Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

"Unicorns do exist" ?

Wait? Are you a 'Brony' T0 th3 M4X?

Heck ya!  I shall be henceforth known as "Wonder Dash" or maybe "Skittle Pants Lightfoot" as to display my fandom.

Actually I'm not all that into it, but no problem with bronies.  I might be into it more if I had more time for it.  But then again, the same could be said true of a million other things.

I feel I must ask for a clarification there T0 th3 M4X.

What do you mean "Unicorns do exist"?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Interesting topic and question.  Atheists are proof that "God" or "gods" exist.  At the very least, the subject must exist conceptually because atheists talk and contemplate about "God" and "gods" so much.

It is my understanding, that theists are not talking about gods existing 'conceptually'. They believe gods actually exist, in reality.

The reason why some atheists talk about god so much, is because of believers. People's beliefs do not live in a vacuum, they inform one's actions. And many theist's beliefs have real world negative consequences.

If people's beliefs in unicorns had as many negative consequences as god beliefs, I would be speaking out about the irrational unicorn beliefs, too.

If you mean "exist naturally" then the category doesn't apply since the subject is said to be "supernatural."

Here's the problem. If the god one believes in, is able to affect the natural world; perform miracles, answer prayers, heal the sick, create life, etc, etc, then these actions would leave evidence in the natural world. For example, not a single religion or sect has ever shown that prayer works at better than chance.

If the god one believes in is a deist type god, then said god would not leave any evidence.

here are some exceptions though where the "natural" is assumed to be a "god", so at the very last it would be considered conceptual and subjective.  If you're asking for evidence supernaturally, then it would make more sense to explain what would be assumed as evidence since the subject would supersede the natural world.

It might not be possible to explain what evidence I would expect from a god, but said god sure would know.

But it is not my place to describe what sort of evidence I would expect from a god. As soon as an atheist does that, they get accused of building a strawman.

It is up to those claiming gods exist, to support their claim with whatever they seem to think is evidence.

I can tell you the criteria for the evidence I would accept, but not specific evidence. Evidence that would convince me, would be: demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable, and verifiable. It would also be supported by valid and sound logic. It is not my fault, that theists fail to meet this criteria.

A. All actions have consequence.  It's not isolated to only religions, worldviews, and ideologies. The result isn't always regarded as positive or negative.  If there is a direct correlation, then I would assert it would need to be demonstrated in regard to negative consequences.  Maybe in the context of radicalism, then I (subjectively) think it would be a fair assertion, but again that isn't specific to a certain belief.  It's someone taking something and extending it beyond what it needs to be.

B. You're making an absolute statement about something that is subjective.  I think the logical response from me would be, "How do you qualify that?"  If you are suggesting it needs to be demonstrated on a broad scale, then by what means should something be made evident?  Again, we're talking about something supernatural, so by what it is defined as, it would supersede dependence on anything natural.  To qualify the absolute you've provided, "no religion has shown that prayer works at better than chance", you would need to validate it, and I dunno that there would be any logical way to do that.  If there is, I would love to hear it, respectfully.

C. If you suggest a God or gods does not exist, how can you logically attribute qualities or function to the subject?  If you don't believe something exists, then there's nothing more to determine.

Example: There are no real Wuzzles in the universe.  Okay, so if there are no Wuzzles, I can't assert they are red, blue, intelligent, ignorant, or anything else.  If they only exist conceptually, then they have no qualities to assert.

D. Your statement about what you would consider evidence is subjective because, again, we are talking about something assumed to be supernatural.  If it supersedes the natural, then we can't invalidate it based on the natural, because it's not dependent on such.

---

At work.

Heck ya!  I shall be henceforth known as "Wonder Dash" or maybe "Skittle Pants Lightfoot" as to display my fandom.

Actually I'm not all that into it, but no problem with bronies.  I might be into it more if I had more time for it.  But then again, the same could be said true of a million other things.

I feel I must ask for a clarification there T0 th3 M4X.

What do you mean "Unicorns do exist"?

A unicorn is a creature with one horn.   That's actually what "uni-corn" means.  One-Horn.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Uhm.... that's a Rhinoceros.

So.... other than re-labeling things?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

At work.

Uhm.... that's a Rhinoceros.

So.... other than re-labeling things?

It's a unicorn.  Just not a flying unicorn that looks sorta like a horse.

I wasn't relabeling anything.  Just noting that it's important to define things so everybody is talking about the same thing.

[polymath257]

At work.

Uhm.... that's a Rhinoceros.

So.... other than re-labeling things?

It's a unicorn.  Just not a flying unicorn that looks sorta like a horse.

I wasn't relabeling anything.  Just noting that it's important to define things so everybody is talking about the same thing.

So you agree that flying unicorns that looks like horses don't exist?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

It's a unicorn.  Just not a flying unicorn that looks sorta like a horse.

I wasn't relabeling anything.  Just noting that it's important to define things so everybody is talking about the same thing.

So you agree that flying unicorns that looks like horses don't exist?

I don't believe they do, but I don't make assertions about their existence either.  The day I do I'll probably find a herd of them flying over my backyard.

[Rahn127]

Unicorns don't have wings. I think if you mix a unicorn with a pegasus, then you might get some wings.

But since they are a different fantasy species, you may need to add in some fairy dust to make it all work out.

Be careful with the fairy dust. It will attract pixies and if the pixie should fart, a universe could be created.

And the child support payments on a universe are astronomical. It can bankrupt you right out of existence.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

While I get the whole 'No black swan' thing (Yay Australian wildlife! )

The whole 'My word use is litteral' is going to take some sentence restructuring.

Since, in general parlance, your image is of a Rhinoceros and not the afore mentioned horned equine.

[The Grand Nudger]

Interesting topic and question.  Atheists are proof that "God" or "gods" exist.  

That's easily the silliest thing I've heard all week.  Gratz.

[polymath257]

So you agree that flying unicorns that looks like horses don't exist?

I don't believe they do, but I don't make assertions about their existence either.  The day I do I'll probably find a herd of them flying over my backyard.

So, once again, you can distinguish the difference between the existence of a concept and the existence of the object of that concept. Having the concept of a flying horse doens't imply the existence of such. Same goes for deities.