Evidence that God exists

[atrasicarius]

LOL @ Even

Which 'interpretation'? ..like I said already:

West's Encypedia (the first Google came up with):

• Philosophy. Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.

The way he used 'real' should encompass that meaning IMHO.

If there is no evidence for something, we have no reason to think that it is real. It is speculation.

God exists objectively, therefore we have reason to think that he is real.

Evidence has no bearing, as it can't possibly.

Did you really just say "god is real because god is real, so we dont need any evidence"?

[fr0d0]

Ok, so how do you know this? I mean, how do you know that God exists objectively?

I'm not saying that I do. I'm just following West's definition of real. Seems a correct logical deduction to me *shrugs*


@ atrasicarius

erm... no

[Tiberius]

Ok, so you don't think that your statements are speculation, but you cannot say how you "know" them to be true either. See that's the big contradiction in what you are saying. You seem to be copy/pasting a load of big words you've found on the internet in the vain hope that they resemble something logical.

You just admitted that you have no evidence, not of "God" (which you admit is silly, fine), but of your statement that God exists objectively. In other words, your belief is pure speculation, because you don't think that God can be proven or have any evidence to suggest its existence, and at the same time you say you do not know how you can say God's existence is objective. It's one big contradiction. Either God cannot be known objectively (so there would be no evidence and therefore no reason to believe) or it can (and so there should be evidence).

[atrasicarius]

You said, "God exists objectively, therefore we have reason to think that he is real. Evidence has no bearing, as it can't possibly." To exist objectively is to be real, by your definition. Therefore, what you said was, "God is real, therefore we have reason to think that he is real. Evidence has no bearing, as it can't possibly." How is that different from what I said?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well I'm guessing, and this is just a guess; that perhaps he means something like: "God exists as a concept, therefore we have reason to think that he really exists in objective reality aswell."

I don't where he gets the, - : "Evidence has no bearing, as it can't possibly." - from though, whether my guess is wrong or right?

[fr0d0]

Seems an unnecessarily insulting reply, but I'll humour you

Ok, so you don't think that your statements are speculation, but you cannot say how you "know" them to be true either.

Tosh. The statement up for grabs here is whether faith requires existence. I say it does not. Read the OP and tell me what we're discussing apart from that???

See that's the big contradiction in what you are saying. You seem to be copy/pasting a load of big words you've found on the internet in the vain hope that they resemble something logical.

Nice. Moving on...

You just admitted that you have no evidence, not of "God" (which you admit is silly, fine), but of your statement that God exists objectively.

No I didn't actually. You're making assumptions, and they're wrong.

In other words, your belief is pure speculation, because you don't think that God can be proven or have any evidence to suggest its existence, and at the same time you say you do not know how you can say God's existence is objective. It's one big contradiction. Either God cannot be known objectively (so there would be no evidence and therefore no reason to believe) or it can (and so there should be evidence).

We've already established that objective reality doesn't require evidence (or are you saying you can't accept West's definition of 'objective'?).

---

You said, "God exists objectively, therefore we have reason to think that he is real. Evidence has no bearing, as it can't possibly." To exist objectively is to be real, by your definition. Therefore, what you said was, "God is real, therefore we have reason to think that he is real. Evidence has no bearing, as it can't possibly." How is that different from what I said?

Not my definition.. West's definition.

You are real, therefore we have reason to think that you're real???

You said "god is real because god is real, so we dont need any evidence"

So you are real because you are real, so we don't need any evidence.

I don't see what we're achieving here.

[atrasicarius]

Seems an unnecessarily insulting reply, but I'll humour you

Ok, so you don't think that your statements are speculation, but you cannot say how you "know" them to be true either.

Tosh. The statement up for grabs here is whether faith requires existence. I say it does not. Read the OP and tell me what we're discussing apart from that???

Of course faith doesnt require existence. That's the whole point. No matter how much faith I have that gravity doesnt apply to me, I'm still gonna fall if I walk off a cliff. You can have all the faith you want in whatever supernatural entity you prefer, but it wont have any effect on reality.

You said, "God exists objectively, therefore we have reason to think that he is real. Evidence has no bearing, as it can't possibly." To exist objectively is to be real, by your definition. Therefore, what you said was, "God is real, therefore we have reason to think that he is real. Evidence has no bearing, as it can't possibly." How is that different from what I said?

Not my definition.. West's definition.

You are real, therefore we have reason to think that you're real???

You said "god is real because god is real, so we dont need any evidence"

So you are real because you are real, so we don't need any evidence.

I don't see what we're achieving here.

What we're achieving is showing that you're using some pretty intense circular logic.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Nice cop out. Better luck next time

I haven't read the whole thread so my apologies if someone has already said this.

Seems to me that the problem with Frodo's evidence versus faith argument is that it assumes to crystalline positions i.e. there are those who accept evidence and generally those who believe on pure faith. This, in my experience, isn't true of the kind of people who argue this kind of things ... religious apologists tend very much to be the kind of people who, in Dawkin's words, believe in things without evidence and often in spite of it and I'm sure most of us here would agree that if it was just a matter of belief, of faith, we wouldn't greatly care but whether it's our fault or theirs theists DO seek to big up their faith and in doing so are forced to deal with evidence and with logic.

If all it was that you guys just believed what you believe then f*** it, go ahead, believe it ... sure you'd amuse us and we may even try pulling your arguments apart just for fun but the fact is that it isn't just faith, it's the faithful trying to convince others they are right, trying to get things changed (like scientific theories) that they find offensive, try to rubbish major scientific theories. That, IMO, is why many (if not most) of us take the stance we do, why we come down so hard on point's of view like yours.

It's just a view.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree.

And I'd also point out Kyu, that if anyone seriously believed strongly in Zeus, the FSM, the IPU, etc, they'd be considered nuts. And it isn't the case with the God of Abraham despite the fact it's equally bullshit. That pisses me off too. That this one God gets special treatment when it''s no better than any other bullshit God or supernatural/mythical entity of any kind! It's bloody ridiculous.

If you believed in Zeus very strongly with faith you'd get laughed at. Laughed at wrongly if you consider people don't laugh at believers in "God", which is given so much respect.

But it would be rightly laughed at if ALL God's were laughed at. The Abrahamic one included.

[fr0d0]

@ Kyu ..angry atheist indeed! Atheist without a cause perhaps too

I take your point. Indeed, many people think an awful lot of different things. Personally I have a problem with people who believe despite evidence. I think theists owe a debt to those that point out contradictions. I'd disagree about logic. Faith is also very rational, and requires logic. Likewise from the opposing argument illogical statements are made.

Which point of view are you coming down on though? I'm making a clear logical point I thought? I'm not trashing anything evidential