Evidence for the existence of God

[FatAndFaithless]

If there is a creator god, it is indistinguishable from a non-existing one, as far as we can tell, nowadays.

Really?! You honestly believe that a God capable of creating the vast universe and everything in it, including billions of galaxies, red hypergiants like VY Canis Majoris, and of course, all life on earth, would be indistinguishable from something or someone that is entirely non-existent?

Does that sound logical to you?

Arguments from personal incredulity aside...


Yes, a god that started creation, then ceased to have any measurable effect on reality at all, is indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Once again, this thread is not about me. It's about you. That means you answering the question that has been asked. Which, despite all of your verbiage, you still haven't managed to do.

It's certainly not looking that way.  I already told you I don't know, haven't seen any so far, and had no ability to foretell the future.  

And all I asked for was for you to answer the question. You have the audacity to come to my thread, post this wall of vacuous garbage that completely dodges the question asked, then expect me to oblige in answering yours? Funny.

You got your answer.  What's the problem?  

No, the onus is on YOU because it is my question that you are here to answer.

I don;t think you understand the burden of proof very well, nevertheless, I already answered the question...so....?

I also have doubts that we're going to be able to manage a serious conversation since you struggle to comprehend how the question-and-answer concept works, so from now on your posts will be ignored. Trolls are a waste of my time.

Does that mean you won't be making that thread, containing the evidence you totally have, to see whether or not it's the kind of evidence that would convince me?  How will you ever get a definitive answer to your question?  How will I ever find god?  

[Yadayadayada]

My answer is simple.  Demonstrate to me that magic is real and we'll have something to talk about then.  You say you believe in the "Biblical God".  That doesn't really tell me much, but I assume it to mean that you believe how the Bible describes him.  I have found that the New Testament is generally more universally accepted than the Old Testament, so we'll limit it to just the NT.  And it doesn't get any more "Christian" that the words of Jesus the Christ (Christ was a title, not a last name), so we'll limited it just to the things he spoke directly.  This is taken from Mark 16

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

So, "those who believe" not only can, but WILL heal the sick.  Jesus says these signs WILL accompany those who believe.  Not that they might.  Not "Well, through the power of prayer....God's will....faith of a grain of mustard see....if...."  THESE SIGNS WILL accompany those who believe.  Show me ONE person who fits that description.  All I need is the evidence Jesus says I WILL have.

Based on the master texts, those verses were actually additions made by later copyists and were never part of the original manuscripts. According to reliable early manuscripts, the Gospel of Mark ends with vs. 8.

---

Really?! You honestly believe that a God capable of creating the vast universe and everything in it, including billions of galaxies, red hypergiants like VY Canis Majoris, and of course, all life on earth, would be indistinguishable from something or someone that is entirely non-existent?

Does that sound logical to you?

Arguments from personal incredulity aside...

"Argument from personal incredulity" is itself a weak argument, since incredulity is perfectly acceptable if warranted.

Yes, a god that started creation, then ceased to have any measurable effect on reality at all, is indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist.

How so? Even if God started creation then ceased to have any measurable effect on reality, would not the existence of creation itself still testify to the fact of it being created by God?

The existence of your computer testifies to the fact that some tech people put it together and programmed it, even though they do not come over to your house every day to maintain it.

[pocaracas]

If there is a creator god, it is indistinguishable from a non-existing one, as far as we can tell, nowadays.

Really?! You honestly believe that a God capable of creating the vast universe and everything in it, including billions of galaxies, red hypergiants like VY Canis Majoris, and of course, all life on earth, would be indistinguishable from something or someone that is entirely non-existent?

Does that sound logical to you?

Did you fail to read the sentence up to the end?
As far as we can tell, all those things you mentioned can be accounted for by trivial gravity and a bit of nuclear fusion.

[FatAndFaithless]

Arguments from personal incredulity aside...

"Argument from personal incredulity" is itself a weak argument, since incredulity is perfectly acceptable if warranted.

Yes, a god that started creation, then ceased to have any measurable effect on reality at all, is indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist.

How so? Even if God started creation then ceased to have any measurable effect on reality, would not the existence of creation itself still testify to the fact of it being created by God?

No.  "The fact that reality exists" is not evidence of a god.  In that line of thinking, literally everything that exists is evidence of its creator, which is the largest tautology possible. It also makes your OP question rather useless, since you already consider everything to be evidence of a god.

Are we ever going to get to the point where you support your assertion of God existing?

[Asmodee]

My answer is simple.  Demonstrate to me that magic is real and we'll have something to talk about then.  You say you believe in the "Biblical God".  That doesn't really tell me much, but I assume it to mean that you believe how the Bible describes him.  I have found that the New Testament is generally more universally accepted than the Old Testament, so we'll limit it to just the NT.  And it doesn't get any more "Christian" that the words of Jesus the Christ (Christ was a title, not a last name), so we'll limited it just to the things he spoke directly.  This is taken from Mark 16

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

So, "those who believe" not only can, but WILL heal the sick.  Jesus says these signs WILL accompany those who believe.  Not that they might.  Not "Well, through the power of prayer....God's will....faith of a grain of mustard see....if...."  THESE SIGNS WILL accompany those who believe.  Show me ONE person who fits that description.  All I need is the evidence Jesus says I WILL have.

Based on the master texts, those verses were actually additions made by later copyists and were never part of the original manuscripts. According to reliable early manuscripts, the Gospel of Mark ends with vs. 8.

Well, now I am thoroughly confused.  You had this to say earlier:

Well, Boru, since you ask, my own view of God is the Biblical God.

And now you tell me that you actually reject parts of the Bible as inauthentic.  So now not only have you utterly destroyed the definition of "God", making it impossible for me to answer your question with any intellectual honesty, you also just added considerable ambiguity to your already ambiguous answer when asked for an  "unambiguous" definition of God.  At this point we would need to go a more basic discussion and you would need to tell me which portions of the Bible you accept as authentic and which portions you do not.  It probably wouldn't hurt if you told me which particular Bible you were using.  And I'd really like to know how you felt about the parts you accept and the parts you reject.  For instance, if I were to use a part of the Bible that you accepted as authentic for toilet paper, would that bother you?  How would your feelings differ if the part I used was a part you objected to?  And then I would need to actually examine the new text we ended up with to see what was cut and what was left, just so that I could gain an understanding of what you were asking.

And no, I'm not trying to "confuse the issue".  Surely you can see a need for all of this given that my answer to your question was based substantially on a portion of the Bible you reject as unauthentic.  Obviously, what I would requires as proof, given that your particular idea of God is not "the Biblical God", but the God of "some undefined portion of the Bible which definitely excludes any part of the Gospel of Mark after vs 8." Presumably there would be other later additions which would also not influence your idea of what God was.  And with such changes I am going to need to know how you feel about the Old Testament, too.  Literal or figurative?  A little of column A, a little of column B?

At this point I am no longer even sure of what your definition of God was.  If pressed, my answer would be the same, though.  Show me magic.  It's the only answer I can give you, and then only because it's the answer I already had before realizing that you rejected the authenticity of unknown portions of the Bible.  To be honest, I doubt I'm going to make the time to reevaluate the Bible with the portions you feel are later additions removed.  It's just too much work to answer what should have been a simple question.  But I would still like to know your thoughts.

[Yadayadayada]

Really?! You honestly believe that a God capable of creating the vast universe and everything in it, including billions of galaxies, red hypergiants like VY Canis Majoris, and of course, all life on earth, would be indistinguishable from something or someone that is entirely non-existent?

Does that sound logical to you?

Did you fail to read the sentence up to the end?
As far as we can tell, all those things you mentioned can be accounted for by trivial gravity and a bit of nuclear fusion.

Gravity and nuclear fusion would be included in "the vast universe and everything in it" that I mentioned. Gravity and nuclear fusion are not self-creating.

[FatAndFaithless]

Gravity is an emergent property of mass... everything has gravity. I have gravity, a grain of sand has gravity.

[Yadayadayada]

"Argument from personal incredulity" is itself a weak argument, since incredulity is perfectly acceptable if warranted.


How so? Even if God started creation then ceased to have any measurable effect on reality, would not the existence of creation itself still testify to the fact of it being created by God?

No.  "The fact that reality exists" is not evidence of a god.  In that line of thinking, literally everything that exists is evidence of its creator, which is the largest tautology possible.  It also makes your OP question rather useless, since you already consider everything to be evidence of a god.

What I consider to be evidence of God has no bearing whatsoever on my question.

Once again, this thread is not about me. It's about you. I'm asking you what you think.

[FatAndFaithless]

How many answers do you need? Multiple people (myself included) have said "I don't know." A few have given some examples, and you've either tried to refute them or simply say something like "Isn't the fact that reality exists evidence of God?"

What is the point of this thread if you aren't even interested in defending your assertions? Why should anyone bother to respond to you?