Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Gwaithmir]

Shifting the burden of Proof Fallacy.

Nope. Put up or shut up.

---

You're waffling. You've got nothing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Shifting the burden of Proof Fallacy.

Nope. Put up or shut up.

You have GOD on your side and you can't prove it exists? Incompetent godling you have there.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I have noticed a trend in theists.
The argument seems to be that anything existing at all is evidence for god.

It is a stupid argument and a sign of desperation.

What is more likely some natural phenomenon created the universe or a supernatural being? The natural process wins hands down. We can witness natural processes everyday but no supernatural process has ever been proven to exist.


And there is never an explanation of why the supernatural is a better answer, they just assert that it is.


They never say how the supernatural being did the creating, where it was where it got the stuff, it just did coz its awesome (apparently).


It is a non-answer, a childs answer to complex issues and seems to need no proof to support it in the simplistic eyes of believers.

It's actually a true statement, but inconclusive to many people who choose not to understand.

What you're suggesting is more desperation.  The "something from nothing" nonsense doesn't hold weight.  Just wishful thinking from people who don't want to believe there is a God.

Something cannot come from nothing through natural processes.  The claims suggesting it can have been debunked and debunked some more every time someone tries to suggest how it may have happened.  Matter cannot be created or destroyed through any natural process.  This is known as the "Conservation of Mass."

Now we're supposed to ignore science to accommodate the atheists?

[LastPoet]

Lol its the conservation of mass/energy.. atheists have nothing to do with it and your ignorance is showing because you simply would not understand.

[Angrboda]

I have noticed a trend in theists.
The argument seems to be that anything existing at all is evidence for god.

It is a stupid argument and a sign of desperation.

What is more likely some natural phenomenon created the universe or a supernatural being? The natural process wins hands down. We can witness natural processes everyday but no supernatural process has ever been proven to exist.


And there is never an explanation of why the supernatural is a better answer, they just assert that it is.


They never say how the supernatural being did the creating, where it was where it got the stuff, it just did coz its awesome (apparently).


It is a non-answer, a childs answer to complex issues and seems to need no proof to support it in the simplistic eyes of believers.

It's actually a true statement, but inconclusive to many people who choose not to understand.

What you're suggesting is more desperation.  The "something from nothing" nonsense doesn't hold weight.  Just wishful thinking from people who don't want to believe there is a God.

Something cannot come from nothing through natural processes.  The claims suggesting it can have been debunked and debunked some more every time someone tries to suggest how it may have happened.  Matter cannot be created or destroyed through any natural process.  This is known as the "Conservation of Mass."

Now we're supposed to ignore science to accommodate the atheists?

Seeing that your God supposedly violated the law of conservation of mass and energy, this seems a rather boneheaded complaint for a theist to make.

But then, we all know you're a bonehead, so it fits perfectly.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Nope. Put up or shut up.

You have GOD on your side and you can't prove it exists? Incompetent godling you have there.

We've already been through this on the thread.


I can't make anyone believe anything because we have self-determination and I can't impose belief in someone's mind no matter what I show or tell them.

You could ask for proof of a duck, I could hand you a duck, and by your own self-determination could tell me it wasn't a real duck, and that I'm trying to fool you with a decoy.  I could sit in on the floor and let it walk around, and you could tell me it was battery operated.  I could hack it open and show you its organs, and you could simply accuse me of putting it all in an empty shell, sewing it up, and presenting it.  I'm sure you wouldn't, but by your own self-determination you could because I can't force something into your mind.

---

Lol its the conservation of mass/energy.. atheists have nothing to do with it and your ignorance is showing because you simply would not understand.

I do understand, which is why I just stated it.

No need to tell lies.  Either you agree or disagree with the law. If so, on what basis do you disagree?

---

Nope. Put up or shut up.

---

You're waffling. You've got nothing.

Put up or shut up.  Not going to go round-n-round with you too.

[Natachan]

Ok, I’ll let you know a bit.

I don’t believe in free will. I am a hard determinist. As such I don’t think belief is a “choice” in any meaningful way. Belief is a obligate condition of being convinced. If you say, “I have a duck” and you hand me a duck, then I will believe that you have a duck. Now if a person has a history of fraud, I might be a bit more skeptical. Has the person told me they have a football only to hand me a brown painted rock before?

When most people say a god exists, they mean a supernatural creative agent. I have no experience with the supernatural, and my only experience with agents is with physical beings. So I need evidence that the supernatural exists, and some evidence that this agent exists.

A lot of theists tie together the existence of everything proves this agent exists. I think that’s a failure of the imagination. Maybe everything is eternal. Maybe the cause is natural. Maybe the universe is cyclical. Maybe unicorns farted it into being. But until there is evidence for one of these I have to just say I don’t know and move on.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Ok, I’ll let you know a bit.

I don’t believe in free will. I am a hard determinist. As such I don’t think belief is a “choice” in any meaningful way. Belief is a obligate condition of being convinced. If you say, “I have a duck” and you hand me a duck, then I will believe that you have a duck. Now if a person has a history of fraud, I might be a bit more skeptical. Has the person told me they have a football only to hand me a brown painted rock before?

When most people say a god exists, they mean a supernatural creative agent. I have no experience with the supernatural, and my only experience with agents is with physical beings. So I need evidence that the supernatural exists, and some evidence that this agent exists.

A lot of theists tie together the existence of everything proves this agent exists. I think that’s a failure of the imagination. Maybe everything is eternal. Maybe the cause is natural. Maybe the universe is cyclical. Maybe unicorns farted it into being. But until there is evidence for one of these I have to just say I don’t know and move on.

Proof can be subjective or objective.  Acceptance of proof is subjective.  Even out of pure willful ignorance, someone can refuse to accept anything labeled as proof.

[Natachan]

I don’t think so. I think you can SAY you believe or don’t. But if the evidence is compelling then belief will be compelled as a result.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I don’t think so. I think you can SAY you believe or don’t. But if the evidence is compelling then belief will be compelled as a result.

Respectfully, I disagree in part.  People may be compelled, but that doesn't always mean they will.  For example, people who condition themselves with lies.  At some point they assume the lie to be true.  I'll just throw out the example of people who are anorexic or bulimic.  Objectively we can tell they are not at a healthy weight, but the person will often go to extreme measures to maintain or continually drop lower than their current unhealthy weight.   You can even educate them and still many will disagree.  However, some will start to see it objectively and get treatment.  Even then, there is still an internal struggle and they will often act on it accordingly.