evolution that we came into existence by an accident, see the problem? So, we must check both sides.

Nope. You're setting up a false dichotomy.

[Mister Agenda]

According to the Bible:

God is Love.
Love is not jealous.
God is jealous.

Q.E.D.

[Whateverist]

How would you possibly know that?

 It sounds to me like you are openly rejecting all of them, not just neither affirming or denying any of them.

Without a doubt, I do openly reject them all as literal entities.  I don't usually grant any special status to what seem frivolous categories just because some people ardently believe in them.  If even one god ever shows itself to myself or an extremely reliable source I remain open to changing my stance.  I'm not invested in disbelief.  But for now I see little reason to take the possibility seriously.

We can talk about gods as characters in books and stories or as aspects of our unconscious minds if you like.  But the idea of a cosmic watchmaker or eternal judge/torturer is just too crazy to take seriously.

[The Joker]

Joker, to me it seems like you set up the parameters that:

1) if you disprove evolution to your satisfaction

or

2) atheists don't prove evolution to your satisfaction

then

GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, it does not work that way. Maybe for the petulant and dull witted, not for me.

I appreciate your point, but I am having trouble accepting that common argument from atheists "It doesn't mean God did it".

The problem I see.

If it can be proven that we didn't come here by an accident by mindless dumb products of evolution without meaning or purpose, then we obviously know God did it, But the atheist may say "BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN GOD DID IT Just because we didn't come here by an accident through chance of evolution!" Well in that case if you prefer not to use the term "God," you may simply call him/it: "The Extremely Powerful, Uncaused, Necessarily Existing, Non-Contingent, Non-Physical, Immaterial, Eternal Being Who Created the Entire Universe...And Everything In It." With a meaning and a purpose to life.