Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[RoadRunner79]

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

I understand and largely agree. I also find in such discussions, that it often move to a standard of absolute certainty , and I wanted to make the distinction up front. I don’t think that I used it to stop discussion or to make a straw man, but for clarification. It also only is a deflection, if we have two different understandings.

[OakTree500]

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.


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.

Re testmoney of authors of the bible:

Worth checking this link for info:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_f...sus_Christ

Particularly
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_f...n_evidence

Which lists the various reasons why we can't really accept anything in the NT as evidence for almost anything, with only very things coming within an acceptable date range of those to be of relevant age to when these writings are dated.

When I say Miracles are 100% false and didn't happen. I mean exactly that. My reasoning is that the "evidence" you have is the documented tales in the bible (see links above as to why that is a bad idea) and NOTHING ELSE. 

If you did this with another topic, you would rightly be ridiculed because those things do exist and if you did research, you would find this. But I might add, not just from one poorly translated 2000+ old book, but from MULTIPLE SOURCES each independent of each other.

I really fail to grasp why you are going around in circles like this, when you know exactly what all of us are asking for yet you fail to provide it. If anybody is being "circular" with their arguments it's very much yourself, because instead of saying "Ok, here is the evidence" you've fallen back on the old theist tactic of "Well you have to prove it as well" whilst also purposefully misrepresenting things people are saying to you, and providing multiple fallacies in the process.

I say Unicorns don't exist, you do. You have to prove it.

Replace the word unicorns with God/miracles/any other shit you like that relates to make believe myths from your bible, and then cough up the evidence. Otherwise, I have nothing more to add to your garbage.

[OakTree500]

[double post]

[Amarok]

[Angrboda]

The key would be not if supernatural things obeyed physical laws, it would be if they had to obey or constrained by physical laws. 

Regarding the argument from ignorance. I think you have to distinguish between a definition of a supernatural entity and a supernatural cause of a natural event--the latter being the definition of a miracle. Your example is about what makes a supernatural cause. I think one major distinction between it and natural causes is that it has no regularity/predictability/not testable. Something like gravity is extremely regular/predictable/testable. Therefore I don't think it reasonable to infer that gravity is a direct result of supernatural causes. I am a firm proponent of Methodological naturalism (I think most Christians are) when it comes to general scientific investigation of the world. The main difference is that as a Christian, I would allow for exceptions (the possibility of a miracle) when no naturalistic cause seems reasonable or likely. Can I prove any of them to a skeptic, no.

There's no way to demonstrate that anything had to obey a physical law or was necessarily constrained by a physical law, so this sets up a rather absurd situation that we can't demonstrate that anything is natural, which was the point in asking you about gravity. (I also want to point out parenthetically that we accept the existence of laws which only partially describe and predict the outcome, such as quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and fluid dynamics. Your criteria regarding extreme reliability/predictability would seem to exclude a large part of modern physics.) I think part of the problem may be in a confusion over the metaphysics here. Metaphysical explanations aren't themselves evidence of anything, and natural laws aren't forces that cause things to behave certain ways. (I'm reminded of the rather silly trope that "a law requires a law giver" -- your complaint about laws forcing things to obey them or constraining things seems to embody a similar confusion.) I also have to wonder if, upon encountering a novel phenomena, say a black swan, we should conclude that it is supernatural until we can prove that it necessarily "obeys" some physical law? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that seems to be where your criteria lead.

In regards to something else you said regarding miracles and the supernatural, I forget your exact wording but you essentially said that there is no way to show a cause behind a supernatural or miraculous event. In the past you've suggested that having foresight of a miracle, such as Jesus announcing that he is going to perform a miraculous healing, is evidence of that effect being a miracle or supernatural event. As stated in the past, I'm skeptical that such events are recorded accurately or that there are not alternative explanations, but let's take it at face value for a moment. Suppose Jesus did foretell himself healing someone. Effectively you're implying that Jesus knew the cause of the effect that he was about to produce. Since he couldn't know that by natural means, the only way we can regard his report as a reliable indicator of the occurrence of a supernatural event, the only means he might have in that case would themselves be supernatural. But we can't invoke the existence of supernatural powers themselves in order to provide evidence that something supernatural occurred, much less that the cause indicated by Jesus is reliably true on account of that belief. (I've suggested in the past the possible interference by aliens. Perhaps they really were among us, and followed Jesus around, planting thoughts in his head, and causing the healing of people using their advanced technology. It's a possibility you can't rule out. At the very least, it's likely a more probable scenario as it depends upon the existence of technology which is based upon natural laws rather than invoking the unknowable, indescribable supernatural.) So the question I have to ask, which I may or may not have asked before, is in the case of Jesus having reliable knowledge about a future miraculous event, how do you argue for that without begging the question and using the supernatural to explain and justify belief in the supernatural?

ps. I am looking forward to your thread on arriving at belief in the supernatural to begin with. That is somewhat related to the above, and I'm eager to hear what you have to say about it.

[RoadRunner79]

[OakTree500]

Bloody Hell, RR, you're hard work, you know that?

What you saying is, in short, that nobody can ask for evidence of anything, because if I say "I don't believe X" and you say "i do believe X" then neither of us will confirm/deny because you can't disprove something that has no evidence? You've officially lost the plot here.

The reason why you would be ridiculed for saying Sweden doesn't exist, is because it does. Feel free to even go there on a plane and prove it to yourself, but the point is we have mountains of evidence outside of one book to prove otherwise.

When applying the same reasoning to Miracles/god, we have NO EVIDENCE of this. And not just no evidence, like seriously non evidence what so ever. None. Zilch. Nadda. (You get the idea). Maybe your point is that I can't prove it isn't a thing. Maybe that's so, but you can't prove that it is real in any sense of the word. Maybe you call that "stalemate" but the FACT is that there is still no evidence at all. A 2000 year old book, translated several different times, with multiple authors AND multiple changes made over the years full of other "magic" things happening, isn't evidence of anything. Magic does not exist.

Maybe it's me, and I'm not explaining myself correctly, but I really can't fathom what your point is here. It seems to be "I can't prove it, but you can't NOT prove it, so I win", which is so stupid, I have no words.

[Amarok]

Bloody Hell, RR, you're hard work, you know that?

What you saying is, in short, that nobody can ask for evidence of anything, because if I say "I don't believe X" and you say "i do believe X" then neither of us will confirm/deny because you can't disprove something that has no evidence? You've officially lost the plot here.

The reason why you would be ridiculed for saying Sweden doesn't exist, is because it does. Feel free to even go there on a plane and prove it to yourself, but the point is we have mountains of evidence outside of one book to prove otherwise.

When applying the same reasoning to Miracles/god, we have NO EVIDENCE of this. And not just no evidence, like seriously non evidence what so ever. None. Zilch. Nadda. (You get the idea). Maybe your point is that I can't prove it isn't a thing. Maybe that's so, but you can't prove that it is real in any sense of the word. Maybe you call that "stalemate" but the FACT is that there is still no evidence at all. A 2000 year old book, translated several different times, with multiple authors AND multiple changes made over the years full of other "magic" things happening, isn't evidence of anything. Magic does not exist.

Maybe it's me, and I'm not explaining myself correctly, but I really can't fathom what your point is here. It seems to be "I can't prove it, but you can't NOT prove it, so I win", which is so stupid, I have no words.

Nail on the head 

[RoadRunner79]

Bloody Hell, RR, you're hard work, you know that?

What you saying is, in short, that nobody can ask for evidence of anything, because if I say "I don't believe X" and you say "i do believe X" then neither of us will confirm/deny because you can't disprove something that has no evidence? You've officially lost the plot here.

I'm just saying, that if you are making a claim, which you appeared to be doing here, then you have  a burden of proof towards that claim.  It's not just that you are saying you don't believe, but are making a claim about the outside world, which is then being used as a premise to reject the evidence.  You have a lot of question begging going on here, and your reasoning isn't very good.... that is what I am saying.   You are not just stating a lack of belief, but are making claims that things are false or untrue, and then making premises from that.

The reason why you would be ridiculed for saying Sweden doesn't exist, is because it does. Feel free to even go there on a plane and prove it to yourself, but the point is we have mountains of evidence outside of one book to prove otherwise.

Ok... so Sweden does exist:  if this is true, then you have a problem with your logic which was used similarly to say that Sweden does not exist.  It's either flat out wrong, or at minimum needs to be refined a fair amount.  I don't need to see Sweden to believe that it exists (I agree).

When applying the same reasoning to Miracles/god, we have NO EVIDENCE of this. And not just no evidence, like seriously non evidence what so ever. None. Zilch. Nadda. (You get the idea). Maybe your point is that I can't prove it isn't a thing. Maybe that's so, but you can't prove that it is real in any sense of the word. Maybe you call that "stalemate" but the FACT is that there is still no evidence at all. A 2000 year old book, translated several different times, with multiple authors AND multiple changes made over the years full of other "magic" things happening, isn't evidence of anything. Magic does not exist.

Are you making a claim here, or is this another non-claim, that I can ignore?

Maybe it's me, and I'm not explaining myself correctly, but I really can't fathom what your point is here. It seems to be "I can't prove it, but you can't NOT prove it, so I win", which is so stupid, I have no words.

This started out, based off of a comment of mine, about the logic and reasoning being used to deny evidence.  I stated early on (I think it was to you), that I tend not to set large goals of convincing someone of God.   I often talk about the more basic principles and reasons being employed. I think that the issue is that you are assuming that I am talking to an end point, when I am talking about the foundations and reasoning being employed in the discussion.    I think that you are using bad reasoning, and bad logic.  And you seem to agree; unless we are talking about certain things.

[Amarok]

Road the undisputed master of awful analogies