Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[RoadRunner79]

1) Saying that miracles are not an accepted fact is question begging. What kind of miracle-seeking experiment would make any logical sense? The very definition of a miracle has in it the a) inability to predict and b) the all-important feature that you can only see the effect--never the cause--something that throws a monkey wrench in experiments. I never said I would not look for counter-evidence=straw man.


You can't win this debate. You would have to prove my worldview wrong.

Well, no. You're the one claiming it's true, so you have to prove that it's correct. As always, that's the burden of proof.

The problem is with "Miracles", in the  billions [or thousands if that's your belief] of years that the earth has been in existence, and all these supposed miracles that have happened, why has it never happened to a scientist?

You suppose god knows that atheists are questioning it, why not perform a miracle and turn all our science books into bibles in front of our very eyes? Better yet, why not just physically appear in the sky right now, and tell us it's real?

You say "oh well you can't predict a miracle etc etc" well that's bull shit I say. You're only "proof" they EVER happened is in the NT and OT. Without that, you have nothing, other than the word of crazy people who say they've seen something that they haven't.

Steve, with said burden, you have to prove yourself right.

And you are the one claiming that it is not... which means that you share a burden of proof to show that is true.  This appears to be nothing more than pseudo skepticism and your comment about scientist nothing more than scientism.  You don't need a scientist to tell you what to believe.  They study specific things, and share that information that they gather with you, the same as anything else.  They don't see any better than any other random person.

[OakTree500]

Well, no. You're the one claiming it's true, so you have to prove that it's correct. As always, that's the burden of proof.

The problem is with "Miracles", in the  billions [or thousands if that's your belief] of years that the earth has been in existence, and all these supposed miracles that have happened, why has it never happened to a scientist?

You suppose god knows that atheists are questioning it, why not perform a miracle and turn all our science books into bibles in front of our very eyes? Better yet, why not just physically appear in the sky right now, and tell us it's real?

You say "oh well you can't predict a miracle etc etc" well that's bull shit I say. You're only "proof" they EVER happened is in the NT and OT. Without that, you have nothing, other than the word of crazy people who say they've seen something that they haven't.

Steve, with said burden, you have to prove yourself right.

And you are the one claiming that it is not... which means that you share a burden of proof to show that is true.  This appears to be nothing more than pseudo skepticism and your comment about scientist nothing more than scientism.  You don't need a scientist to tell you what to believe.  They study specific things, and share that information that they gather with you, the same as anything else.  They don't see any better than any other random person.

You don't need a scientist to tell me anything, but what I mean is why hasn't this happened to anybody or even a group of people who can record this accurately? Why is it always, at least in the modern day, happening to those in third world countries where the rate of religion [and scamming people] is very high? Why do these things, that aren't then like "oh please lord, let me win the lottery"  for people in America/England or any country where this seemingly never happens? Do certain places on earth have more "holyness" that others? I mean, the point is: why is this either a) something that ONLY happened 2000+ years ago or B) happening today, but to complete rando's in the middle of nowhere, where nobody who is reliable in any sense can confirm or deny anything? I can 100% tell you right now, nobody from america or england who is legitimately and medically confirmed to be crippled, has suddenly got out of bed and walked again. It's never happened. So why not?

The burden of proof is solely with those that mean to prove it. I have to prove nothing, because there is nothing for me to present. I say miracles don't happen.....because they don't, so what am I supposed to give you in return? Much like unicorns, I have nothing to prove "nothing" doesn't exist, so therefore you have to prove me, and everybody else wrong. That's how that works.

[RoadRunner79]

And you are the one claiming that it is not... which means that you share a burden of proof to show that is true.  This appears to be nothing more than pseudo skepticism and your comment about scientist nothing more than scientism.  You don't need a scientist to tell you what to believe.  They study specific things, and share that information that they gather with you, the same as anything else.  They don't see any better than any other random person.

You don't need a scientist to tell me anything, but what I mean is why hasn't this happened to anybody or even a group of people who can record this accurately? Why is it always, at least in the modern day, happening to those in third world countries where the rate of religion [and scamming people] is very high? Why does things, that aren't then like "oh please lord, let me win the lottery"  for people in America/England or any country where this seemingly never happens? Do certain places on earth have more "holyness" that others? I mean, the point is: why is this either a) something that ONLY happened 2000+ years ago or B) happening today, but to complete rando's in the middle of nowhere, where nobody who is reliable in any sense can confirm or deny anything? I can 100% tell you right now, nobody from america or england who is legitimately and medically confirmed to be crippled, has suddenly got out of bed and walked again. It's never happened. So why not?

The burden of proof is solely with those that mean to prove it. I have to prove nothing, because there is nothing for me to present. I say miracles don't happen.....because they don't, so what am I supposed to give you in return? Much like unicorns, I have nothing to prove "nothing" doesn't exist, so therefore you have to prove me, and everybody else wrong. That's how that works.

If you are making a claim (such as miracles don't happen) then you have a burden of proof to support that claim.  A common misconception among atheists seems to be, that they can make claims, and have no burden of proof to support them.  I also don't think that where the claim originates has anything to do with it's validity.  Are you saying that people in third world countries don't see as accurately as you (or the scientists).    I'm not saying, that people don't lie or are never mistaken.  I also don't go to the other extreme of saying that testimony is not evidence (I find that people who do, do so selectively).  It's not that it should be received uncritically, however I don't think that rejecting evidence, simply because it doesn't fit your world view is correct and good for learning about reality either.  I mean, if I dismissed any evidence for evolution, because I found it unbelievable, and called people liars, I would suspect, that there would be a few people who would make accusations of being in an echo chamber.   You can't dismiss evidence, because of what it points to, and then say that there is no evidence.

[Foxaèr]

If you are making a claim (such as miracles don't happen) then you have a burden of proof to support that claim.

Incorrect.

[OakTree500]

You don't need a scientist to tell me anything, but what I mean is why hasn't this happened to anybody or even a group of people who can record this accurately? Why is it always, at least in the modern day, happening to those in third world countries where the rate of religion [and scamming people] is very high? Why does things, that aren't then like "oh please lord, let me win the lottery"  for people in America/England or any country where this seemingly never happens? Do certain places on earth have more "holyness" that others? I mean, the point is: why is this either a) something that ONLY happened 2000+ years ago or B) happening today, but to complete rando's in the middle of nowhere, where nobody who is reliable in any sense can confirm or deny anything? I can 100% tell you right now, nobody from america or england who is legitimately and medically confirmed to be crippled, has suddenly got out of bed and walked again. It's never happened. So why not?

The burden of proof is solely with those that mean to prove it. I have to prove nothing, because there is nothing for me to present. I say miracles don't happen.....because they don't, so what am I supposed to give you in return? Much like unicorns, I have nothing to prove "nothing" doesn't exist, so therefore you have to prove me, and everybody else wrong. That's how that works.

If you are making a claim (such as miracles don't happen) then you have a burden of proof to support that claim.  A common misconception among atheists seems to be, that they can make claims, and have no burden of proof to support them.  I also don't think that where the claim originates has anything to do with it's validity.  Are you saying that people in third world countries don't see as accurately as you (or the scientists).    I'm not saying, that people don't lie or are never mistaken.  I also don't go to the other extreme of saying that testimony is not evidence (I find that people who do, do so selectively).  It's not that it should be received uncritically, however I don't think that rejecting evidence, simply because it doesn't fit your world view is correct and good for learning about reality either.  I mean, if I dismissed any evidence for evolution, because I found it unbelievable, and called people liars, I would suspect, that there would be a few people who would make accusations of being in an echo chamber.   You can't dismiss evidence, because of what it points to, and then say that there is no evidence.

Kit has it below, but I'm making a claim based upon total lack of miracles in the world today, outside of highly religious/scamming based nations. You say they are 100%, therefore YOU have to prove that not me. I have nothing to show you, as miracles don't exist, so I can't show you anything.

Seems to me like you also can't show me anything, thus I'm correct. Again if you can prove me wrong, feel free to do so.

I can dismiss evidence, when there is none. The bible and it's contents are NOT evidence.

 Are you saying that people in third world countries don't see as accurately as you (or the scientists).  

Re this: I'm merely pointing out that those who say that a miracle has happened happen to be from places where a high number of people are A) religious and B) on the take. Take that how you will, it has nothing to do with intellectual superiority or having a degree in any of the sciences. Again, why is it not happening in other places of the world? If Africa more Holy than say England? What's the difference?

[RoadRunner79]

If you are making a claim (such as miracles don't happen) then you have a burden of proof to support that claim.

Incorrect.

I'm not saying that you cannot have true skepticism.  Or that we assume something is true until it is proven false.   The skeptical position is neutral; not making a claim either way. It's describing your personal metal state, and not making claims about reality.

I'm also not assuming any claims because of a description of disbelief or placing some inherent burden on someone because they are an atheist, but referencing claims made in the context of this discussion.

When you are claiming something is false, you are still making a claim about truth, and therefore have a burden of reason for that claim.

[LadyForCamus]

Natural is within this universe and made up of the material things the universe is made out of and obey a certain set of laws. The supernatural is not contingent on there even being a universe. If the universe failed to exist, God, angels, demons, whatever would still exist. This automatically creates the line you are looking for.

How does a conscious entity like a god or an angel exist immaterially, absent space and time?  

IMO, we are supernatural/natural hybrids. We rely on our bodies and the physical world to develop our minds (souls). God has said that that soul/mind will outlast this body and into a new body that will not die. We will still exist in a physical world (heaven as we call it).

Wait, so heaven is a physical place, and we enter into a new body?  So, what about this business of disembodied minds being incapable of decision-making postmortem because there are no more ‘inputs and outputs’?  Are souls in heaven having experiences?  Are souls in hell having experiences?  If so, how? And what is stopping those souls in hell from changing their minds about being with the Lord? 

So, what I’ve learned about the supernatural in this thread:

1. It effects the natural world yet somehow cannot be observed or investigated, but we don’t have any idea how this technically works.

2. It is part of a greater reality, but we don’t know what that greater reality consists of, or how to know if science can have access to it or not, or why its disqualified from the natural fabric of reality that we currently exist within.

3. We have no positive language to describe the specific characteristics of supernatural things or entities.

And you say atheists have gaps in their world view?

PS: I’ve had some wine, so if this is less than eloquent, I sincerely apologize. 😛

1. Yes.

1. Without any technical explaination for the mechanics of this, I don’t have any reason to take such a proposition seriously.  You’re essentially offering up a cause for an event that, by definition, cannot generate evidence in its favor over competing naturalistic hypotheses.  And the belief in miracles is in no way evidence that a given event was caused by one.

2. No, science cannot and never will have access to it.

2. Another, “I don’t know”.

3. We have lots of descriptions of God, angels, demons, heaven, hell. What you mean by "characteristics" is a material /scientific description--see #2.

lol, okay...so, then how do we describe what these things are without using materially relevant language? Without defaulting to what they are not? What are they?  Another, “we don’t/can’t know”, answer?  That’s three in a row, yet it seems to trouble you so when atheists give that answer for the origins of the universe.  

How can you consider the supernatural to be a coherent concept when it seems there is literally no way to describe what it is, or how it works?  

You hold your wine well!

Thanks!  Usually after three glasses my posts look like this: “isn’t h a kernel fkkdemdbk. Ejdjf je god dint sieikgndndi dirk so the. Driuuuuunk! 🍷”

😁

[RoadRunner79]

If you are making a claim (such as miracles don't happen) then you have a burden of proof to support that claim.  A common misconception among atheists seems to be, that they can make claims, and have no burden of proof to support them.  I also don't think that where the claim originates has anything to do with it's validity.  Are you saying that people in third world countries don't see as accurately as you (or the scientists).    I'm not saying, that people don't lie or are never mistaken.  I also don't go to the other extreme of saying that testimony is not evidence (I find that people who do, do so selectively).  It's not that it should be received uncritically, however I don't think that rejecting evidence, simply because it doesn't fit your world view is correct and good for learning about reality either.  I mean, if I dismissed any evidence for evolution, because I found it unbelievable, and called people liars, I would suspect, that there would be a few people who would make accusations of being in an echo chamber.   You can't dismiss evidence, because of what it points to, and then say that there is no evidence.

Kit has it below, but I'm making a claim based upon total lack of miracles in the world today, outside of highly religious/scamming based nations. You say they are 100%, therefore YOU have to prove that not me. I have nothing to show you, as miracles don't exist, so I can't show you anything.

Seems to me like you also can't show me anything, thus I'm correct. Again if you can prove me wrong, feel free to do so.

I can dismiss evidence, when there is none. The bible and it's contents are NOT evidence.

 Are you saying that people in third world countries don't see as accurately as you (or the scientists).  

Re this: I'm merely pointing out that those who say that a miracle has happened happen to be from places where a high number of people are A) religious and B) on the take. Take that how you will, it has nothing to do with intellectual superiority or having a degree in any of the sciences. Again, why is it not happening in other places of the world? If Africa more Holy than say England? What's the difference?

If I was understanding you correctly, you claimed that X didn't happen (is 100% false, or something similar), because miracles don't happen (don't exist).  Your reasoning seems to be, that any evidence of miracles is not evidence, because miracles cannot happen. They must be lying or mistaken, because of this a priori position, which you don't think that you need to support.    Again, if I did this in with another topic, do you think that it would be accepted here (evolution, Trump corruption, existence of Sweden)?    I've even had people here before, say that they would not believe, even if they did see a miracle 

As to the testimony of the authors of the Bible not being evidence, I would ask again, that you support this claim.  Why not?  Your reasoning thus far seems to be circular.

[Angrboda]

I wouldn't use the word "prove", but that is more a matter of precision.   Proof is for deductive logic and math.  And often, I'm not setting out to "prove" anything.  I find that most atheists here are familiar with the evidence, even if they cannot admit it as such (I've talked to some to seem to indicate, that it is not evidence, unless they believe the conclusion). 

I don't want to single you out here, because I see this a lot on both sides. The word "prove" can mean to demonstrate with absolute certainty, but it can also mean to simply establish the truth of something as more probable than not, or to a good degree. Thus people who complain about the use of the word, IMHO, are at best deflecting, and at worst creating a straw man simply to shift the discussion away from where it was. I find this type of maneuver rather annoying, personally. The word has multiple meanings. This is not a new thing, nor is the focusing on one meaning of a word to the exclusion of others a new thing. I just want to issue a plea to people to curb any illegitimate uses of such distinctions, on both sides.

In regards the definition provided below, something I omitted but which is informative is that Merriam-Webster uses the example of "the charges were never proved in court." Court proceedings do not establish facts with absolute certainty, but rather beyond a reasonable doubt. The usage of the word prove is shown to have alternate meanings to that of to demonstrate with absolute certainty with their example.

prove verb, transitive

1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience

2a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of
2b : to test the worth or quality of
    specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out
2c : to check the correctness of (something, such as an arithmetic result)

3a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic)
3b : to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth

4 : to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable

[robvalue]

I’ve gone through the thread and put together a summary of all the evidence presented so far:

---

---