Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Well... unless the OP comees back to engage we're not getting anything but 'The run around' from M4X.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I never said I had one.  I don't even know what qualifies as a "supernatural stick."

Is it the thing that turns to a snake when you throw it on the ground? Even Pharaoh's peeps have those things. Apparently, they're nothing special. (On a side note: wasn't it a dick move on God's part to send Moses in there with a lame gag like that?)

Seriously though, Max. Even assuming that God exists, there really isn't much in the way of convincing evidence. I think it is reasonable for people to believe based on a personal mystical experience (though other people's experiences can hardly convince me, since I think there are alternate explanations for the source of their mystical visions).

You guys are gonna have to go with the whole "take it on faith" thing. You have nothing in the way of evidence.

If there were compelling evidence for God, people who are convinced by compelling evidence would be convinced of God's existence. They are not. It seems that most theists hold their beliefs due to things other than evidence. They were raised that way.-- Religion gives their life structure.-- Existential despair.-- Social pressures.-- and last but not least: credulity.

As I said before: if you think God exists, fine. You may be right. But even if you are right, you've got to admit, there's very little in the way of evidence.

He didn't send Moses by himself.  As I know, and can easily tell, you are a philosopher . As such, I would think you could find appreciation in the idea of taking a humble person with a stutter, and using them as a vessel to do something great and of historical significance.  When even as individuals we can see the potential in someone beyond what they see in themselves, that is something special.  I used to work with people who were diagnosed with mental retardation.  When I would do their treatment plans, it was always about what they could do, or even wanted to be able to do.  That doesn't mean they would accomplish it, but it encouraged them to try to reach for their dreams.  When you believe in others, then they will generally start to believe in themselves.  That enables them to move from that potential to reaching what it is they desire.

I think "evidence" is a difficulty, but "no evidence" is not a rule.  Part of the problem is within determining what is objectively considered to be evidence.  If the requirement is a "supernatural stick", then it becomes difficult because I don't know what a supernatural stick is.  You indicated the Rod of Aaron would qualify as such, but admittedly, I would know where to find it.  At best, I can consider presenting it if I were ever to find it. 

I know faith can be a difficult concept, but interestingly faith is one of he things in the bible that is cleanly and intentionally defined. As such it can be used as a foundation for understanding.

---

At work.

Well... unless the OP comees back to engage we're not getting anything but 'The run around' from M4X.

There is no run around.  You choose to perceive it that way.  I can't tell you how or what to think, so the statement is inconsequential to me.  If you choose to hold to it, then more power to ya.

---

Well good on you for being so accepting of my wanting to be left alone. Unfortunately we don’t live in a vacuum, and not everyone is like that.

The title and subject of the tread is evidence for god. Meaning this is a call for theists, who again are claiming a thing exists, to define the thing and then make the case for it.

I happen to live in the US, and in a particularly religious part of the US. I mentioned in another thread that I have been threatened, physically assaulted, and harassed by cops because I am an “out” atheist. I don’t go up to people, but I have the gall to wear atheist t-shirts and have a Darwin fish on my car. Clearly there is pressure in our society to believe that the thing exists.

In addition I like to believe things that happen to be true. So if I’m wrong, I want to know. So if there are people saying thing x exists, and it actually does exist, I want to know that. But I’m not going to believe it for no reason. I need a definition and I need some reason to believe in this thing.  I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

I don't mind atheists. I have good friends who are atheists and most of the time our personal beliefs are a non-issue.  We know we can agree to disagree, and spend more time focusing on the things we have in common.   I'm not offended by atheists wearing atheist shirts.  However, some shirts I find in very poor taste when they attempt to taunt others. I'm not saying you wear those specific shirts, but I can't say I think very highly of that particular choice in fashion.  I don't flip out either at the notion of a Darwin fish, but again, sometimes those fish are displayed in a way as to taunt or irritate others.


I respect your right to "not believe."  Your choice.  I don't think it makes you a bad person, immoral, mean, unfair, or the like.  Heck, from what you've stated so far, I would also conclude that you're both and intelligent and balanced individual.  Unfortunately not everybody is like that. Personally, I'm not interested in talking to the people who want to argue.  My preference is friendly dialogue, but unfortunately it's not as easy to find here as one would hope.  Still, there are a handful of people I've grown to think highly of.  It's not that they agree or disagree, but how they choose to do so.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Well... unless the OP comees back to engage we're not getting anything but 'The run around' from M4X.

There is no run around.  You choose to perceive it that way.  I can't tell you how or what to think, so the statement is inconsequential to me.  If you choose to hold to it, then more power to ya.

The posts previously on this board stand as a record that;

Show you are selective in what parts of replies you respond too.

You redine/reinterpret words and definitions to suit your own narrative.

Interactions with yourself end up devolving into obtuse and often staw splitting language.

So. If there is/are dieties.
Said things exist.
Said existant things are objective.
Said objective things presence should be able to be indicated.

[vulcanlogician]

I think "evidence" is a difficulty, but "no evidence" is not a rule.  Part of the problem is within determining what is objectively considered to be evidence.  If the requirement is a "supernatural stick", then it becomes difficult because I don't know what a supernatural stick is.  You indicated the Rod of Aaron would qualify as such, but admittedly, I would know where to find it.  At best, I can consider presenting it if I were ever to find it. 

Well, I mean, God might appear before me and tell me he exists. He could also confirm that his only begotten son, Jesus, died for my sins, the Bible is his inerrant word, etc., etc., etc. If he did that, it would save us all a lot of trouble. Why doesn't he just do that?
God can create the wide and majestic cosmos, but can't be bothered to confirm his own existence except through (highly questionable) ancient texts. Look... he could write it on the moon for everyone to see: "Hey guys, I exist." It would save us all a great deal of trouble figuring it out. But that ain't gonna happen!

What we're left to do is to try to parse through the myriads of religious literature, each text claiming different god(s) are the rulers of the universe. Consider how many religions there are in the world. They can't ALL be true, can they? At least SOME of those cosmic beings described in ancient texts are pure fiction, right? Isn't it reasonable to assume that they ALL are pure fiction?

That's where I'm at right now. And until God makes that personal appearance, I can't see my position changing.

I know faith can be a difficult concept, but interestingly faith is one of he things in the bible that is cleanly and intentionally defined. As such it can be used as a foundation for understanding.

Faith is actually a good thing, IMO. I don't begrudge anyone for having faith in something. It's almost necessary for life.

But (by the same token) the faithful would be wise not to treat faith like genuine knowledge. It would be honest for those who have faith to recognize that faith isn't knowledge. If you get the two mixed up (faith and knowledge) difficulties ensue.


PS: What did you mean by "no evidence is not a rule"?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

At work.

There is no run around.  You choose to perceive it that way.  I can't tell you how or what to think, so the statement is inconsequential to me.  If you choose to hold to it, then more power to ya.

The posts previously on this board stand as a record that;

Show you are selective in what parts of replies you respond too.

You redine/reinterpret words and definitions to suit your own narrative.

Interactions with yourself end up devolving into obtuse and often staw splitting language.

So. If there is/are dieties.
Said things exist.  
Said existant things are objective.
Said objective things presence should be able to be indicated.

All people are selective.  I don't intentionally dismiss things out of ignorance.  Unfortunately, it's not always feasible to respond to everything because of time limitations, and I'm bouncing between this and other things.  I would think it would be more problematic if I refused to respond to all statements or questions directed at me.  I do what I can, and if that's not good enough, then sorry.  But equally, I don't expect you, or anybody else, to respond to everything I say.

Your complaint about definitions is false, and even more so ridiculous.  If you won't accept a definition from a dictionary, then I'm not the one being biased.  It would make more sense to evaluate the definition as provided by the dictionary, and then list any quarrels you might have if you felt the definition was insufficient.  More times than not, I'll use dictionary.com or M-W.  I also can't imagine that there are too many people that would suggest either have an intrinsic bias, but then again, I suppose I could be wrong.

[Rahn127]

Faith is not a pathway to truth.
Faith is what you say you use when you no longer care about the truth.

Faith is gullibility.
Faith allows you to believe lies when there is no evidence to support a claim.

The moon is made of bacon.
Man B accepts this claim based on faith.

The moon is made of cheese.
Man C accepts this claim based on faith.

Each one believes that he is right.
Each one knows they can't both be right.
But they can both be wrong.

Faith is what you use when you stop caring about the truth.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I think "evidence" is a difficulty, but "no evidence" is not a rule.  Part of the problem is within determining what is objectively considered to be evidence.  If the requirement is a "supernatural stick", then it becomes difficult because I don't know what a supernatural stick is.  You indicated the Rod of Aaron would qualify as such, but admittedly, I would know where to find it.  At best, I can consider presenting it if I were ever to find it. 

Well, I mean, God might appear before me and tell me he exists. He could also confirm that his only begotten son, Jesus, died for my sins, the Bible is his inerrant word, etc., etc., etc. If he did that, it would save us all a lot of trouble. Why doesn't he just do that?
God can create the wide and majestic cosmos, but can't be bothered to confirm his own existence except through (highly questionable) ancient texts. Look... he could write it on the moon for everyone to see: "Hey guys, I exist." It would save us all a great deal of trouble figuring it out. But that ain't gonna happen!

What we're left to do is to try to parse through the myriads of religious literature, each text claiming different god(s) are the rulers of the universe. Consider how many religions there are in the world. They can't ALL be true, can they? At least SOME of those cosmic beings described in ancient texts are pure fiction, right? Isn't it reasonable to assume that they ALL are pure fiction?

That's where I'm at right now. And until God makes that personal appearance, I can't see my position changing.

I know faith can be a difficult concept, but interestingly faith is one of he things in the bible that is cleanly and intentionally defined. As such it can be used as a foundation for understanding.

Faith is actually a good thing, IMO. I don't begrudge anyone for having faith in something. It's almost necessary for life.

But (by the same token) the faithful would be wise not to treat faith like genuine knowledge. It would be honest for those who have faith to recognize that faith isn't knowledge. If you get the two mixed up (faith and knowledge) difficulties ensue.


PS: What did you mean by "no evidence is not a rule"?

So He has to do it your way?

If I want to discover something, then I have a responsibility to seek it.

Want to find the Fountain of Youth.   No problem, you might be able to do it, but you'll have to look for it.  Want to find the Queen of England?  Welp, not likely she'll show up on your doorstep, but you may find her if you seek her out.   The moment I start suggesting the Fountain of Youth or the Queen of England don't exist, then it was my own determination that would limit my ability to find them.

I believe in God, and He is also apparent to me.  It's not because I had to believe, but because I decided to explore who God was supposed to be, and what that meant for me.  We all have different life experiences, so we're not going to necessarily go down the same path during the journey, but no problem.  I don't expect you or anybody else to believe based on my own personal experience.   Still, I don't mind sharing parts with others if people ask.  I also don't mind looking at things objectively with others.  But regardless, your decision rests on you.  I can't conclude anything for you, and if you don't want to believe something, then I'm not going out of my way to try to change your mind.

---

Faith is not a pathway to truth.
Faith is what you say you use when you no longer care about the truth.

Faith is gullibility.
Faith allows you to believe lies when there is no evidence to support a claim.

The moon is made of bacon.
Man B accepts this claim based on faith.

The moon is made of cheese.
Man C accepts this claim based on faith.

Each one believes that he is right.
Each one knows they can't both be right.
But they can both be wrong.

Faith is what you use when you stop caring about the truth.

That's how you view it.  It also depends who or what you have faith in.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

The posts previously on this board stand as a record that;

Show you are selective in what parts of replies you respond too.

You redine/reinterpret words and definitions to suit your own narrative.

Interactions with yourself end up devolving into obtuse and often staw splitting language.

So. If there is/are dieties.
Said things exist.  
Said existant things are objective.
Said objective things presence should be able to be indicated.

All people are selective.  I don't intentionally dismiss things out of ignorance.  Unfortunately, it's not always feasible to respond to everything because of time limitations, and I'm bouncing between this and other things.  I would think it would be more problematic if I refused to respond to all statements or questions directed at me.  I do what I can, and if that's not good enough, then sorry.  But equally, I don't expect you, or anybody else, to respond to everything I say.

Your complaint about definitions is false, and even more so ridiculous.  If you won't accept a definition from a dictionary, then I'm not the one being biased.  It would make more sense to evaluate the definition as provided by the dictionary, and then list any quarrels you might have if you felt the definition was insufficient.  More times than not, I'll use dictionary.com or M-W.  I also can't imagine that there are too many people that would suggest either have an intrinsic bias, but then again, I suppose I could be wrong.

I stand by my comments regarding your posting history, to which I am sure others will attest.

As for time consraintscin posting? This is why I add my current status as a heading or footnote.

As for dictionaries? As has been explained to you before they are only descriptive of the language in common parlance. Hence the yearly revisions, additions and reletions.

While, yet again, we see your behaviour on display with yet again the selective obfuscational reply given to myself.

[Rahn127]

Faith is not a pathway to truth.
Faith is what you say you use when you no longer care about the truth.

Faith is gullibility.
Faith allows you to believe lies when there is no evidence to support a claim.

The moon is made of bacon.
Man B accepts this claim based on faith.

The moon is made of cheese.
Man C accepts this claim based on faith.

Each one believes that he is right.
Each one knows they can't both be right.
But they can both be wrong.

Faith is what you use when you stop caring about the truth.

That's how you view it.  It also depends who or what you have faith in.

You can have trust and reasonable expectations involving people or things.

Faith is as I explained it.
I'm glad you didn't disagree.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

At work.

All people are selective.  I don't intentionally dismiss things out of ignorance.  Unfortunately, it's not always feasible to respond to everything because of time limitations, and I'm bouncing between this and other things.  I would think it would be more problematic if I refused to respond to all statements or questions directed at me.  I do what I can, and if that's not good enough, then sorry.  But equally, I don't expect you, or anybody else, to respond to everything I say.

Your complaint about definitions is false, and even more so ridiculous.  If you won't accept a definition from a dictionary, then I'm not the one being biased.  It would make more sense to evaluate the definition as provided by the dictionary, and then list any quarrels you might have if you felt the definition was insufficient.  More times than not, I'll use dictionary.com or M-W.  I also can't imagine that there are too many people that would suggest either have an intrinsic bias, but then again, I suppose I could be wrong.

I stand by my comments regarding your posting history, to which I am sure others will attest.

As for time consraintscin posting? This is why I add my current status as a heading or footnote.

As for dictionaries? As has been explained to you before they are only descriptive of the language in common parlance. Hence the yearly revisions, additions and reletions.

While, yet again, we see your behaviour on display with yet again the selective obfuscational reply given to myself.

Ahhh, okay.  Again, I don't care about the opinion of you and your clan.  If it has some special meaning to you, then congrats.

Got it.  Now the atheists don't believe in dictionaries.  *rolls eyes*

As I said, it was an offer.  If you have nothing, then expect nothing.  In light of that, can you stop with the pandering?