Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Determined to be wrong about..literally, everything...and now we're at twelve missed opportunities.

Cool. Would you like a tissue?

[The Grand Nudger]

That'd be thirteen.  You bullshitted other posters with some negotiation over the word evidence..but it's clear at this point that there would be no future in which you presented anything, regardless of the definition.

But hey, maybe your next post you'll just flat out prove me wrong, by offering something...anything.....right......right.........? Naaaaah, lol.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

That'd be thirteen.  You bullshitted other posters with some negotiation over the word evidence..but it's clear at this point that there would be no future in which you presented anything, regardless of the definition.

But hey, maybe your next post you'll just flat out prove me wrong, by offering something...anything.....right......right.........?  Naaaaah, lol.

Or you could've just answered the question.  Shouldn't have been that difficult.

Also, I'm not negotiating anything with you.  You just happen to be here demanding attention, so here you go.  Keep counting Charlie Brown.  What's this, 14?

[polymath257]

Evidence is that which is obtained through our senses. We then hypothesize laws to describe the regularities we suspect and test those laws with further observation. Again, the laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. They are 'dictated' b the behavior of what we can observe.

Seems kind of a generic answer.  Do you have a source for that statement?  I can dig it in part, but some of it seems limited in scope.

Touch, taste, sight, smell, sound.   Although these are all functions of the brain and its ability to interpret, it doesn't include things like "thought"   Also, senses can be fooled and misinterpreted.  I believe it's called "foiling" when applied to our senses.  But regardless, if we just assume the five senses, which sense would you need to use as evidence and what would that sense (or senses) need to interpret for it to be considered viable evidence?  Obvious just because you hear or taste something, doesn't mean it's God or gods, or anything supernatural.  At what point can we say, "yep, that's God."

No, those are functions of our sensory system. The brain them processes the information from our senses. And yes, of course, the senses can be fooled: our senses do not pick up perfect information and the subsequent processing is frequently 'best possible guess'. But that is precisely why we look at all sensory modalities, make hypotheses, and test those hypotheses. In other words, we use the scientific method.

That this doens't seem amenable to a 'supernatural' is *your* problem, not mine. For me, it just means that the term 'supernatural' is an incoherent concept.

[The Grand Nudger]

That'd be thirteen.  You bullshitted other posters with some negotiation over the word evidence..but it's clear at this point that there would be no future in which you presented anything, regardless of the definition.

But hey, maybe your next post you'll just flat out prove me wrong, by offering something...anything.....right......right.........?  Naaaaah, lol.

Or you could've just answered the question.  Shouldn't have been that difficult.

Yes...max, just answering the question might have been the more prudent approach...........it shouldn't have been that difficult, and yet....

Also, I'm not negotiating anything with you.  You just happen to be here demanding attention, so here you go.  Keep counting Charlie Brown.  What's this, 14?

see above.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Seems kind of a generic answer.  Do you have a source for that statement?  I can dig it in part, but some of it seems limited in scope.

Touch, taste, sight, smell, sound.   Although these are all functions of the brain and its ability to interpret, it doesn't include things like "thought"   Also, senses can be fooled and misinterpreted.  I believe it's called "foiling" when applied to our senses.  But regardless, if we just assume the five senses, which sense would you need to use as evidence and what would that sense (or senses) need to interpret for it to be considered viable evidence?  Obvious just because you hear or taste something, doesn't mean it's God or gods, or anything supernatural.  At what point can we say, "yep, that's God."

No, those are functions of our sensory system. The brain them processes the information from our senses. And yes, of course, the senses can be fooled: our senses do not pick up perfect information and the subsequent processing is frequently 'best possible guess'. But that is precisely why we look at all sensory modalities, make hypotheses, and test those hypotheses. In other words, we use the scientific method.

That this doens't seem amenable to a 'supernatural' is *your* problem, not mine. For me, it just means that the term 'supernatural' is an incoherent concept.

The scientific method isn't applied to the supernatural.  If you don't know what it's function is, then how can you claim to use it?  The scientific method is used to study relationships between two or more variables within the natural world.

So back to the pressing question.  What would you consider to be evidence?

If you're locked it to something as being an "incoherent concept", then there would also be no point since you've already come to a conclusion.

It's not a "problem" for me, because I'm just as content as to not provide evidence if what said evidence would have to be isn't clearly defined.  If it is defined, then it's worth my consideration to possibly come up with evidence, but I can't know that until you clarify.

---

Or you could've just answered the question.  Shouldn't have been that difficult.

Yes...max, just answering the question might have been the more prudent approach...........it shouldn't have been that difficult, and yet....

Also, I'm not negotiating anything with you.  You just happen to be here demanding attention, so here you go.  Keep counting Charlie Brown.  What's this, 14?

see above.

15

[Deesse23]

But it's ridiculous to ask for evidence if no atheist will specify what they would consider evidence.  It's more problematic trying to provide something to people who don't know what it is they want.  Maybe that's why they are atheists, but I dunno.

Wow, didnt know your evidence was so bad, you needed to ask for a qualifier. If it really was good, i mean really, really good, you need not to ask, thats how convincing it would be.

Its not like you were trying to convince anybody of the bus being late tomorrow. We are talking about the very creator of existence, of anything there is, even the stuff (dark matter/energy, other universes, potential pink unicorns, etc.) we dont know. The evidence should be everywhere, and it should be so obvious to everyone.........shouldnt it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Seems like something like that might even be...dare I say it..evident...lelz.

But you know, what is words, anyway, and what do words? blah blah blah.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

But it's ridiculous to ask for evidence if no atheist will specify what they would consider evidence.  It's more problematic trying to provide something to people who don't know what it is they want.  Maybe that's why they are atheists, but I dunno.

Wow, didnt know your evidence was so bad, you needed to ask for a qualifier. If it really was good, i mean really, really good, you need not to ask, thats how convincing it would be.

Its not like you were trying to convince anybody of the bus being late tomorrow. We are talking about the very creator of existence, of anything there is, even the stuff (dark matter/energy, other universes, potential pink unicorns, etc.) we dont know. The evidence should be everywhere, and it should be so obvious to everyone.........shouldnt it?

You seem to like to cling to logical fallacies.  I never claimed that I would provide any evidence.  I've stated I would consider it if there was some established criteria for determining it.  So far, nothing.  As such, I have no obligation.

I have no requirement to fulfill your demands.  Start using your head dude.

[The Grand Nudger]

Out of curiosity, what logical fallacy can you identify in the quoted post? Additionally, what's the problem with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?